Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T17:18:14.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conservatism in the Era of Trump

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 August 2019

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]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What does the rise and election of Donald J. Trump as president mean for the future of conservatism? Republican elites continue to argue about whether Trump is changing the definition of conservatism for better or worse, although many Republicans seem content to let him shape the issues, direction, and brand of the traditional party of conservatism. We examine the ideological characteristics of different groups of Republican voters across three types of ideology: symbolic, operational, and conceptual. We find distinct differences between Republicans who consistently supported Trump and other groups that either supported him in the general election only and those who never supported him. The Never Trump camp stands out as a group that is less symbolically and operationally conservative but also better able to articulate what it means to be a conservative than do Trump’s core supporters, who look very much the opposite. These results suggest a contemporary Republican Party that is far from unified in what it means to be a conservative.

Type
Special Section: Consequences
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 719 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

A list of permanent links to Supplemental Materials provided by the authors precedes the References section.

*

Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QJ4MK0

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. and Bartels, Larry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldassari, Delia. 2008. “Andrew Gelman.” American Journal of Sociology 114(2): 408–46.Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David E. 2016. “Approaches to Studying Policy Representation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 41(1): 181–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 2016. Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston and Feldman, Stanley. 1981. “The Origins and Meaning of Lib-eral/Conservative Self-Identifications.” American Journal of Political Science 25(4): 617–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cramer, Kathy. 2016. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Chirstopher and Stimson, James A.. 2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeder, Sean, Lenz, Gabriel S, and Turney, Shad. 2019. “The Importance of Knowing ‘What Goes With What’: Reinterpreting the Evidence on Policy Attitude Stability.” Journal of Politics 81(1): 274–90.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, Matt and Hopkins, David A.. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Seth J. 2015. “Institution of Nomination and the Policy Ideology of Primary Electorates.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10(4): 461–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2005. “Polarized Politics and the 2004 Congressional and Presidential Elections.” Political Science Quarterly 120(2): 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1991. “Ideological Identification and Issue Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 178–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 2000. “Issue Framing and Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 750–67.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
Knight, Kathleen. 1985. “Ideology in the 1980 Election: Ideological Sophistication Does Matter.” Journal of Politics 47(3): 828–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, Robert E. 1962. Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does. New York: Free Press.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., and Horowitz, Juliana Menasce. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitin, Teresa E. and Miller., Warren E. 1979. “Ideological Interpretations of Presidential Elec-tions.” American Political Science Review 73(3): 751–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Jacoby, William G., Norpoth, Helmut, and Weisberg, Herbert F.. 2008. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan 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
Luskin, Robert C. 1990. “Explaining Political Sophistication.” Political Behavior 12(4): 331–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018a. “Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82(1): 280–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018b. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John R.. 1976. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Noel, Hans. 2013. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Brian F, Mac Williams, Matthew, and Nteta, Tatishe. 2018. “Understanding White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism.” Political Science Quarterly 133(1): 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1975. “Belief Systems: Constraint, Complexity, and the 1972 Election.” American Journal of Political Science 19(3): 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundquist, James L. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Rev.ed. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Barber and Pope Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QJ4MK0
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Barber and Pope supplementary material

Barber and Pope supplementary material 1

Download Barber and Pope supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 360.5 KB