Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-8lnk4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-07T06:35:38.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2018

MICHAEL BARBER Open the ORCID record for MICHAEL BARBER [Opens in a new window]  and
JEREMY C. POPE Open the ORCID record for JEREMY C. POPE [Opens in a new window]
MICHAEL BARBER*
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
JEREMY C. POPE*
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
*
*Michael Barber, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brigham Young University, barber@byu.edu.
†Jeremy C. Pope, Associate Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, Brigham Young University, jpope@byu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are people conservative (liberal) because they are Republicans (Democrats)? Or is it the reverse: people are Republicans (Democrats) because they are conservatives (liberals)? Though much has been said about this long-standing question, it is difficult to test because the concepts are nearly impossible to disentangle in modern America. Ideology and partisanship are highly correlated, only growing more so over time. However, the election of President Trump presents a unique opportunity to disentangle party attachment from ideological commitment. Using a research design that employs actual “conservative” and “liberal” policy statements from President Trump, we find that low-knowledge respondents, strong Republicans, Trump-approving respondents, and self-described conservatives are the most likely to behave like party loyalists by accepting the Trump cue—in either a liberal or conservative direction. These results suggest that there are a large number of party loyalists in the United States, that their claims to being a self-defined conservative are suspect, and that group loyalty is the stronger motivator of opinion than are any ideological principles.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 113 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 38 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We are grateful to BYU and The Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy for funding this research. We would also like to thank John Holbein and Jay Goodliffe for commenting on early drafts of the paper. Replication materials can be found on Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/38BFML.

References

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Webster, Steven. 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.2015.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400882731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahler, Douglas, and Broockman, David. 2018. “The Delegate Paradox: Why Polarized Politicians Can Represent Citizens Best.” The Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1117–33.10.1086/698755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James M.. 2008. “The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 102 (2): 215–32.10.1017/S0003055408080210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asch, Solomon E. 1952. Social Psychology. New York: Prentice Hall.10.1037/10025-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C.. 2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress.” American Political Science Review 104 (3): 519–42.10.1017/S0003055410000316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952–1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 35–50.10.2307/2669291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–97.10.1017/S1537592712001624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolsen, Toby, Druckman, James N., and Cook, Fay Lomax. 2014. “The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 235–62.10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and De Boef, Suzanna. 2001. “Macropartisanship and Macroideology in the Sophisticated Electorate.” The Journal of Politics 63 (1): 232–48.10.1111/0022-3816.00066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I.. 1972. “Comment: The Assessment of Policy Voting.” American Political Science Review 66: 450–58.10.2307/1957788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David E. 2016. “Approaches to Studying Policy Representation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 41 (1): 181–215.10.1111/lsq.12110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David E., and Butler, Daniel M.. 2017. “The Causal Effects of Elite Position-Taking on Voter Attitudes: Field Experiments with Elite Communication.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (1): 208–21.10.1111/ajps.12243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, John G. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 397–409.10.1017/S0003055411000165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.” American Political Science Review 98 (2): 355–70.10.1017/S0003055404001194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (5): 808–22.10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. 1981. “The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (4): 617–45.10.2307/2110756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. E. Apter, David. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 206–61.Google Scholar
Dimock, Michael, Kiley, Jocelyn, Keeter, Scott, and Doherty, Carroll. 2014. Political Polarization in the American Public. Washington, DC: Technical report Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik, and Slothuus, Rune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107 (1): 57–79.10.1017/S0003055412000500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher, and Stimson, James A.. 2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139094009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2004. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Freeder, Sean, Lenz, Gabriel S., and Turney, Shad. 2018. “The Importance of Knowing ‘What Goes with What’.” The Journal of Politics. Published online September 26, 2018.Google Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Erick. 2004. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Steven. 1999. “Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach.” Political Psychology 20 (2): 393–403.10.1111/0162-895X.00150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, Matt, and Hopkins, David A.. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190626594.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Seth J., and Tausanovitch, Chris. 2015. “A Disconnect in Representation? Comparison of Trends in Congressional and Public Polarization.” The Journal of Politics 77 (4): 1058–75.10.1086/682398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Seth J., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2018. “On the Meaning of Survey Reports of Roll Call Votes Not Cast in a Legislature.” American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Huber, Gregory A., and Malhotra, Neil. 2017. “Political Homophily in Social Relationships: Evidence from Online Dating Behavior.” The Journal of Politics 79 (1): 269–83.10.1086/687533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphatch. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 405–31.10.1093/poq/nfs038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 690–707.10.1111/ajps.12152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2013. “Partisan Polarization in American Politics: A Background Paper.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 43 (4): 688–708.10.1111/psq.12062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1991. “Ideological Identification and Issue Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 178–205.10.2307/2111443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 2000. “Issue Framing and Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 750–67.10.2307/2669279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2012. Ideology and Spatial Voting in American Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139198714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Trussler, Marc J.. 2017. “At the Nexus of Observational and Experimental Research: Theory, Specification, and Analysis of Experiments with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects.” Political Behavior 39 (4): 789–815.10.1007/s11109-016-9379-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kalmoe, Nathan P.. 2017. Neither liberal Nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226452593.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Kathleen. 1985. “Ideology in the 1980 Election: Ideological Sophistication Does Matter.” The Journal of Politics 47 (3): 828–53.10.2307/2131213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., and Hurley, Norman L.. 1994. “On Hearing and Interpreting Political Messages: A Cautionary Tale of Citizen Cue-Taking.” The Journal of Politics 56 (3): 729–51.10.2307/2132190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., and Carsey, Thomas M.. 2002. “Party Polarization and ‘Conflict Extension’ in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 786–802.10.2307/3088434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S. 2012. Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226472157.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226473673.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitin, Teresa E., and Miller, Warren E.. 1979. “Ideological Interpretations of Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 73 (3): 751–71.10.2307/1955402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Nadeau, Richard, and Elias, Angelo. 2008. “Economics, Party, and the Vote: Causality Issues and Panel Data.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 84–95.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00300.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88 (1): 63–76.10.2307/2944882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupton, Robert N., Myers, William M., and Thornton, Judd R.. 2015. “Political Sophistication and the Dimensionality of Elite and Mass Attitudes, 1980–2004.” The Journal of Politics 77 (2): 368–80.10.1086/679493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E.. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 79 (4): 1055–70.10.2307/1953989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2015. Party Polarization Is Making Us More Prejudiced. In Political Polarization in American Politics, eds. Hopkins, Daniel J. and Sides, John. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 55–60.Google Scholar
Mummolo, Jonathan, and Nall, Clayton. 2017. “Why Partisans Don’t Sort: How Quality and Resource Constraints Prevent Political Segregation.” The Journal of Politics 79 (1): 45–59.10.1086/687569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. “Polarizing Cues.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 52–66.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noel, Hans. 2013. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Jones, Calvin C.. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73 (4): 1071–89.10.2307/1953990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 472–96.10.2307/2111381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, Thomas J., and Evans, Jillian. 2005. “Political Trust, Ideology, and Public Support for Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 660–771.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00148.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1975. “Belief Systems: Constraint, Complexity, and the 1972 Election.” American Journal of Political Science 19 (3): 393–417.10.2307/2110536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John, and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 579–616.10.2307/2111583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Barber and Pope Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/38BFML
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Barber and Pope supplementary material

Barber and Pope supplementary material 1

Download Barber and Pope supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 5.4 MB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.