¹ Key, V. O. Jr., Public Opinion and American Democracy (New York: Knopf, 1961), p. 553 Google Scholar.

² Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper, 1950), chap. 22, especially pp. 269–70, 242Google Scholar. See also: Dahl, Robert A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), pp. 37–38, 63–89 Google Scholar; Dahl, Robert A., Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971, Chap. 1Google Scholar; Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), p. 311 Google Scholar; Griffith, Ernest S., Plamanatz, John and Pennock, J. Roland, “Cultural Prerequisites to a Successfully Functioning Democracy: A Symposium,” American Political Science Review, 50 (03, 1956), 131–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McClosky, Herbert, “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics,” American Political Science Review, 58 (06, 1964), 363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, Jack, “Support for the Institution of Elections by the Mass Public,” American Political Science Review, 64 (09, 1970), 819 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ See Walker, Jack L., “A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy,” American Political Science Review, 60 (06, 1966), pp. 285–295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bachrach, Peter, The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique (Boston: Little Brown, 1967)Google Scholar. Bachrach, however, in arguing that persecution of Christians, etc., is inherently non-democratic is himself using a procedural definition; see p. 19.

⁴ See Plamanetz, in “Cultural Prerequisites…“ p. 115 Google Scholar and Dahl, , Polyarchy, pp. 1–16 Google Scholar.

⁵ See Dahl, , Preface, p. 75–81 Google Scholar or Truman, David B., The Governmental Process (New York, Knopf, 1964), especially chap. 4Google Scholar.

⁶ Scammon, Richard M. and Wattenberg, Ben J., The Real Majority (New York: Coward-McCann, 1970), p. 43 Google Scholar. Kevin Phillips makes similar observations from a very different perspective in The Emerging Republican Majority (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1970)Google Scholar. My own analysis of the ICPR presidential election studies indicates that the social issue was quite prominent by 1968.

⁷ As indicated above, this is but one of several theoretically significant questions relevant to procedural norms. For their role as an object of orientation for individual members of the political system towards the system itself, see Easton, David, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: Wiley, 1965), particularly chap. 12Google Scholar.

⁸ Stouffer, Samuel A., Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties: A Cross-Section of the Nation Speaks Its Mind (Gloucester, Mass.: Smith, 1963)Google Scholar.

⁹ Of these acts, the first and second are clearly procedural norms related to minorities; teaching is clearly a political act only if the teacher tries, as some respondents must have assumed he would, to teach his own political ideas.

¹⁰ Stouffer, p. 31.

¹¹ One-third of the population was classified as more tolerant and one-fifth as less tolerant.

¹² Stouffer, p. 194.

¹³ Prothro, James W. and Grigg, Charles M., “Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement,” Journal of Politics, 22 (05, 1960), 275–294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ McClosky, p. 376.

¹⁵ Prothro and Grigg suggest the 75 per cent figure as a minimal definition of consensus.

¹⁶ McClosky.

¹⁷ A question such as “If Congressional committees stuck strictly to the rules and gave every witness his rights, they would never succeed in exposing the many dangerous subversives that they have turned up” is at least triple-barreled.

¹⁸ McClosky (p. 365) also asks a question relevant to the role of procedural norms in legitimizing political decisions: “I don't mind a politician's methods if he gets the right things done.” Disagreement with the item indicates that the procedures by which decisions are made are important; 57.6 per cent of the mass sample and 74.4 per cent of the elite disagreed.

¹⁹ “The characterization is from Bachrach, p. 52.

²⁰ Prothro and Grigg found the same for consistency, which is for them equivalent to tolerance.

²¹ Glazer, Nathan and Lipset, Seymour Martin, “The Polls on Communism and Conformity,” The New American Right, ed. Bell, Daniel (New York: Criterion, 1955), pp. 149–150 Google Scholar.

²² Stouffer, p. 48.

²³ McClosky, p. 376. Glazer and Upset (pp. 159–164) are more generally concerned with factors intermediate to non-democratic attitudes and behavior; they attribute the relatively anti-McCarthy attitudes of the South, despite the region's low level of tolerance in Stouffer's study, to its Democratic party affiliation; general intolerance provided no guide to evaluation of McCarthy because opinion leaders in the McCarthy controversy were Democrats who opposed the Wisconsin senator on partisan grounds.

²⁴ Key, p. 555.

²⁵ Dahl, , Who Governs?, pp. 314–325 Google Scholar; see also “The American Oppositions: Affirmation and Denial,” Political Oppositions in Western Democracies, ed. Dahl, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 34–69, esp. pp. 40–42Google Scholar, on the relationship between education and agreement with procedural norms related to civil liberties.

²⁶ Dahl, , Who Governs?, p. 324 Google Scholar.

²⁷ Selection of more “popular” groups may have served the same purpose, as I suggest below. Stouffer's work is also vulnerable to the charge of being out of date: the groups investigated are of limited relevance to current problems of civil liberties. Also, Stouffer is concerned with only one explicitly political act, a problem made serious by Hyman and Sheatsly's finding that the public differentiated activities that Communists should and should not be permitted. See Hyman, Herbert H. and Sheatsly, Paul B., “Trends in Public Opinion on Civil Liberties,” Journal of Social Issues, 9 (1953), 11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ The question text asks whether professional organizations such as the AMA have a right to increase the influence of doctors by getting them to vote as a bloc. Such activity can be seen as democratic in that democracy certainly allows individuals to form groups to advance their common interests; yet it also suggests manipulation of individuals.

²⁹ I in fact deal with both kinds of consistency, although the second is much more important here.

³⁰ For evaluative purposes, we assume that petitioning, criticizing, and demonstrating were within the limits of what is democratic.

³¹ The housing issue is, of course, hard only for whites; only they were asked the relevant matrix item.

³² Only data for demonstrating and petitioning are reported here. Matrix items on blocking were asked but are not reported here because of the very different nature of blocking as a political act. No matrix questions about criticizing were asked in order to reduce the total number of matrix items and to prevent both learning (i.e., seeing through the survey instrument and imposing an artificial pattern of consistency) or boredom (which led to random responses) which were found on earlier drafts of the questionnaire in pre-tests.

³³ Those involving neighbors.

³⁴ Specific details of questionnaire design are available from the author.

³⁵ For marijuana, open housing, and pollution we recorded respondents' attitudes on the issue involved in the matrix item; we asked respondents' views toward black militants and radical students; our issue-control for crime is less direct, consisting of whether respondents think crime is a particularly serious problem. The neighbors items are excluded from this phase of analysis.

³⁶ For marijuana, open housing, and pollution, the middle polition was considered to be neutral; the three categories on each side were positive and negative. For groups, a similar procedure was followed, although there were only two categories on each side of the mid-point.

³⁷ I exclude here the relatively small proportion of the population who are themselves criminals.

³⁸ For marijuana and open housing there is some possibility that the zero-order relationship between tolerance and education is due to the greater frequency with which the more educated have positive issue-orientations.

³⁹ The public clearly sees blocking as we did in constructing the survey.

⁴⁰ Tables or percentages based on extremely small numbers of cases per cell are excluded from the data reported.

⁴¹ Dahl, , Who Governs?, p. 324 Google Scholar.

⁴² See Truman, chap. 6, on potential groups.

⁴³ See Westie, Frank R., “The American Dilemna: An Empirical Test,” American Sociological Review, 30 (08, 1965), esp. pp. 536–537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for evidence that when contradiction between liberal general principles and nonliberal specific attitudes is brought to a respondent's attention, he most often changes the specific attitude in the direction of greater tolerance.