Abstract
The alignment between partisan and other social identities has generated a rift between Democrats and Republicans that is deeper than any seen in recent American history. Without the cross-cutting identities that have traditionally stabilized the American two-party system, partisans in the American electorate are now seeing each other through prejudiced and intolerant eyes. In this article, partisan social divisions are examined in the 2016 electorate, with an eye to the co-occurrence between these social divisions and contemporaneous resistance to compromise and intolerance of social outgroups. In particular, as Republicans and Democrats grow more socially distinct, they like outgroups less and privilege victory over the national greater good. This effect is particularly visible among Republicans, whose social makeup is particularly homogeneous, even in comparison with Democrats. Some potential solutions are briefly addressed.
Appendix
ANES 2016 Items
Issue Constraint Items:
Do you think the number of immigrants from foreign countries who are
permitted to come to the US to live should be [increased a lot, increased a little, left the same as it is now, decreased a little, or decreased a lot/decreased a lot, decreased a little, left the same as it is now, increased a little, or increased a lot]?
Do you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose the health care reform law passed in 2010? This law requires all Americans to buy health insurance and requires health insurance companies to accept everyone.
IF R FAVORS THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAW:
Do you favor that [a great deal, moderately, or a little/a little, moderately, or a great deal]?
IF R OPPOSES THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAW:
Do you oppose that [a great deal, moderately, or a little/a little, moderately, or a great deal]?
There has been some discussion about abortion during recent years. Which one of the opinions on this page best agrees with your view? You can just tell me the number of the opinion you choose.
By law, abortion should never be permitted.
By law, only in case of rape, incest, or woman’s life in danger.
By law, for reasons other than rape, incest, or woman’s life in danger if need established.
By law, abortion as a matter of personal choice.
Which comes closest to your view? You can just tell me the number of your choice.
Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry.
Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry.
There should be no legal recognition of a gay or lesbian couple’s relationship.
Do you think the federal government should make it more difficult for people to buy a gun than it is now, make it easier for people to buy a gun, or keep these rules about the same as they are now?
When the US federal government spends more money than it collects, the difference is called the federal budget deficit. The federal government currently has a deficit. How important is it to reduce the deficit? [Extremely important, very important, moderately important, a little important, or not at all important?/Not at all important, a little important, moderately important, very important, or extremely important?].
References
Bischof, D. 2017. “New Graphic Schemes for Stata: Plotplain & Plottig.” Stata Journal 17 (3): 1–12.10.1177/1536867X1701700313Search in Google Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B. 2001. “The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications for Political Psychology.” Political Psychology 22 (1): 115–125.10.1111/0162-895X.00229Search in Google Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B., and Kathleen P. Pierce. 2005. “Social Identity Complexity and Outgroup Tolerance.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31 (3): 428–437.10.1177/0146167204271710Search in Google Scholar
Carter, Bill. 2012. “Republicans Like Golf, Democrats Prefer Cartoons, TV Research Suggests.” Media Decoder Blog. New York Times. Accessed August 22, 2015. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/republicans-like-golf-democrats-prefer-cartoons-tv-research-suggests/.Search in Google Scholar
Cramer, Katherine J. 2016. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. 1st ed. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226349251.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1972. Democracy in the United States: Promise and Performance. Chicago: Rand McNally.Search in Google Scholar
Dancey, Logan, and Paul Goren. 2010. “Party Identification, Issue Attitudes, and the Dynamics of Political Debate.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (3): 686–699.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00454.xSearch in Google Scholar
Dettrey, Bryan J., and James E. Campbell. 2013. “Has Growing Income Inequality Polarized the American Electorate? Class, Party, and Ideological Polarization.” Social Science Quarterly 94 (4): 1062–1083.10.1111/ssqu.12026Search in Google Scholar
Edsall, Thomas B. 2012. “Let the Nanotargeting Begin.” Campaign Stops (blog). New York Times. Accessed April 15, 2012. https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/let-the-nanotargeting-begin/.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Christopher, and James A. Stimson. 2012. Ideology in America. 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139094009Search in Google Scholar
Gebru, Timnit, Jonathan Krause, Yilun Wang, Duyun Chen, Jia Deng, Erez Lieberman Aiden, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. “Using Deep Learning and Google Street View to Estimate the Demographic Makeup of Neighborhoods across the United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (50): 13108–13113.10.1073/pnas.1700035114Search in Google Scholar
Grossman, Matt, and David A. Hopkins. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats by Matt Grossman. USA: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190626594.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hajnal, Zoltan L., and Jeremy D. Horowitz. 2014. “Racial Winners and Losers in American Party Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 12 (1): 100–118.10.1017/S1537592713003733Search in Google Scholar
Harbridge, Laurel, Neil Malhotra, and Brian F. Harrison. 2014. “Public Preferences for Bipartisanship in the Policymaking Process.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 39 (3): 327–355.10.1111/lsq.12048Search in Google Scholar
Heaney, Michael T. 2016. “Unconventional Protests: Partisans and Independents Outside the Republican and Democratic National Conventions.” Research & Politics 3 (4): 2053168016674138.10.1177/2053168016674138Search in Google Scholar
Ignatieff, Michael. 2013. “Opinion | Enemies vs. Adversaries.” The New York Times. Accessed October 16, 2013, sec. Opinion. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/opinion/enemies-vs-adversaries.html.Search in Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Sean J. Westwood. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 690–707.10.1111/ajps.12152Search in Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Gaurav Sood, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 405–431.10.1093/poq/nfs038Search in Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Donald R. Kinder. 2012. “Ethnocentrism as a Short-Term Force in the 2008 American Presidential Election.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (2): 326–340.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00564.xSearch in Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Karen M. 2004. “The Partisan Paradox Religious Commitment and the Gender Gap in Party Identification.” Public Opinion Quarterly 68 (4): 491–511.10.1093/poq/nfh037Search in Google Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A., Rose McDermott, and Peter K. Hatemi. 2013. “The Dating Preferences of Liberals and Conservatives.” Political Behavior 35 (3): 519–538.10.1007/s11109-012-9207-zSearch in Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey. 2001. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Frances. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226409184.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S. 2017. “Americans, Not Partisans: Can Priming American National Identity Reduce Affective Polarization?” The Journal of Politics 80 (1): 59–70.10.1086/693987Search in Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, Stephan, and Klaus Oberauer. 2016. “Motivated Rejection of Science.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 25 (4): 217–222.10.1177/0963721416654436Search in Google Scholar
Lichter, Daniel T., Zhenchao Qian, and Dmitry Tumin. 2015. “Whom Do Immigrants Marry? Emerging Patterns of Intermarriage and Integration in the United States.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 662 (1): 57–78.10.1177/0002716215594614Search in Google Scholar
Major, Brenda, Alison Blodorn, and Gregory Major Blascovich. 2016. “The Threat of Increasing Diversity: Why Many White Americans Support Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, October, 2016. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216677304.10.1177/1368430216677304Search in Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2015. “‘I Disrespectfully Agree’: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 128–145.10.1111/ajps.12089Search in Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018a. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018b. “Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82 (S1): 280–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy005.10.1093/poq/nfy005Search in Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana, and Julie Wronski. 2018. “One Tribe to Bind Them All: How Our Social Group Attachments Strengthen Partisanship.” Political Psychology 39 (S1): 257–277.10.1111/pops.12485Search in Google Scholar
Miller, Kevin P., Marilynn B. Brewer, and Nathan L. Arbuckle. 2009. “Social Identity Complexity: Its Correlates and Antecedents.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 12 (1): 79–94.10.1177/1368430208098778Search in Google Scholar
Otten, Sabine, and Dirk Wentura. 1999. “About the Impact of Automaticity in the Minimal Group Paradigm: Evidence from Affective Priming Tasks.” European Journal of Social Psychology 29 (8): 1049–1071.10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199912)29:8<1049::AID-EJSP985>3.0.CO;2-QSearch in Google Scholar
Peffley, Mark, Jon Hurwitz, and Paul M. Sniderman. 1997. “Racial Stereotypes and Whites’ Political Views of Blacks in the Context of Welfare and Crime.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 30–60.10.2307/2111708Search in Google Scholar
Pelz, Mikael L., and Corwin E. Smidt. 2015. “Generational Conversion? The Role of Religiosity in the Politics of Evangelicals.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 54 (2): 380–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12186.10.1111/jssr.12186Search in Google Scholar
Qian, Zhenchao, and Daniel T. Lichter. 2011. “Changing Patterns of Interracial Marriage in a Multiracial Society.” Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (5): 1065–1084.10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00866.xSearch in Google Scholar
Roccas, Sonia, and Marilynn B. Brewer. 2002. “Social Identity Complexity.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 6 (2): 88–106.10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01Search in Google Scholar
Ryan, Timothy J. 2017. “No Compromise: Political Consequences of Moralized Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (2): 409–423.10.1111/ajps.12248Search in Google Scholar
Stephens-Dougan, LaFleur. 2016. “Priming Racial Resentment without Stereotypic Cues.” The Journal of Politics 78 (3): 687–704.10.1086/685087Search in Google Scholar
Stonecash, Jeffrey M., Mark D. Brewer, R. Eric Petersen, Mary P. Mcguire, and Lori Beth Way. 2000. “Class and Party: Secular Realignment and the Survival of Democrats Outside the South.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (4): 731–752.10.1177/106591290005300403Search in Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: CUP Archive.Search in Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In Intergroup Relations: Essential Readings, edited by M. A. Hogg and D. Abrams, 94–109. Key Readings in Social Psychology. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press, 1979.Search in Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, M. G. Billig, R. P. Bundy, and Claude Flament. 1971. “Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour.” European Journal of Social Psychology 1 (2): 149–178.10.1002/ejsp.2420010202Search in Google Scholar
Teixeira, Ruy, William H. Frey, and Rob Griffin. 2015. “States of Change.” Accessed February 25, 2016. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/report/2015/02/24/107261/states-of-change/.Search in Google Scholar
Theodoridis, Alexander G. 2017. “Me, Myself, and (I), (D), or (R)? Partisanship and Political Cognition through the Lens of Implicit Identity.” The Journal of Politics 79 (4): 1253–1267.10.1086/692738Search in Google Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas A., and David O. Sears. 2005. “Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 672–688.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00136.xSearch in Google Scholar
Wald, Kenneth D., and Michael D. Martinez. 2001. “Jewish Religiosity and Political Attitudes in the United States and Israel.” Political Behavior 23 (4): 377–397.10.1023/A:1015465523437Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, Chris, David Johnson, and Pratheek Rebala. 2014. “Are You a J. Crew Democrat or a Pizza Hut Republican?” November 6. Time. Accessed February 22, 2018. http://time.com/3559482/stores-politics/.Search in Google Scholar
Wolf, Michael R., J. Cherie Strachan, and Daniel M. Shea. 2012. “Forget the Good of the Game Political Incivility and Lack of Compromise as a Second Layer of Party Polarization.” American Behavioral Scientist 56 (12): 1677–1695.10.1177/0002764212463355Search in Google Scholar
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
