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.