Idaho Elections 1994-1996:

                                                    The Role of Political Culture in the

                                                  Making of the Most Republican State

 

                                                                Sean K. Anderson

                                                         Political Science Department

                                                             Idaho State University

 

                                      Prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the

                              Southwestern Social Sciences Association held at New Orleans,

                                                              March 26 - 29, 1997

 


1.         Why Has Idaho Become Increasingly More Republican?

 

Idaho has long been one of the most Republican states in the Union.  In recent years it has become even more so and, with the possible emergence of a national electoral realignment favoring continued Republican dominance in the United States Congress, Idahoan members of Congress are emerging as prominent national leaders within the Republican Party as well.  Following the elections of 1994 and 1996 one could even claim that Idaho has become a dominant party system, or in effect, a one party state.  This study will concern itself primarily with trying to explain why Idaho has become, in effect, the most Republican state in the Union. 

 

The Republican Party in Idaho has enjoyed more popular support than the Democratic Party at least since the New Deal period.[1]  Nonetheless its politics maintained at least the appearance of having a competitive two-party system.  While Republican majorities dominated both chambers of the State Legislature, Idahoan voters still tended to split their tickets, electing Democrats to be their Governors.  Idaho's congressional delegation also included long-term Democratic incumbents, such as Frank Church, who attained national prominence during his service in the U.S. Senate.  In the most recent elections even this small degree of bipartisan accommodation by Idaho's voters has ended.  In the November 1994 elections Idahoans elected Phil Batt, a Republican who had earlier run unsuccessfully against Democratic gubernatorial incumbents.  In the same election voters of Idaho's First Congressional District turned out the Democratic incumbent, Larry LaRocco, in favor of the inexperienced and controversial Republican, Helen Chenoweth.  In November 1996 both Republican incumbents of the U.S. House of Representatives, Representatives Helen Chenoweth and Michael Crapo, were re-elected while Senator Larry Craig easily won re-election against an aggressive and well-financed campaign by a Democratic challenger. 

 

In the results of the votes for state offices the message was even more clear:  Of the 70 seats in the State House of Representatives currently only 12 are held by Democrats.  Of the 35 Senate seats only 5 are held by Democrats.  The only elected Democrat still serving in the state executive is the State Controller, J.D. Williams.  Although there was no gubernatorial race in 1996 Governor Phil Batt received what most observers of Idaho's politics regarded as a massive vote of confidence.  Shortly after his inauguration Governor Batt concluded a very controversial settlement with the Department of Energy regarding the removal of its nuclear waste from the Idaho Nuclear Engineering Laboratory in eastern Idaho.  Many environmentalists claimed he had surrendered too much to the federal authorities in exchange for too little.  Democratic opponents seized the opportunity to launch a State Initiative for the 1996 ballot to rescind this executive agreement.  This measure, known as Proposition No. 3, was defeated by 62.5 percent of those who voted on it.  Since about 72.5 percent of eligible voters in Idaho participated in the 1996 general election and voted on this Proposition this was seen as a sign of wide popular support for Governor Batt and as a rebuff to his Democratic critics.  Currently about seven out of every eight County Commissioners and Sheriffs in Idaho were elected on the Republican ticket in the 1996 election.

 

All of these events have caused even many Idahoan Democrats to question whether their party has much of a future in state politics.  The remainder of this paper attempts to explain the emergence of an apparent Republican hegemony in Idaho politics.

 


2.         Methods:  Selection of Data and Models

 

The dependent variables selected for study were the percentages of votes for Republican candidates in the two 1996 U.S. House of Representatives races; in the 1996 Senate race; and in the 1994 races for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and State Secretary of State.  While the percentages of votes for Republican candidates in the U.S. Presidential and the Idahoan state legislative races could also be examined this study has focused primarily on the aforesaid dependent variables because, on the one hand the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and State Secretary of State are the most prominent elected executive officials within Idaho, while on the other hand the members of Idaho's congressional delegation are the most immediate personal links of the voters to their national government.  If independent variables could not explain support for voter preferences in these races it is unlikely that they could explain voter preferences in those other races.

 

While this study sought to explain Idahoan support for the Republican Party in a re-examination of the state's political culture it also sought to determine what other socio-economic demographic variables contributed to support for the Republicans.  To produce a parsimonious model incorporating the most significant socio-economic characteristics of the state, a principle components factor analysis was used to identify 21 variables out of a larger subset selected from the County and City Data Book, 1992[2] to describe socio-economic variation among Idaho's 44 counties.[3]  Variables were iteratively eliminated in a step-wise procedure from the estimated factors until the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was maximized at 80.2 percent.  The results of the final varimax rotation are shown on the following page in Table 1.

 


The loadings on Factor 1 can be interpreted as indicators of general economic growth in the state and so the loadings variable for this Factor was renamed "Economic Growth" to be used in subsequent regression analyses.  As Factor 2 appeared to represent aspects of urbanization its loadings variable generated from the Idaho counties data was renamed "Urbanization."  Factor 3 had measures of educational attainment, high personal socio-economic status and a high negative loading on a mortality statistics.  These attributes of wisdom, wealth, and health seemed to crystallize the essence of personal success and so the loadings variable generated was renamed "Personal Prosperity."            Finding variables to operationalize accurately Idaho's political culture is much more problematic.  Daniel J. Elazar had designated Idaho's political culture as 'moralistic' according to his three-fold classification scheme.[4]  However, other scholars have rejected this as inaccurate:  Robert H. Blank concluded following a careful study of Idaho's history, content analyses of writings of its founding statesmen, and studies of more recent survey data that the state's political culture would be better described as predominantly 'individualistic.'[5]  To resolve the question of how best to characterize and measure Idaho's political culture, this study used the approach first used by Charles A. Johnson of using raw county-level religious denominational membership statistics to create surrogate measures for the political culture of each state.[6]   This use of denominational markers to identify the political culture of the individual states was subsequently refined and improved by David R. Morgan and Sheilah S. Watson,[7] and which was also adapted to the study of the impact of political culture on political behavior at the county-level by David R. Morgan and Sean K. Anderson.[8]  County-level data on the denominational affiliations of residents as percentages of total county population were taken from the most recent church census data conducted under the auspices of the National Council of the Churches of Christ.[9]

 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1:  Results of Factor Analysis of Socio-Economic Measures

 

                             Factor  1     Factor  2     Factor  3

 

Bank Demand Deposits            .91308        .29080        .22428

Service Industry Employment     .90896        .21428        .28463

Non-Family Households           .90745        .30038        .22065

Valued Added in Products        .88376        .32130        .12562

Local Government Employment     .87178        .28121        .26319

Bank Savings Deposits           .84337        .25243        .06095

Service Industry Income         .83517        .17119        .31006

 

Farms of More Than 500 Acres   ‑.19910       ‑.77636        .20372

Retail Sales Employment         .13593        .76804        .19991

Farms of Less Than 50 Acres     .48062        .70133       ‑.14230

Medical Services                .27687        .69006       ‑.09524

Farm Earnings                  ‑.17193       ‑.66556       ‑.27639

Crime Rates/100,000             .28925        .62682        .26460

People Moving Within State      .18258        .60425        .17195

Financial Services and Banking  .47868        .54372        .44858

 

High School Education           .14397       ‑.16438        .84653

College Degree Holder           .23372        .03821        .81154

Income More Than $50,000/yr     .41349        .15357        .79976

Income Less Than $25,000/yr    ‑.32159        .06972       ‑.75005

Population Growth 1980-1990     .06354        .29798        .63044

Death rates/1,000               .00850       ‑.34249       ‑.58648

 

Variance explained         47.9%         14.5%          9.5%

Total variance explained    71.9%

 ---------------------------------------------------------------

 

The rationale for using denominational measures as proxies is that the three main political cultures were developed during times when the three groups that produced them adhered to three different groupings of denominations.  Since political culture and religious culture are transferred by identical methods of socialization between generations this suggests that religious affiliation can serve as an indirect way of marking a related political culture.

 


Unfortunately Elazar's identifications of religious denominations with political cultures were not always on the mark.  To mention just one example which, until now, has received little notice from researchers employing his categories, Elazar mentioned that the Methodist and Anglican (Episcopal) churches were dominant religious affiliations among the southern colonies yet he listed them as markers of the individualistic  culture rather than the 'traditionalistic' culture that he linked with the south.  Researchers have used the authoritative work by Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, to correct misidentifications by Elazar or else to supply identifications where Elazar provided none.10  This corrective measure, however, cannot be used in cases where new denominational labels have appeared following the publication of Ahlstrom's work in 1972 which are therefore mentioned neither in his works nor those of Elazar. 

 

If the only problem were these small splinter denominations whose members seldom amount to as much as one percent of the total adherents of a county, one could safely ignore them altogether.  It would be altogether a more serious obstacle to an accurate analysis of political culture if a purported identification were to misclassify a much larger percentage of the total adherents of a county or even a state.  In fact it appears that Elazar misclassified a very prominent U.S. religious denomination, namely the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who are more commonly referred to as 'Mormons' and who are hereafter referred to in the remainder of this study as the 'LDS.' 

 

Elazar classified the LDS as a marker of the moralistic culture.  If in fact the LDS should instead be classified as traditionalistic or as individualistic, which could square Elazar's classification with Robert H. Blank's conclusions regarding Idaho, this would have another important consequence for the study of American political culture:  it would reduce most of the study of political culture between the states to two dimensions of traditionalism and individualism.  Researchers have independently established that using Elazar's scheme of classification as it now stands yields only two predominantly moralistic states, namely Idaho and Utah.11  This is so only because the dominant religious denomination in each state is the LDS (currently 55 percent in Idaho and 90 percent in Utah) which Elazar designated as being moralistic.   Since the other non-LDS denominations designated as moralistic are numerically insignificant and widely dispersed researchers of political culture could safely ignore them and simplify measurement and analysis of American political culture to a two-dimensional spectrum spanning the distance between pure traditionalism and pure individualism.

 

Unfortunately careful theory and empirical measurements both rule out any such simple solution to the correct identification of the LDS within the category of American political cultures.  The theoretical problem goes back to Elazar's original reasons for concluding that three political cultures were created in the pre-colonial period which, since then, have merely been transferred and intermixed by the streams of migration from the eastern seaboard into the rest of the territories of the United States.12  During the period of the Stuart dynasty spanning most of the seventeenth century Puritan parliamentarians and royalist chevaliers came to represent the most opposite political and religious viewpoints within England.  The moralistic political culture resulted from Puritan attempts to create their own political and religious ideal in New England.  The Carolinas were settled by people of almost exactly opposite religious and political temperament, namely, former chevaliers and cronies of the Stuarts who believed in privilege and status, and who so created what Elazar came to call the traditionalist culture.  The individualistic culture was created by later non-English immigrants to the port cities of entry who had to struggle in a competitive urban environment for scarce jobs and opportunities.  From this competitive and self-interested environment came the individualistic outlook that perceives politics as a marketplace for social goods and services.  Once the members of each group, or rather their descendants, began to immigrate westward they brought not only their carts and cattle but also their religious denominations and their political attitudes with themselves.  In short that is the theory of the streams of political culture that Elazar used to identify the cultures of the various states.

 


Both Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS community, and Brigham Young, Smith's successor as leader of the LDS, were born in Vermont although Smith himself grew up in New York.  Many of Smith's original followers hailed from either New York or other areas that Elazar identified with the moralistic culture.  Presumably then when the LDS migrated to the Rocky Mountain Basin they brought along their moralistic heritage with them.  There are two flaws with this analysis, however.  First the migration of the LDS to what is now Idaho and Utah was not comparable to the other streams of migration.  Instead it was an actual exodus planned by Joseph Smith and carried out by his successor Brigham Young, to deliver the LDS from the persecution of anti-Mormons and to establish their own vision of 'Zion' in the territory outside of the control of the United States.  In short it was much more comparable to the Puritans' decision to abandon England and create their own political and religious order in New England than it was to much more haphazard streams of immigration that occurred elsewhere in the West.  In fact it may be argued that the LDS experiment itself generated a new political culture distinct from the other three identified by Elazar.13

 

The second flaw is in Elazar identifying the streams of migration to Utah and Idaho as originating solely in New England which is contradicted by ample historical evidence.  Among other things, Joseph Smith ordered his followers to maintain detailed personal journals which have become a rich source of historical knowledge about the early LDS community and the lives of its members.  The journals of many of the missionaries sent out by Joseph Smith revealed that they proselytized extensively in the upper and lower reaches of the Ohio and Mississippi valleys.  Following the murder of Joseph Smith and the exodus to Utah, Brigham Young directed the LDS missionaries to win converts among the skilled artisans and craftsmen of the mill towns and industrial centers of England who were then urged to immigrate to Utah.  In short from the converts won in the regions of Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky came many LDS with a traditionalist background.  The conditions of English industrial centers were no less harsh or demanding than those found in the U.S. port cities of entry which also could produce attitudes and values similar to those of the individualistic culture.  In short there is no reason for identifying the political culture of the LDS with just one of the three cultures Elazar proposed.  In fact if the LDS succeeded in creating a new society they also likely produced their own political culture distinct from any of the three identified by Elazar.

 

Analysis of the empirical data regarding denominational affiliations in Idaho confirm the existence of a fourth LDS political culture.  Given the reasons to doubt identification of the LDS with the moralistic culture when the county denominational data were summed together into their respective political cultural categories, the LDS figures were not added to any of them but left out and summed separately.  Then the four variables (the LDS measure and the other three sums) were factor-analyzed to reveal the correlation matrix obtaining between them.  The results are seen below on Table 2 on the following page.  A factor loading variable incorporating all significant effects of political culture represented in all of these variables was created by the factor analysis and designated 'ID Political Culture.'  Its loading matrix is also presented on the following page in Table 2.

 

Note that all of the variables created using Elazar's identifications have positive correlation coefficients with each other.  Since the LDS sum instead has negative correlations with all of these variables there is no reason to consider adding the LDS sum to any of these others because none of these others appears to be measuring the same aspect of political culture implicit in the LDS variable.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2:  Results of Factor Analysis of Idaho Denomination Sums

 

Correlation Matrix:

 

               Moralistic Traditionalist  Individualistic     LDS

     

Moralistic        1.00000

Traditionalistic   .14054        1.00000

Individualistic    .53572         .37317         1.00000

LDS               ‑.48126        ‑.63700         ‑.60266   1.00000

 

Factor Matrix:  ID Political Culture

 

LDS               ‑.89315

Individualistic    .82165

Traditionalistic   .68752

Moralistic         .68396

 ---------------------------------------------------------------

 

One could handle the existence of a fourth LDS culture in one of two ways.  First one could use all four variables in regressions to explain the dependent variables and evaluate the models produced.  Second one could use principle component analysis to produce political cultural factors that would be used instead of the original sums of denominational data.  Both approaches were used and the results compared and evaluated.  

 

On the following page, Table 3 shows the results of using the first approach:  Those variables that have significance within the 5 percent level of confidence are marked with an asterisk.  Those variables that have significance within a 1 percent level of confidence have been marked with double asterisks.  While the LDS variable proved significant in explaining the contribution of political culture to votes in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives races in 1996 none of the other political culture variables were significant. 

 

The regression coefficients for each independent variable have been standardized so that the relative effect of each variable can be more easily seen.  The District No. 1 Dummy variable reflects the difference in votes for Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives races depending on the District.  The unstandardized coefficient for the District No. 1 Dummy variable was roughly -12.2 reflecting in part the average difference in the votes for each candidate, Helen Chenoweth receiving on about 50 percent of the votes in District 1 compared with an average vote of 68 percent for Mike Crapo in District 2.  However the LDS variable proves to be insignificant in the races for the state executive offices.

 

On page 8 Table 4. shows what results were obtained by using the ID Political Culture variable derived from the factor analysis summarized in Table 2.  Note that all the variables that are significant fall within a 1 percent confidence interval.  Note also that the ID Political Culture variable does prove to be significant in the Lieutenant Governor race of 1994.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3:  Results of Using Four Denominational Scores to Represent Political Culture

 

Dependent Variables

 -----------------------------

       Y1            Y2            Y3

 -----------------------------------------

Independent Variables     r   T-value   r T-Value      r T-Value  

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Growth         -.05   .6660   -.06 .4581    .04 .7841

Urbanization            -.05   .1248   -.18 .0648   -.29 .0642

Personal Prosperity      -.43   .0008** -.21 .0273*  -.40 .0106*

Moralistic Culture       -.12   .3775   -.14 .1954   -.24 .1739

Individualistic Culture  -.11   .5017   -.01 .9024    .12 .5295

Traditionalistic Culture  .06   .2569   -.01 .9546    .19 .3031

LDS-Specific Culture      .50   .0078**  .41 .0086**  .02 .9329

District No. 1 Dummy                    -.40 .0027**

              Adjusted R2  .47            .68          .18

 

       Y4            Y5          

  ---------------------------------------------

                          r  T-value   r  T-Value   

                     ---------------------------------------------

Economic Growth          .04   .7450       .00     .9973 

Urbanization              .02   .9106      -.13-----.4196       

Personal Prosperity      -.44   .0041**    -.43    .0081**  

Moralistic Culture       -.11   .5124      -.30     .1017  

Individualistic Culture  -.25   .1992      -.03-----.8652       

Traditionalistic Culture  .25   .1789       .08     .6754   

LDS-Specific Culture      .37   .0977       .03-----.8825       

                    Adjusted R2  .23            .12              

 

Dependent Variables:

 

     Y1 = Republican Vote for U.S. Senator (1996)

     Y2 = Republican Vote for U.S. House Representatives (1996)

     Y3 = Republican Vote for Governor (1994)

     Y4 = Republican Vote for Lieutenant Governor

     Y5 = Republican Vote for State Secretary of State

 ---------------------------------------------------------------

 


 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4:  Results of Using A Single Factor Score to Represent Political Culture

 

Dependent Variables

 -----------------------------

       Y1            Y2            Y3

 -----------------------------------------

Independent Variables     r   T-value   r T-Value      r T-Value  

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Growth         -.04   .6874   -.06 .4510    .03 .8597

Urbanization             -.16   .1679   -.15 .0979   -.22 .1499

Personal Prosperity      -.47   .0002** -.26 .0060** -.42 .0066**

ID Political Culture     -.60   .0000** -.47 .0003** -.22 .8681

District Dummy                          -.47 .0001**

                        ________        ________      ________

             Adjusted R2  .47            .68          .16

 

 

       Y4            Y5          

  ---------------------------------------------

                          r    T-value     r   T-Value          

                     ---------------------------------------------

Economic Growth          .03   .8454      -.02 .9102 

Urbanization              .06   .6976      -.07-.6595           

Personal Prosperity      -.45   .0035**    -.44 .0060** 

ID Political Culture     -.45   .0063**    -.23-.1627            

                        ________        ________                               

              Adjusted R2  .19            .12              

 

Dependent

Variables:

 

     Y1 = Republican Vote for U.S. Senator (1996)

     Y2 = Republican Vote for U.S. House Representatives (1996)

     Y3 = Republican Vote for Governor (1994)

     Y4 = Republican Vote for Lieutenant Governor

     Y5 = Republican Vote for State Secretary of State

 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------

 

A word about the interpretation of the coefficients and their signs is in order.  In the first sets of regressions in Table 3 the LDS coefficient signs are positive.  This is intuitively obvious because the LDS political culture is interpreted as being one supportive of the Republicans.  In the regressions in Table 4 the ID Political Culture coefficient signs, however, are negative.  This is because the LDS component of this factor loading, which is the largest single loading, happens to be negative.  A high positive measure of the LDS political culture in any county would thus be translated into a strong negative measure in this factor loading variable.  In other words the effect of the LDS cultural component is really positive in both sets of regressions.

 


The much more consistent pattern of correlations and much better T-significance statistics reveal that the models in Table 4., using the ID Political Culture variable follow the better approach.  The insignificance of the coefficients generated by the models in Table 3 do allow us to conclude that the non-LDS variables in fact contribute little to the effectiveness of the ID Political Culture variable which appears to be due largely to the effects of the LDS culture.

 

 

3.         Analysis of Findings:

 

The regressions in Table 4 lead to several conclusions.  First the ID Political Culture variable is significant not only in the regressions using the national office election races but also in the Lieutenant Governor's race.  This suggests that the existence of this political culture is more apt to be reflected in votes cast for national government officials than for state officials.  The cases of the races for Governor and Lieutenant Governor also shows that the LDS-component of the ID Political Culture variable does not simply reflect a sectarian preference by LDS members to vote for candidates of their own denomination but rather reveals their tendency to distinguish between candidates on the basis of their respective ideologies and policy preferences.  In the Governor's race Phil Batt, the Republican candidate, was not an LDS member while his Democratic opponent, Larry Echohawk, was an LDS member, yet this conferred no apparent electoral advantage to Echohawk in this race.  In this race Echohawk tried to portray himself as a 'moderate' Democrat and openly distanced himself from the Clinton administration, a tactic that may have cost him Democratic support while winning little support from Republican voters.  In the Lieutenant Governor's race neither candidate was an LDS member but the Democratic candidate, John Peavey, a former member of the State Senate, had a reputation of being a strongly liberal Democrat.14  The significance of the ID Political Culture in the Lieutenant Governor's race contrasted with its lack of significance in the Governor's race may also reflect the tendency of voters to react to their political culture in races in which there is a more marked ideological contrast between candidates.

 

 Although the Latter-day Saints make up only fifty-five percent of the population of Idaho they have assumed such a disproportionate influence over state politics that this political culture has become a tacit point of conformity among elected and appointed officials within the state government.  One of the complaints often heard among Idahoan Democrats is that all Idahoans seem so uniformly conservative that Idahoan Democrats speaking with Democrats of other states are easily be mistaken by them for Republicans. With respect to national politics, however, there is no automatic agreement between the values held by most Idahoans and the values espoused by politicians and parties outside of this state.  In that arena competitors do not all subscribe to the same vision of the public good and therefore Idahoan political culture exerts more influence in the choice between opposing parties and candidates.  Therefore it is in such races that political culture comes more into play in affecting how Idahoans vote.

 


A second conclusion is that the Personal Prosperity variable is the one socio-economic variable that was significant in every one of the regression models.  This suggests that the more Idahoan voters feel they are doing well personally the more likely they would be to vote against the Republicans.  The converse of this is more easy to understand, however: If Idahoans feel they are not doing better this translates into votes against the Democrats.  Because a large number of Idahoans derive their incomes from ranching, farming, mining, or logging, many of them believe that restrictive environmental regulations imposed under Democratic-controlled Congresses and Presidential administrations are the sources of their own financial troubles.  Another interpretation which is consistent with the foregoing is that those Idahoans who have higher levels of education are more likely to be those who tend to have more liberal political attitudes than most Idahoans and therefore are more likely to vote Democratic.  It should be noted here that the components of the Personal Prosperity factor loading variable are related to the values of individual achievement, personal independence, and that hard work Robert H. Blank identified as the main themes of his analysis of individualism as the predominant political culture in Idaho.15

 

Conclusion:

 

From the present short study several conclusions follow. 

 

First, the method suggested by Daniel Elazar to operationalize political culture within the United States can be further developed and applied to help explain some of the variation in state elections to both national and state offices. 

 

Another conclusion, however, is that the three-fold model proposed by Elazar should not be applied mechanically and without critical reflection.  The same considerations that led Elazar to propose the existence of three political cultures in the United States could be extended to discover new variations on that original model. 

 

This study also shows that a distinctive political culture exists in the inter-mountain western United States that is the product of the unique LDS pioneering and community-building efforts in the Great Basin region.  This political culture is distinct from the original three proposed by Elazar although it resembles each of them in some limited respects:  The LDS value system, that stresses the importance of family, church, community and the obligation for members to serve in each sphere according to one's gifts, resembles the moralistic culture of New England.  Within the world of the LDS community there are also hierarchies of authority linking each young "elder" and church member to the General Authorities of the church as well as the division between those who live up to the church's rigorous standards of personal conduct and those who have failed and fallen by the wayside.  In this respect it resembles the traditionalistic culture of caste and honor of the antebellum south.  However rank, respect, and authority within the LDS community are not arbitrary ascriptive values but based on personal effort and achievement since "free agency" rather than predestination defines one's station and condition.  In this respect the LDS ethic strongly resembles individualism.

 

This study also reveals the importance of a socio-economic variable identified as "Personal Prosperity" which was seen to be significant in explaining support or opposition to Republican candidates in all of the races for national and state offices examined in this research.

 


Overall this study has demonstrated the importance of the dimension of political culture in understanding the ascendence of Republican hegemony in Idaho.  It suggests that more study of the exact nature and components of this political culture will lead to a even better understanding of this phenomenon.

 


                                                                       Endnotes

 

 



[1].   Robert H. Blank, Regional Diversity of Political Values:  Idaho Political Culture, Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1978, pp. 55-57.

[2].   U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book 1994:  A Statistical Abstract Supplement, Washington, D.C.,:  U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1994.

[3].   This study follows the method of Richard I. Hoffenben's "Socioeconomic Dimensions of the American States," Midwest Journal of Political Science, 12 (August 1968): 401-418, as well as the approach used by David R. Morgan and Sean K. Anderson, "Assessing the Effects of Political Culture:  Religious Affiliation and County Political Behavior," Social Science Journal, 28(2): 163-174. 

[4].   Daniel J. Elazar, Cities of the Prairie, New York: Basic Books, 1979, pp. 475-476.

[5].   Robert H. Blank, ibid., pp. 171-172. 

[6].   Charles A. Johnson, "Political Culture in American States:  Elazar's Formulation Examined," American Journal of Political Science, 20(3): 491-509

[7].   David R. Morgan and Sheilah S. Watson, "Political Culture, Political System Characteristics, and Public Policies Among the American States," Publius, 21(Spring 1991): 35-37.

[8].   David R. Morgan and Sean K. Anderson, "Assessing the Effects of Political Culture:  Religious Affiliation and County Political Behavior," Social Science Journal, 28 (Spring 1991): 163-174.

[9].   Martin B. Bradley, Norman M. Green, Jr., Dale E. Jones, Mac Lynn, and Lou McNeil, Churches and Church Membership in the United States 1990:  An Enumeration by Region, State and County Based on Data Gathered for 133 Church Groupings, Atlanta, Georgia:  Glenmary Research Center, 1992.

10.  Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1972.  David. R. Morgan and Sheilah S. Watson, "Political Culture, Political System Characteristics, and Public Policies Among the American States," Publius 21(2): 35.

11.  Morgan and Watson, pp. 40,42.

12.  Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism:  A View from the States, New York:  Crowell, 1970.

13.  Elazar, ibid., pp. 118-119.

14.  Randy Stapilus, 1996:  The Idaho Political Almanac, Fourth Edition, Boise:  Ridenbaugh Press, 1996, p. 50.

15.  Robert H. Blank, ibid., pp. 171-172.