The Partisan Change Election? 2008 and the Ideological Divide in the American Party Coalitions - Geoff Layman University of Notre Dame
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Partisan Change Election?
2008 and the Ideological Divide in the
American Party Coalitions
Geoff Layman
University of Notre Dame Commentary on 2008
“Post-polarization” candidates
“End of culture wars”
Not true
2008 represented a continuation of “conflict
extension” between the two parties’ coalitions
And, the nature of campaign politics in 2008 (and
2004) may have served to accelerate increases in
party polarization.Layman and Carsey: “Conflict Extension”
Runs counter to conventional wisdom that partisan change
results in “conflict displacement”
Schattschneider, Sundquist, Miller and Schofield, Carmines and
Stimson
We find that party polarization on new issue dimensions (e.g.
cultural) has not been accompanied by a decline in polarization
on older dimensions (e.g. social welfare)
Instead party polarization has grown on all dimensions
It has “extended” from older to newer dimensionsPositions of Parties’ Coalitions and Non-Partisan
Citizens in a Two-Dimensional Policy Space
SOCIAL
Liberal Ind 1
Democrats Republicans
ECONOMIC
Liberal Conservative
Ind 2
ConservativeMoves by Party Candidates to Attract New
Constituencies
SOCIAL
Liberal Ind 1
DC
Democrats Republicans
ECONOMIC
Liberal Conservative
RC
Ind 2
ConservativeEventual Result: Parties Polarized on Social Issues, but not on
Economic Issues (i.e. Conflict Displacement)
SOCIAL
Liberal Democrats
Ind 1 Ind 2
ECONOMIC
Liberal Conservative
Republicans
ConservativeConversion of Partisans Toward Non-Centrist Views on Both Dimensions
Result = Conflict Extension
SOCIAL
Democrats Liberal
DC
DSL
DEL
ECONOMIC
Liberal Conservative
REC
RSC RC
Conservative
RepublicansMass Conflict Extension in a Nutshell
As parties’ elites and activists grow more polarized on
multiple issue dimensions, mass electorate should grow more
aware of party differences on those issues
Partisans who are aware of party differences on multiple issues
should merge their views on those issues toward those of the
parties’ elites and activists
Should lead to increased constraint in attitudes across multiple
issue dimensions and to parties’ coalitions growing more
polarized on multiple policy dimensionsParty Polarization on Four Issues: 1972-2008
1.8
1.5 Government Ensure Jobs
Government Insurance Plan
1.2
Party Difference
.9
.6
Government Help for Blacks
.3
Abortion
0
-.3
1972 1980 1988 1996 2004
1976 1984 1992 2000 2008
Year
Party difference is the Republican mean minus the Democratic mean on a 1-7 scaleParty Polarization on Government Ensure Jobs: 1932-2008
1.8
1.5
Party Difference
1.2
.9
.6
1936 1944 1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 2008
Year
Party difference is the Republican mean minus the Democratic mean on a 1-7 scale3 key things in the conflict extension process
Increased recognition of party differences on multiple issues
Party identifiers merging their attitudes on multiple issue
dimensions toward those of their parties
Increased constraint only evident among partisans who are
aware of party differences on multiple dimensions
Not for independents
Not for partisans who don’t recognize party differences on the various
issuesPerceived Difference between the Republican and Democratic
Presidential Candidates 1980-2008
2.5
Health Insurance
Abortion
Mean Candidate Difference
2
1.5
1
Govt. Ensure Jobs
Help for Blacks
.5
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Year
1980-2008 NES
Difference is on 1-7 scales with don't know on either candidate coded as 0.Percentage Viewing Presidential Candidates as Clearly Polarized on
35
30
25 Government Ensure Jobs, Help for Blacks, and Abortion
Percentage
20
15
10
5
0
All Respondents Party Identifiers
1980 1996 2000
2004 2008
Bars represent % placing Republican candidate 2 or more points to the right of Democratic candidateAttitude Constraint on Government Ensure Jobs, Health Insurance, Help for
Blacks, and Abortion by Strength of Party Identification: 1984-2008
.5
.4
Strong Partisans
Average Correlation
.3
Weak/Leaning Partisans
.2
.1
Pure Independents
0
1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Year
Source: 1984-2008 NESAttitude Constraint on Government Jobs, Help for Blacks, and Abortion
by Strength of Party ID and Awareness of Party Differences
Average Correlation between Three Attitudes
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
Strong Partisans Weak/Leaning Partisans Pure Independents
Aware on No Issues Aware on One Issue
Aware on Two Issues Aware on All Issues
Source: 2000-2008 NES (Pooled)
Aware means that respondent places GOP candidate to the right of Democratic candidateParty Polarization on Three Issues by Awareness of
2.4
2
.8 1.2 1.6 Party Differences on those Issues
Party Difference
.4
0
-.4
Government Ensure Jobs Government Help for Blacks Abortion
Aware on No Issues Aware on One Issue
Aware on Two Issues Aware on All Issues
Source: 2000-2008 NES (Pooled)
Aware means that respondent places GOP candidate to the right of Democratic candidate2008 and Conflict Extension
Mainly represented a continuation of recent trends
Increased mass awareness of partisan differences on multiple issue
dimensions
Increased attitudinal constraint among party identifiers
Conflict extension – growing party polarization on multiple issue
dimensions.
Was there nothing really unique about 2008?
What might be unique about 2008 (and 2004) is the great increase in
party-based mobilization
Party contacts may increase constraint and polarization themselves
Also produce more activism, which should increase awareness,
constraint, and polarizationPercentage of Respondents Contacted by a Political Party
50
Party Identifiers
40
Percentage
All Respondents
30
20
1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Year
1988-2008 NESPerceived Candidate Difference on Issues by Party Contacting
2
Perceived Candidate Difference
1.5
1
.5
0
Govt. Ensure Jobs Help for Blacks Abortion
Not Contacted Contacted
2000-2008 NES (Pooled)Attitude Constraint by Party Contacting
(On Govt. Ensure Jobs, Abortion, Help for Blacks, and Health Insurance)
.3
Average Correlation
.2
.1
0
Not Contacted Contacted
2000-2008 NES (Pooled)Party Polarization on Four Issues by Party Contacting
1.5
Party Difference
1
.5
0
Govt. Ensure Jobs Abortion Help for Blacks Health Insurance
Not Contacted Contacted
2000-2008 NES (Pooled)Percentage Active in Three of More Campaign Activities
25
20
Percentage
15
10
5
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Year
1980-2008 NESParty Polarization among Party Activists and Non-Activists, 2000-2008
2.5
2
Party Difference
1 1.5
.5
0
Abortion Govt. Ensure Jobs Help for Blacks Health Insurance
Non-Activist Activist
2000-2008 NES (Pooled)Attitude Constraint among Party Activists and Non-Activists 2000-2008
(Attitudes on Govt. Jobs, Abortion, Help for Blacks, and Health Insurance)
.5 .4
Average Correlation
.2 .3 .1
0
Non-Activist Activist
2000-2008 NES (Pooled)Correlation between Social Welfare and Cultural Attitudes in the 2000 and 2004
Panel Waves by Respondents’ Patterns of Campaign Activity in the Two Years
Panel Wave
2000 2004
Not active in either year .20 .18
Not active in 2000, active in
.25 .26
2004
Active in both years .28 .40
Source: 2000-2004 NES PanelConclusion
2008 was not a “post-polarization” election
It was the consummate polarization election,
representing the height to date of party
polarization and conflict extensionYou can also read
