Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-44467 Total loading time: 0.197 Render date: 2021-06-20T13:36:28.142Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Contemporary Views of Liberal Democracy and the 2016 Presidential Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2020

William D. Hicks
Affiliation:
Appalachian State University
Seth C. McKee
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
Daniel A. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Corresponding

Abstract

What are Americans’ views on liberal democracy? Have their attitudes changed since the 1950s? How do their attitudes about liberal democracy shape political behavior, such as vote choice? We replicated McClosky’s (1964) seminal study on a module to the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Our exploration of 26 survey questions reveals both continuity and change in Americans’ attitudes toward liberal democracy. Whereas Americans have become more hostile toward some standard democratic procedural rules of the game, we also find that they harbor more tolerant attitudes toward racial and ethnic equality. We subjected respondents’ answers to an exploratory factor analysis, which reveals three distinct dimensions regarding democratic values: elitism, authoritarianism, and racial supremacy. We find that elitism and racial supremacy significantly influenced political behavior in the 2016 presidential election and note that these factors contributed to mass unrest in 2020, exposing fault lines deeply rooted in America’s contentious political history.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2011. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L.. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?Journal of Politics 70 (2): 542–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Webster, Steven W.. 2016. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies 41:1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Webster, Steven W.. 2018. “Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties but Behave Like Rabid Partisans.” Advances in Political Psychology 39:119–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, Antoine J. 2014. Anger and Racial Politics: The Emotional Foundation of Racial Attitudes in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E., 206–61. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Fleisher, Richard, and Bond, John R.. 2004. “The Shrinking Middle in the US Congress.” British Journal of Political Science 34 (3): 429–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. 2008. “Intolerance and Political Repression in the United States: A Half Century after McCarthyism.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 96108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hafner, Josh. 2016. “Donald Trump Loves the ‘Poorly Educated’—and They Love Him.” USA Today, February 24. Available at www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/24/donald-trump-nevada-poorly-educated/80860078.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 619–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, William D., McKee, Seth C., and Smith, Daniel A.. 2020. Replication data for “Contemporary Views of Liberal Democracy and the 2016 Presidential Election.” Available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TL3BLS, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:6Uhz9eX4QaOHXnXRw+aZYw==[fileUNF].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewitt, Caitlin E., and Goren, Paul. 2016. “Ideological Structure and Consistency in the Age of Polarization.” American Politics Research 44 (1): 81105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kalmoe, Nathan P.. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon. 1991. “Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5 (3): 213–36.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupton, Robert N., Myers, William M., and Thornton, Judd R.. 2015. “Political Sophistication and the Dimensionality of Elite and Mass Attitudes, 1980–2004.” Journal of Politics 77 (2): 368–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018. “Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82 (S1): 866–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClosky, Herbert. 1964. “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics.” American Political Science Review 58 (2): 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phoenix, Davin L. 2019. The Anger Gap: How Race Shapes Emotion in Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, Katie. 2016. “Read Hillary Clinton’s ‘Basket of Deplorables’ Remarks About Donald Trump Supporters.” TIME, September 10. Available at https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript. Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean M. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas A., Neuner, Fabian G., and Vandenbroek, L. Matthew. 2018. “The Changing Norms of Racial Political Rhetoric and the End of Racial Priming.” Journal of Politics 80 (3): 757–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, Steven W., and Abramowitz, Alan I.. 2017. “The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the U.S. Electorate.” American Politics Research 45 (4): 621–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Hicks et al. supplementary material

Hicks et al. supplementary material
Download Hicks et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 149 KB
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Contemporary Views of Liberal Democracy and the 2016 Presidential Election
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Contemporary Views of Liberal Democracy and the 2016 Presidential Election
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Contemporary Views of Liberal Democracy and the 2016 Presidential Election
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *