Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Principled or Pragmatic? Morality Politics in Direct Democracy

  • Céline Colombo (a1)

Abstract

Political scientists often distinguish between two types of issues: moral versus non-moral issues or social-cultural versus economic issues. The implication is that these types of issues trigger different types of reasoning: while economic issues rely on pragmatic, consequentialist reasoning, social-cultural issues are said to be dependent on principles and deontological reasoning. However, it is not known whether this distinction is as clear-cut from a citizen's perspective. Scholars agree that understanding the morality of voters’ political attitudes has implications for their political behaviour, such as their willingness to compromise and openness to deliberation. However, few studies have analysed whether citizens reason in principled or pragmatic ways on different issues. This study takes an exploratory approach and analyses the determinants of principled versus pragmatic reasoning in direct democracy, in which citizens make direct policy decisions at the ballot box. Using a unique dataset based on thirty-four ballot decisions in Switzerland, it explores the justifications voters give for their ballot decisions in open-ended survey answers. It distinguishes between pragmatic (or consequentialist) arguments and principled (or value-based) arguments. The analysis shows that principled justifications are not tied to particular issues. Voters use both types of justifications almost equally frequently. Moral justifications are more likely when an issue is personally relevant, as well as when a proposition is accepted, while pragmatic justifications prevail when a proposition is rejected. Furthermore, right-wing voters more often argue in pragmatic terms. Finally, the framing of the issue during the campaign significantly affects moral versus pragmatic justifications.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. Email: colombo@ipz.uzh.ch

References

Hide All
Altemeyer, B (1996) The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Amit, E and Greene, JD (2012) You see, the ends don't justify the means: visual imagery and moral judgment. Psychological Science 23(8), 861868.
Benoit, K and Laver, M (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.
Biggers, DR (2011) When ballot issues matter: social issue ballot measures and their impact on turnout. Political Behavior 33(1), 325.
Binzer Hobolt, S and Brouard, S (2011) Contesting the European Union? Why the Dutch and the French rejected the European constitution. Political Research Quarterly 64(2), 309322.
Bornschier, S (2010) The new cultural divide and the two-dimensional political space in Western Europe. West European Politics 33(3), 419444.
Chong, D and Druckman, JN (2007) Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10, 103126.
Cohen, J (1989) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Hamlin, A and Pettit, P (eds), The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, pp. 6792.
Colombo, C (2019) Replication Data for: Principled or Pragmatic? Morality Politics in Direct Democracy. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QICYLQ, Harvard Dataverse, V1.
Dancygier, R and Walter, S (2015) Globalization, labor market risks, and class cleavages. In Beramendi, P, Häusermann, S, Kitschelt, H and Kriesi, H (eds), The Politics of Advanced Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Vreese, CH (2007) Context, elites, media and public opinion in referendums: when campaigns really matter. In de Vreese, CH (ed.), The Dynamic of Referendum Campaigns – An International Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Domke, D, Shah, DV and Wackman, DB (1998) ‘Moral referendums’: values, news media, and the process of candidate choice. Political Communication 15(3), 301321.
Druckman, JN, Peterson, E and Slothuus, R (2013) How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review 107(01), 5779.
Engeli, I, Green-Pedersen, C and Larsen, LT (2012) Morality Politics in Western Europe: Parties, Agendas and Policy Choices. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Frank, T (2004) What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives won the Heart of America. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Furnham, A (1984) The Protestant work ethic: a review of the psychological literature. European Journal of Social Psychology 14(1), 87104.
Garrett, KN and Bankert, A (2018) The moral roots of partisan division: how moral conviction heightens affective polarization. British Journal of Political Science 120. doi:10.1017/S000712341700059X
Graham, J, Haidt, J, Nosek, BA (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(5), 10291046.
Gray, K, Schein, C and Ward, AF (2014) The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Ward 143(4), 16001615.
Grummel, JA (2008) Morality politics, direct democracy, and turnout. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 8(3), 282292.
Habermas, J (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. 2 vols. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J (1993) Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haider-Markel, DP and Meier, KJ (1996) The politics of gay and lesbian rights: expanding the scope of the conflict. The Journal of Politics 58(2), 332349.
Haidt, J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4), 814.
Haidt, J (2003) The moral emotions. In Scherer, KR, Davidson, RJ, and Goldsmith, HH (eds), Handbook of Affective Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 852870.
Haidt, J (2012) The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Random House.
Hainmueller, J and Hopkins, DJ (2014) Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science 17, 225249.
Häusermann, S and Kriesi, H (2015) What do voters want? Dimensions and configurations in individual-level preferences and party choice. In Beramendi, P, Häusermann, S, Kitschelt, H and Kriesi, H (eds), The Politics of Advanced Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202231.
Helbling, M, Höglinger, D and Wueest, B (2010) How political parties frame European integration. European Journal of Political Research 49(4), 495521.
Hobolt, SB (2009) Europe in Question: Referendums on European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopkins, DJ (2017) The exaggerated life of death panels? The limited but real influence of elite rhetoric in the 2009–2010 health care debate. Political Behavior 40(3), 129.
Janoff-Bulman, R and Carnes, NC (2013) Surveying the moral landscape: moral motives and group-based moralities. Personality and Social Psychology Review 17(3), 219236.
Janoff-Bulman, R, Sheikh, S and Baldacci, KG (2008) Mapping moral motives: approach, avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44(4), 10911099.
Kitschelt, H (1994) The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kriesi, H et al. (2006) Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research 45(6), 921956.
Kriesi, H (2005) Direct Democratic Choice: The Swiss Experience. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Kriesi, H (2012) Political Communication in Direct Democratic Campaigns: Enlightening or Manipulating? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kriesi, H et al. (2012) Political Conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G (2002) Moral Politics: How Conservatives and Liberals Think. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Laver, M, ed. (2001) Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors. New York: Routledge.
Layman, G (2001) The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
LeDuc, L (2002) Referendums and elections: how do campaigns differ? Routledge ECPR Studies in European Political Science 25, 145162.
Leidner, B, Kardos, P and Castano, E (2017) The effects of moral and pragmatic arguments against torture on demands for judicial reform. Political Psychology 39(1), 143162.
Lerch, M and Schwellnus, G (2006) Normative by nature? The role of coherence in justifying the EU's external human rights policy. Journal of European Public Policy 13(2), 304321.
Lodge, M and Taber, CS (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Medrano, JD (2003) Framing Europe: Attitudes to European Integration in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Milic, T (2009) Von der Parteilichkeit der Argumente. Jahreskongress der Schweizerischen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft, St. Gallen, 8–9 January 2009.
Mooney, CZ (2001) The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Mooney, CZ and Schuldt, RG (2008) Does morality policy exist? Testing a basic assumption. Policy Studies Journal 36(2), 199218.
Nelson, TE and Oxley, ZM (1999) Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. The Journal of Politics 61(4), 10401067.
Ryan, TJ (2014) Reconsidering moral issues in politics. The Journal of Politics 76(2), 380397.
Ryan, TJ (2017) No compromise: Political consequences of moralized attitudes. American Journal of Political Science 61(2), 409423.
Schein, C, Gray, K (2015) The unifying moral dyad: liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41(8), 11471163.
Scheufele, DA (2000) Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society 3, 297316.
Sciarini, P, Nai, A and Tresch, A (2014) Analyse de la votation fédérale du 9 février 2014. VOX 114, iviii.
Shah, DV, Domke, D and Wackman, DB (1996) ‘To thine own self be true’: values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research 23(5), 509560.
Sheikh, S and Janoff-Bulman, R (2010) The ‘shoulds’ and ‘should nots’ of moral emotions: a self-regulatory perspective on shame and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(2), 213224.
Sjursen, H (2002) Why expand? the question of legitimacy and justification in the EU's enlargement policy. Journal of Common Market Studies 40(3), 491513.
Skitka, LJ (2010) The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4(4), 267281.
Skitka, LJ and Bauman, CW (2008) Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychology 29(1), 2954.
Skitka, LJ, Morgan, GS and Wisneski, DC (2015) Political orientation and moral conviction: a conservative advantage or an equal opportunity motivator of political engagement? In Forgas, J, Crano, W and Fiedler, K (eds), social Psychology and Politics. New York: Psychology Press.
Tavits, M (2007) Principle vs. Pragmatism: policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science 51(1), 151165.
Thompson, DF (2008) Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science 11, 497520.
Van der Brug, W (1999) Voters’ perceptions and party dynamics. Party Politics 5(2), 147169.
Westen, D (2008) The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. New York: Public Affairs.

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Colombo Dataset
Dataset

 Unknown
WORD
Supplementary materials

Colombo supplementary material
Online Appendix

 Word (54 KB)
54 KB

Principled or Pragmatic? Morality Politics in Direct Democracy

  • Céline Colombo (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed