Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Forum

A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics

Ed. by Disalvo, Daniel / Stonecash, Jeffrey

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.500
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.623

CiteScore 2018: 0.83

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.595
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.631

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 12, Issue 1


The President, Polarization and the Party Platforms, 1944–2012

Soren Jordan
  • Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, 4348 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-4348, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Clayton McLaughlin Webb
  • Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, 4348 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-4348, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ B. Dan Wood
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, 4348 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-4348, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2014-05-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2014-0024


Scholars generally agree that political elites in the US are polarized. Yet most of our evidence, especially longitudinal evidence, is built on proxy measures of elite ideology that fail to identify the unique dimensions that drive the cleavages between the parties. And our understanding of when elite polarization reemerged is also unclear. This study leverages the party platforms, along with the tools of content analysis, to shed new light on elite polarization. We find that, consistent with the literature, elite polarization is an asymmetric phenomenon driven by Republicans primarily motivated by economic issues. Further, we show that modern elite polarization emerged starting with the 1980 election.


  • Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 1998. “Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate.” The Journal of Politics 60 (3): 634–652.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth.” Journal of Politics 70 (2): 542–555.Google Scholar

  • Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rhode. 2000. “The Consequences of Party Organization in the House: The Role of the Majority and Minority Parties in Conditional Party Government”. In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, edited by Bond, Jon R. and Richard Fleisher. Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar

  • Anderson, Sarah, and Philip Habel. 2009. “Revisiting Adjusted ADA Scores for the US Congress, 1947–2007.” Political Analysis 17 (1): 83–88.Google Scholar

  • Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder Jr., and Charles Stewart III. 2001a. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 136–159.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder Jr., and Charles Stewart III. 2001b. “The Effects of Party and Preferences on Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (4): 533–572.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Borrelli, Stephen A. 2001. “Finding the Third Way: Bill Clinton, The DLC, and the Democratic Platform of 1992.” The Journal of Policy History 13 (4): 429–462.Google Scholar

  • Budge, Ian, and Richard Hofferbert. 1990. “Mandates and Policy Outputs: US Party Platforms and Federal Expenditures.” American Political Science Review 84 (1): 111–131.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Carmines, Edward G. and James A. Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Carsey, Thomas M., and Geoffrey C. Layman. 2006. “Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (2): 464–477.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clinton, Joshua D., Simon Jackman, and Douglas Rivers. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.” The American Political Science Review 98 (2): 355–370.Google Scholar

  • Coffey, Daniel. 2011. “More than a Dime’s Worth: Using State Party Platforms to Assess the Degree of American Party Polarization.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (2): 331–337.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Democratic National Committee. 2012. Democrats Draft Platform for National Convention. C-SPAN. Accessed March 6 2013. Available from: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Democrats-Draft-Platform-for-National-Convention/10737432897/.

  • DiMaggio, Paul, John Evans, and Bethany Bryson. 1996. “Have American’s Social Attitudes Become More Polarized?” American Journal of Sociology 102 (3): 690–755.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Everitt, Bryan S., and Torsten Hothorn. 2009. A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using R, Second Edition. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar

  • Feinerer, I. 2008. “An Introduction to Text Mining in R.” R News 8 (2): 19–22.Google Scholar

  • Feinerer, I., K. Hornik, and D. Meyer. 2008. “Text Mining Infrastructure in R.” Journal of Statistical Software 25 (5): 1–54.Google Scholar

  • Fine, Terri Susan. 1994. “Lobbying from Within: Government Elites and the Framing of the 1988 Democratic and Republican Platforms.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 24 (4): 844–863.Google Scholar

  • Fiorina, Morris, Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope. 2011. Culture War?: The Myth of a Polarized America. 3rd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Fleisher, Richard, and John R. Bond. 2004. “The Shrinking Middle in the US Congress.” British Journal of Political Science 34 (3): 429–451.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Francis, Louise, and Matt Flynn. 2010. “Text Mining Handbook.” In Casualty Actuarial Society E-Forum. Arlington, VA: Casualty Actuarial Society. http://www.casact.org/pubs/forum/10spforum/Francis_Flynn.pdf

  • Ginsberg, Benjamin. 1972. “Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844–1968.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16 (4): 603–625.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ginsberg, Benjamin. 1976. “Elections and Public Policy.” The American Political Science Review 70 (1): 41–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Groseclose, Tim, Steven D. Levitt, and James M. Snyder Jr. 1999. “Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress.” The American Political Science Review 93 (1): 33–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 619–631.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hetherington, Marc J., and Jonathan D. Weiler. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jackson, David. 2012. “Democrats Restore God, Jerusalem to Platform; Await Clinton.” USA Today, September 5.Google Scholar

  • Kidd, Quentin. 2008. “The Real (Lack of) Difference between Republicans and Democrats: A Computer Word Score Analysis of Party Platforms, 1996–2004.” PS: Political Science and Politics 41 (3): 519–525.Google Scholar

  • King, Gary, and Michael Laver. 1993. “On Party Platforms, Mandates, and Government Spending.” American Political Science Review 87 (3): 774–750.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey, and Juliana Menasce Horowitz. 2006. “Party Polarizationin American Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 83–110.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Levendusky, Matthew, 2014. Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Electorate. Oxford Bibliographies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Maisel, L. Sandy. 1993. “The Platform-Writing Process: Candidate-Centered Platforms in 1992.” Political Science Quarterly 108 (4): 671–698.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2008. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Paddock, Joel. 2011. “Ideological Polarization in a Decentralized Party System: Explaining Interstate Differences.” The Social Science Journal 47 (2010): 710–722.Google Scholar

  • Peters, Gerhard, and John Wooley. 2012. The American Presidency Project. University of California, Santa Barbara. Accessed December 10, 2012. Available from: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php.

  • Pomper, Gerald M., and Susan Lederman. 1980. Elections in America: Control and Influence in Democratic Politics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal. 2007. Ideology & Congress. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Republican National Committee. 2012a. Platform CMTE. Sends Platform to GOP Delegates. C-SPAN. Available from: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Platform-Cmte-Sends-Platform-to-GOP-Convention-Delegates/10737433193-5/.

  • Republican National Committee. 2012b. Republican Platform 2012. Republican National Committee. Accessed March 7 2013. Available from: http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf.

  • Reinhardt, Gina, and Jennifer Victor. 2012. “Competing for the Platform: The Politics of Interest Group Influence on Political Party Platforms in the United States.” Prepared for the 108th Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association. New Orleans, Louisiana, 2012.Google Scholar

  • Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2006. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

  • Simas, Elizabeth, and Kevin Evans. 2011. “Linking Party Platforms to Perceptions of Presidential Candiates’ Policy Positions, 1972–2000.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (4): 831–839.Google Scholar

  • Sniderman, Paul. 2000. “Taking Sides:A Fixed Choice Theory of Political Reasoning.” In Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, edited by M. McCubbins, A. Lupia and S. Popkin. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sniderman, Paul, and John Bullock. 2004. “A Consistency Theory of Public Opinion and Political Choice.” In Studies in Public Opinion, edited by W. E. Saris and P. M. Sniderman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Stone, Walter J., and Alan I. Abramowitz. 1983. “Winning May Not Be Everything, But It’s More than We Thought: Presidential Activists in 1980.” The American Political Science Review 77 (4): 945–956.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sullivan, Denis G. 1977. “Party Unity: Appearance and Reality.” Poiltical Science Quarterly 92 (4): 635–645.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Theriault, Sean M. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ward, Joe H. 1963. “Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 58 (1): 236–244.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weiss, Sholom M., Nitin Indurkhya, and Tong Zhang. 2010. Fundamentals of Predictive Text Mining. London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Wood, B. Dan, and Soren Jordan. 2011. “Electoral Polarization: Definition, Measurement, and Evaluation.” In American Political Science Association. Seattle, WA.Google Scholar

  • Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Soren Jordan

Soren Jordan is a PhD Candidate at Texas A&M University. He specializes in American politics and Methodology. His dissertation examines the consequences of mass and elite polarization for the lawmaking process in the US Congress.

Clayton McLaughlin Webb

Clayton McLaughlin Webb is a PhD Candidate at Texas A&M University. He specializes in International Relations and Methodology. His dissertation looks at the domestic political and economic consequences of US economic sanctions.

B. Dan Wood

B. Dan Wood is a Professor and Cornerstone Fellow in the Department of Political Science at Texas A&M University. His research focuses on the concept of democratic responsiveness of American political institutions, especially the presidency. His most recent publications include two books with Cambridge University Press entitled Presidential Saber Rattling: Causes and Consequences (2012) and The Myth of Presidential Representation (recipient of the 2010 Richard Neustadt Award). His current research evaluates the causes and consequences of party polarization in the American system.

Corresponding author: B. Dan Wood, Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, 4348 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-4348, USA, Phone: (979) 845-1610, Fax: (979) 847-8924, e-mail:

Published Online: 2014-05-08

Published in Print: 2014-04-01

The actual 2012 platform hearings for the Democratic Party can be viewed on C-SPAN at http://www.c-span.org/Events/Democrats-Draft-Platform-for-National-Convention/10737432897/

The actual 2012 Republican platform hearings can be viewed on C-SPAN at http://www.c-span.org/Events/Platform-Cmte-Sends-Platform-to-GOP-Convention-Delegates/10737433193-5/

Citation Information: The Forum, Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 169–189, ISSN (Online) 1540-8884, ISSN (Print) 2194-6183, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2014-0024.

Export Citation

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Adam Silver
Social Science History, 2018, Volume 42, Number 3, Page 441

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in