Partisanship During a Period of Tribal Politics
Two papers on party affiliation caught my attention
recently. They help explain two contradictory and puzzling results in
contemporary politics—the increasing importance of partisanship in explaining
political behavior, especially voting, on the one hand, and the increasing
percentage of people who identify as independents, meaning no party
affiliation, on the other hand.
The first paper, by Samara Klar and Yanna Krupnikov and
entitled “Social Desirability Bias in Measures of Partisanship” explains the
problem of social desirability bias as it pertains to the measurement of party
affiliation in surveys:
In this manuscript we address this
possibility of this effect in one of the most fundamental measures in American
politics: the measure of partisanship. In particular, we argue that social
desirability pressures may lead individuals to misrepresent their partisan
affiliations, and instead report that they are independent. Further, we suggest that this tendency to
eschew partisanship is most likely to happen when individuals are reminded of
elite partisan disagreement and can be further exacerbated by question-wording
in measures of partisanship.
Or, they might not be misstating their party affiliation:
They may be fed up with the extremes among party elites in their partisanship
during this period of tribal politics. Why is it that millennials are less
attracted to political parties? Is it because young people are not likely to
have party attachments? Or is it that millennials are more likely to seek the
middle ground, comfortable with a “live and let live” political preference that
eschews extremes? That’s my take.
The second paper, by Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster
entitled “All Politics is National: The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the
Nationalization of U.S. House and Senate Elections in the 21st
Century,” discusses the effects of increased partisan behavior of strong
partisans, weak partisans, and partisan leaners, especially since 2008. They
attribute this to negative partisanship, which is explained below:
Negative partisanship develops when
the partisan identities of voters are strongly related to
other salient social and political
characteristics. When this happens,
supporters of each party
perceive supporters of the opposing
party as very different from themselves in terms of their
social characteristics and fundamental
values. As a result, voters tend to hold
very negative opinions of the opposing party’s leaders and supporters, prefer
not to associate with those who
support the opposing party and are
less likely to consider voting for candidates from the
opposing party (Pew Research Center
2014; Bafumi and Shapiro 2009; Greenberg 2004;
Jacobson 2005; Kimball, Summary and
Vorst 2015). These attitudes can be
found among all
types of party identifiers including
independents who lean toward a party.
Both papers
make important contributions to our understanding of party attachments in
contemporary national and state politics. There is no doubt in my mind that the
tribal nature of contemporary politics is producing both results: Partisanship
is less socially desirable to a large percentage of the population, and, at the
same time, political activity is increasingly viewed through the lens of
partisanship with negative views of one party by the individual becoming more
influential in the vote choice.
For many
people, it’s difficult to become involved in elections because of the conflict
among these emotions. Consequently, voter turnout decreases, as was witnessed
in the 2014 elections in Texas.
Comments
Post a Comment