The Meaning of Party ID in Contemporary Texas Politics

 One of the most important concepts in political science is party identification. As it was originally conceived, party identification (PID) was considered a psychological attachment to a political party. It was formed early and not likely to change. The parties were thought to represent different positions on public policy issues of the day. In a sense, it was a logical attachment to a set of ideas, or an ideology. However, both major parties in the United States were not sorted ideologically, since both parties contained liberals, moderates, and conservatives.

Currently, the conception of political parties is more a social identity rather than a shorthand for positions on public policies. The acquisition of party identification is also viewed differently. Party identification is not inherited from one's family; it is acquired through a series of social identities held by an individual. The figure demonstrates the process and its possible results:

As people have sorted based on social and ideological identities, partisan identification has become a social identity*, based on group affiliation rather than public policy issue positions. Partisanship as a social identity is affected by all of the psychological effects that are associated with group identity. An individual is more likely to take a hostile attitude toward members of the out-group and be biased towards members of the in-group. Members of the other political party are not just to be defeated in civil competition; they are to be eliminated because they are evil. Party competition is not a battle over ideas or public policy positions; it's a war to eliminate the competition. Winning is the goal. Politics is tribal: the in-group versus the out-group, a zero- sum game where a win by the out-group is a loss by the in-group. The opposition isn't legitimate, and its members are not human.

There are important implications of conceptualizing party identification as a social identity. Most importantly, the seven-category scale of party identification becomes unnecessary. If partisanship is a social identity, then there is no need to expand the three-category scale of party identification. Partisan leaning independents become unnecessary and even harmful in assessing party identification and political behavior. A person who considers themselves an independent will not have a partisan leaning. They may vote for a political party's candidate, but they cannot be considered a partisan. Emotionally, they have nothing in common with partisans. 



*There are many political scientists and journalists who see party identification as a social identity: Steven Greene, Donald Green, Larry Bartels, Bill Bishop, Shanto Iyengar, and Morris Fiorina. However, the conception is most fully developed by Lilliana Mason in Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party appa...
Read more

Choices for the Final Four (ICRC Commissions, that is)

Image
With four commission positions remaining to be filled, whom should the commissioners select? The commissioners should choose an African American male from TCCC precinct 1. Since the greatest concentrations of African Americans are located in TCCC precinct 1 (see this map ), choosing an African American from this geographic area would provide the greatest voice to the area with the highest concentration of African Americans in the city and the area that would most likely be included in a council district that would possess a plurality of African Americans. The choice should Nathaniel Bradford because of his connections to the community. An Anglo male and an Anglo female should be chosen from TCCC precinct 2. One, if not both, should be chosen from those voter precincts slightly east and west of MOPAC that featured high voter turnout in the 2012 mayoral election (see this map ). The male and female from those voting precincts who the ARP considered the most qualified are He...
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a...
Read more