Abstract
This paper examines the role of authoritarianism in the 2018 US congressional elections. In particular, we assess whether the issues that have historically been central to the authoritarian divide in the American electorate were salient in the campaigns of several important Senate races. We demonstrate that authoritarian attitudes played a consistent, significant role on presidential vote choice, party identification, and numerous policy areas in the 2016 presidential election using data from the American National Election Studies. Using case studies of six Senate races in the 2018 midterm elections, we find that authoritarianism was more muted than in 2016, and that the role of authoritarianism varied considerably depending upon the race. States with stronger Trump support in 2016 featured authoritarianism more heavily than states with less Trump support in 2016, but authoritarianism overall was not as prominent in 2018 as in 2016. Overall, Senate candidates relied on traditional campaign messages related to candidate qualifications, personal attacks, the economy, and other messages less central to authoritarianism.
About the authors
Anne M. Cizmar is an Associate Professor in the Department of Government at Eastern Kentucky University. Her teaching and research interests include American political behavior, campaigns and elections, and the presidency. Her work appears in Political Research Quarterly and Public Administration Quarterly, among other outlets.
John McTague is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Towson University where he studies American politics, political parties, religion and politics, political behavior, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. He also teaches courses on research methods, race and American politics, and practices service-learning pedagogy.
Appendix
Characteristics of States with Senate Races Chosen for Case Studies.
| State | Cook Rating | Census Region | Trump Vote | Election Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Toss-up | West | 48.67 (26th) | Open Seat |
| Florida | Toss-up | South | 49.02 (25th) | Democratic Incumbent |
| Missouri | Toss-up | Midwest | 55.77 (15th) | Democratic Incumbent |
| Nevada | Toss-up | West | 45.50 (32nd) | Republican Incumbent |
| Ohio | Lean Democratic | Midwest | 51.69 (20th) | Democratic Incumbent |
| West Virginia | Toss-up | South | 68.50 (1st) | Democratic Incumbent |
State names in bold elected the Republican candidate for Senate in 2018. “Cook Rating” represents the Cook Political Report’s rating of the competitiveness of the race as of Labor Day: https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/senate-race-ratings/185284. “Trump Vote” shows the percentage of the vote Trump won in the state in 2016 with the ranking of the state’s pro-Trump vote in parentheses. The percentage of the Trump vote is in italics if Trump won the state. The only Census region unrepresented is the Northeast, which did not have a Senate race that qualified as a toss-up or a leaner.
The Effect of Authoritarianism on Party Identification and Presidential Vote in 2016.
| Party Identificationa | Presidential Vote Choiceb | |
|---|---|---|
| Authoritarianism | 0.19*** (0.02) | 2.1*** (0.20) |
| Church Attendance | 0.15*** (0.02) | 1.07*** (0.15) |
| Education | −0.03 (0.03) | −0.71** (0.26) |
| Income | 0.13*** (.03) | 0.44 (0.25) |
| Age | −0.03 (0.03) | 0.26 (0.23) |
| Sex | −0.06*** (0.01) | −0.26* (0.12) |
| Race | 0.25*** (0.02) | 2.4*** (0.21) |
| West | 0.07** (0.02) | 0.23 (0.18) |
| Midwest | 0.05* (0.02) | 0.34 (0.20) |
| South | 0.10*** (0.02) | 0.73*** (0.16) |
| Constant | 0.05 (0.04) | −3.7*** (0.34) |
| N | 3997 | 3029 |
| R2 | 0.17 | 0.21c |
Source: 2016 American National Election Studies.
All variables in the models range from 0 to 1. Sex is coded 0 for males and 1 for females. Race is coded 0 for non-Whites and 1 for Whites.
aRanges from strong Democrat to strong Republican. Entries are unstandardized regression coefficients, with standard errors in parentheses.
bCoded 1 for Trump voters and 0 for Clinton voters. Entries are logit coefficients, with standard errors in parentheses.
cUnweighted pseudo-R2.
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05.
The Effect of Authoritarianism on Policy Attitudes in 2016.
| Racial Issues | Cultural Issues | Defense Spending | Social Welfare | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authoritarianism | 0.25*** (0.01) | 0.19*** (0.01) | 0.19*** (0.02) | 0.13*** (0.01) |
| Church Attendance | −0.006 (0.01) | 0.19*** (0.01) | 0.09*** (0.01) | 0.07*** (0.01) |
| Education | −0.11*** (0.02) | −0.09*** (0.02) | −0.12*** (0.02) | 0.03 (0.02) |
| Income | 0.08** (0.02) | −0.04** (0.02) | 0.05* (0.02) | 0.14*** (0.02) |
| Age | 0.11*** (0.02) | 0.05** (0.02) | 0.18*** (0.02) | 0.08*** (0.02) |
| Sex | −0.03** (0.01) | −0.04*** (0.008) | 0.007 (0.01) | −0.05*** (0.01) |
| Race | 0.17*** (0.01) | 0.03** (0.009) | 0.05*** (0.01) | 0.12*** (0.01) |
| West | 0.009 (0.02) | 0.03** (0.01) | −0.01 (0.02) | 0.05** (0.01) |
| Midwest | 0.03* (0.02) | 0.04*** (0.01) | −0.007 (0.02) | 0.06*** (0.01) |
| South | 0.04** (0.02) | 0.06*** (0.01) | 0.02 (0.02) | 0.05*** (0.01) |
| Constant | 0.28*** (0.02) | 0.15*** (0.02) | 0.37*** (0.03) | 0.01*** (0.02) |
| R2 | 0.21 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 0.16 |
| N | 4007 | 4010 | 3567 | 4009 |
Source: 2016 American National Election Studies.
All of the dependent variables are coded so that higher values indicate more-conservative (or hawkish or interventionist) positions. The top entries in each cell are unstandardized ordinary least squares coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. All variables in the models range from 0 to 1. Race is coded 0 for non-Whites and 1 for Whites. Sex is coded 0 for males and 1 for females.
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05.
The Effect of Authoritarianism on Policy Attitudes in 2016.
| Immigrationa | Death Penaltya | Foreign Policy Interventionismb | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authoritarianism | 1.8*** (0.14) | 1.7*** (0.13) | −0.99*** (0.18) |
| Church Attendance | 0.18 (0.10) | −0.15 (0.12) | 0.51*** (0.13) |
| Education | −0.59** (0.19) | −0.93*** (0.18) | 1.09*** (0.18) |
| Income | 0.04 (0.14) | 0.37* (0.16) | 0.20 (0.18) |
| Age | 0.89*** (0.16) | 0.43* (0.19) | 1.4*** (0.20) |
| Sex | 0.03 (0.07) | −0.27** (0.08) | 0.19 (0.10) |
| Race | 0.84*** (0.08) | 0.74*** (0.11) | −0.15 (0.12) |
| West | −0.08 (0.12) | 0.24 (0.12) | 0.19 (0.16) |
| Midwest | 0.22 (0.14) | 0.23 (0.19) | 0.20 (0.16) |
| South | 0.24* (0.11) | 0.30** (0.11) | 0.15 (0.14) |
| Constant | – | – | −0.31 (0.24) |
| Cut Point 1 | −1.13*** (0.24) | −0.40 (0.22) | – |
| Cut Point 2 | −0.02 (0.22) | 0.36 (0.21) | – |
| Cut Point 3 | 2.13*** (0.23) | 1.09*** (0.21) | – |
| Cut Point 4 | 3.12*** (0.23) | – | – |
| N | 3990 | 3950 | 3986 |
Source: 2016 American National Election Studies.
All of the dependent variables are coded so that higher values indicate more conservative (or more hawkish/interventionist) positions. Race is coded 0 for non-Whites and 1 for Whites. Sex is coded 0 for males and 1 for females.
aOrdered logit coefficients with standard errors in parentheses.
bLogit coefficients with standard errors in parentheses.
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05.
References
Abramowitz, Alan I. 2018. The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. New Have: Yale University Press.10.2307/j.ctvhrczh3Search in Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Steven Webster. 2016. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies 41 (1): 12–22.10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001Search in Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor, Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel J. Levinson, and Nevitt R. Sanford. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Row.Search in Google Scholar
Altemeyer, Robert. 1981. Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Search in Google Scholar
Altemeyer, Robert. 1996. The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Barker, David C., and James D. Tinnick III. 2006. “Competing Visions of Parental Roles and Ideological Constraint.” American Political Science Review 100 (2): 249–263.10.1017/S0003055406062149Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus. 1966. “Surge and Decline: a Study of Electoral Change.” In Elections and the Political Order, edited by Angus Campbell, Phillip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes. New York: Wiley.10.1086/266960Search in Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and James A. Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691218250Search in Google Scholar
Cizmar, Anne M., Geoffrey C. Layman, John McTague, Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz, and Michael Spivey. 2014. “Authoritarianism and American Political Behavior from 1952 to 2008.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (1): 71–83.10.1177/1065912913492019Search in Google Scholar
Edsall, Thomas, and Mary D. Edsall. 1992. Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.Search in Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley. 2003. “Enforcing Social Conformity: A Theory of Authoritarianism.” Political Psychology 24 (1): 41–74.10.1111/0162-895X.00316Search in Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Karen Stenner. 1997. “Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism.” Political Psychology 18 (4): 741–770.10.1111/0162-895X.00077Search in Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 1996. “‘Race Coding’ and White Opposition to Welfare.” American Political Science Review 90 (3): 593–604.10.2307/2082611Search in Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S., and Irwin L. Morris. 2007. “Presidential Campaigning in the 2002 Congressional Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32 (4): 629–648.10.3162/036298007782398468Search in Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J., and Jonathan D. Weiler. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802331Search in Google Scholar
Hoddie, Matthew, and Stephen R. Routh. 2004. “Predicting Presidential Presence: Explaining Presidential Midterm Elections Campaign Behavior.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2): 257–265.10.1177/106591290405700207Search in Google Scholar
Inglehardt, Ronald, and Pippa Norris. 2017. “Trump and Populist-Authoritarian Parties: The Silent Revolution in Reverse.” Perspectives on Politics 15 (2): 443–454.10.1017/S1537592717000111Search in Google Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1977. “Presidential Popularity and Negative Voting: An Alternative Explanation of Midterm Congressional Decline of the President’s Party.” American Political Science Review 71 (1): 44–66.10.1017/S0003055400259297Search in Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., and Thomas M. Carsey. 2002. “Party Polarization and ‘Conflict Extension’ in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 786–802.10.2307/3088434Search in Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies Die: What History Reveals about Our Future. New York: Crown.Search in Google Scholar
MacWilliams, Matthew. 2016. The Rise of Trump: America’s Authoritarian Spring. Amherst, MA: The Amherst College Press.10.3998/mpub.10034322Search in Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Mockabee, Stephen T. 2007. “A Question of Authority: Religion and Cultural Conflict in the2004 Election.” Political Behavior 29 (2): 221–248.10.1007/s11109-006-9023-4Search in Google Scholar
Schaffner, Brian F., Matthew MacWilliams, and Tatishe Nteta. 2018. “Understanding White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism.” Political Science Quarterly 133 (1): 9–34.10.1002/polq.12737Search in Google Scholar
Sellers, Patrick J., and Laura M. Denton. 2006. “Presidential Visits and Midterm Senate Elections.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36 (3): 410–432.10.1111/j.1741-5705.2006.02555.xSearch in Google Scholar
Sides, John, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck. 2018. Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400888306Search in Google Scholar
Stenner, Karen. 2005. The Authoritarian Dynamic. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614712Search in Google Scholar
Stenner, Karen, and Jonathan Haidt. 2018. “Authoritarianism Is Not a Momentary Madness, But an Eternal Dynamic Within Liberal Democracies.” In Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America, edited by Cass R. Sunstein. New York: HarperCollins.Search in Google Scholar
Tesler, Michael. 2016. Post-Racial or Most-Racial? Race and Politics in the Obama Era. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226353159.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. 1975. “Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 69 (3): 812–826.10.2307/1958391Search in Google Scholar
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
