Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines
It’s pretty rare for me to say, “Goodness, look at what Stanford’s Chandler Chair of Communication has to say!” And in truth, I haven’t looked closely at the methodology of this paper, and even if it’s flawless, let’s wait to see if it can be replicated. Still, the claim they’re making is interesting:
When defined in terms of social identity and affect toward co-partisans and opposing partisans, the polarization of the American electorate has dramatically increased. We document the scope and consequences of affective polarization of partisans using implicit, explicit and behavioral indicators. Our evidence demonstrates that hostile feelings for the opposing party are ingrained or automatic in voters’ minds, and that affective polarization based on party is just as strong as polarization based on race. We further show that party cues exert powerful effects on non-political judgments and behaviors. Partisans discriminate against opposing partisans, and do so to a degree that exceeds discrimination based on race. We note that the willingness of partisans to display open animus for opposing partisans can be attributed to the absence of norms governing the expression of negative sentiment and that increased partisan affect provides an incentive for elites to engage in confrontation rather than cooperation.
Among the claims they make are these: “A standard measure of social distance — parents’ displeasure over the prospects of their offspring marrying into a family with a different party affiliation — shows startling increases in the United States” since the 1980s.” Moreover, they claim, data from online dating sites suggest that “marital selection based on partisanship exceeds selection based on physical (e.g. body shape) or personality attributes.”
This is of course partly gibberish: Party affiliation can’t be disambiguated from ‘personality attributes’ unless you genuinely believe there’s no difference at all between the parties.
But what’s interesting is that they used the Implicit Association Test on a sample of 2,000 adults. There’s a lot of controversy about this test, but it’s thought to measure attitudes that people claim not to have, or know they shouldn’t have. You may remember it from the “Are you a closet racist” tests that circulate online.
This is what they found:
The spread between Democrats and Republicans on the partisan D-score was massive (t(824.66) = 17.68, p<.001), with the Republicans averaging .27 (se = .02), the Democrats -.23 (se = .02), and Independents -.02 (.02). In the case of implicit racial bias, African Americans showed a preference for African Americans (D-score = -.09, se = .02), while whites displayed a somewhat stronger in-group preference (D-score = .16, se = .01). Hispanics and Asians both revealed a slight preference for whites over blacks. Consistent with previous research, the black-white difference in implicit bias was substantial (t(740.10) = 11.04, p<.001), but the effect size for race (Cohen’s d = .61) was not nearly as strong as the corresponding effect of party (Cohen’s d = .95).
Surprised by this, they tried randomly assigning 1,021 participants to perform two tasks. The first required them to choose between a Democrat and Republican; the second required choosing between a European American and an African American. They were asked to read the resumes of a pair of graduating high school seniors and decide to whom to award a scholarship:
Depending on the task to which they were assigned, participants were exposed to candidates with either a partisan affiliation (cued through membership in a partisan extracurricular group), or a racial identity (cued through a stereotypical African American/European American name and membership in an extracurricular group)
And whaddya know:
In the partisan task approximately 80% of partisans (both Democrats and Republicans) selected their in-party candidate. Democratic leaners showed a stronger preference for the Democratic candidate than Republican leaners showed for the Republican candidate, though both groups displayed the in-party preference (80.4% and 69.2% respectively). Independents showed a slight preference for the Democratic candidate (57.9%). In-group selection on the basis of race was confined to African Americans (73.1% selecting the African American), with European Americans showing a small preference for the African American candidate (55.8% selecting the African American).
Candidate qualification had no significant effect on winner selection. Even when the candidate from the opposing party was more qualified, the participants gave the scholarship to their co-partisans:
When the Republican was more qualified than the Democrat, the probability of a Democrat selecting the Republican candidate was only .30 (95% confidence interval), when both candidates were equally qualified the probability of a Democrat selecting the Republican candidate fell to .21 (95% confidence interval), and when the Democrat was most qualified the probability of a Democrat selecting the Republican candidate was a meager .14. Similarly, when the Democrat was more qualified, the probability of a Republican selecting the Democrat was only .15 (95% confidence interval), when the two candidates were equally qualified the probability of a Republican selecting the Democrat candidate was .21 (95% confidence interval), and when the Republican was most qualified the probability of Republicans selecting the Democrat candidate was .21 (95% confidence interval). The probability of a partisan selecting an out-party candidate never rose above .3 and the coefficients for the various interaction terms between participant partisan affiliation and candidate qualifications were never significant; partisanship simply trumped academic excellence in this task.
What happened when they tried the experiment with race, rather than partisanship?
The results of the race manipulation showed generally weaker effects of outgroup bias. Most African American and European American participants selected the African American candidate. African Americans were significantly more likely than European Americans to select the African American candidate (b=.95, se=.36, p<.01). However, there was an overall tendency to select the European American as the winner when she was the more qualified candidate (b=-.93, se=.30, p<.01). There were no significant interactions between participant race and candidate qualifications.
They then tried another experiment: trust and dictator games:
In the trust game, Player 1 is given an initial endowment ($10) and instructed that she is free to give some, all, or none to Player 2 (said to be a member of a designated group). She is further informed that the researcher will triple the amount transferred to Player 2, who will have a chance to transfer an amount back to Player 1 (though Player 2 is under no obligation to return any money). The dictator game is an abbreviated version in which there is no opportunity for Player 2 to return funds to Player 1 and where the amount transferred is not tripled by the researcher. Since there is no opportunity for Player 1 to observe the strategy of Player 2, variation in the amount Player 1 allocates to different categories of Player 2 in the dictator game is attributable only to group dislike and prejudice.
And whaddya know:
In both versions of the game, players were more generous toward co-partisans, but not co-ethnics. The average amount allocated to co-partisans in the trust game was $4.58 (95% confidence interval [4.33, 4.83]) representing a “bonus” of some ten percent over the average allocation of $4.17. In the dictator game, co-partisans were awarded twenty-four percent over the average allocation.
Their conclusion may be an overstretch, but it’s still an interesting thought:
… our evidence documents a significant shift in the relationship between American voters and their parties. Fifty years ago, comparative party researchers described American parties as relatively weak, at least by the standards of European “mass membership” parties. The prototypical instance of the latter category was a party “membership in which is bound up in all aspects of the individual’s life.” By this standard, American parties have undergone a significant “role reversal.” Today, the sense of partisan identification is all encompassing and affects behavior in both political and non-political contexts.
A big problem with the study is that inherently, they seem to be assuming that the parties don’t genuinely stand for anything. Now, I would have said this was ridiculous. But let’s face it: a Democrat with vile manners has managed to soar to the top of the GOP polls. Can’t really wish that fact away.
As I said, let’s see if these studies can be replicated. If they can, though, they’d make some sense of the frustration I feel when reading the news. The other day, I wrote about this:
I’m being driven insane by the way all journalism now is partisan journalism. I have to fact-check everything I read for myself — which is hugely time-consuming — and half the time, when I look up the original document or source material to which a piece of journalism alludes, I find it said nothing of the sort.
Genferei replied, and it’s a reasonable rebuttal:
At least now you can fact-check things yourself. You can look at the source document, or read another story from a different outlet about the same events. Were the gin-swilling, chain-smoking, hard-bitten reporters of The Golden Age Of Journalism (R) really paragons of unvarnished, fact-checked truth? Or was what they said all you got, so no point worrying about what ‘reality’ really was?
This is true. But those gin-swilling, chain-smoking, hard-bitten reporters — and I was once one of them, so I know — certainly weren’t as nakedly and obviously partisan. We at least paid lip-service to the virtue of “non-partisanship.” And as I recall, there really was a belief that politics stopped at the water’s edge. To play politics with American national security was, truly, held to be un-American.
Does it seem to you that partisanship is now the deepest social cleavage in America? If so what do you think will be the consequences of losing this amount of social trust?
Published in General, Politics
I see the big turning point in terms of outward manifestation in the attempted impeachment of Clinton (an incredibly stupid move by the GOP) and the 2000 election and the left’s refusal to accept the Bush presidency as legitimate.
I agree that the bigger shift is generational. The key is that politics is now about many more things in our lives than it used to be as the adminstrative progressive state has burgeoned. When you overlay the Cultural Wars, in which the left has been the aggressor, it is impossible to escape politics today. Michelle Obama expressed it best during the 2008 campaign:
You are not going to be left alone even if you are not interested in politics.
Long-term this is poisonous to the stability of our society. Social media only exacerbates this as we become more aware of what most people really think. We have a nice neighborhood and most of us get along great but my attitude might change if I really knew the deep beliefs and thoughts of some of them. Keeping a society operating successfully requires we be able to operate at some level of superficiality. Progressive politics does not allow for this.
On a personal level, I have three women friends who are mostly liberal. What I’ve discovered in conversations with them is the reason we are actually friends otherwise:
So we still have thoughtful conversations and often agree–they’re just not on political topics.
Mark: +10. Thanks.
I would only add that, over the last 10-15 years, the number of people in media who are essentially professional dividers (left and right) has increased, along with their influence.
I didn’t say anything of the sort. There’s a very strong argument for fast-tracking Syrian Christians and Yezidis — and one based on existing criteria for refugee admission: They’ve been targeted for genocide.
To answer your question, Claire, I believe partisanship is indeed the deepest social cleavage. However, calling it “partisanship” oversimplifies the much deeper ontologic meaning of this chasm. We differ deeply in our assessment of human nature, generally along left/right Dem/Rep lines and this has profound implications for how we treat each other in society.
Whether articulated or not, every human being answers by his/her actions, the questions – “who am I?” “on what or whom can I depend?” “why am I here?” Materialist, utilitarian societies have little interest in educating individuals so as to provide the intellectual tools to answer those questions for ourselves.
Rather, the gravitation-like tendency of political power to increase itself, has led our educational system to provide propagandized answers to “students” before the questions ever even arise. “I am a_______(fill in identity group).” “I can depend on the state to fill my needs.” “My life’s meaning derives from furthering the state’s goal of________ (global warming, diversity, etc).”
Note that the choices of activities/beliefs which impart meaning to one’s life all require coercion of the rest society to fulfill them, to the extent one is part of this society. That is, these stringent requirements apply only to fellow citizens and not to non-citizens or those groups which hold themselves separate like immigrants or Muslims. These groups are exempt from any expectations – even the most basic social agreements. This, itself, is a prescription for division, if not revolution.
I was just funnin’ you.
I’d still rather build Cities of Refuge and take care of refugees in “Little Americas” elsewhere than offer them homes on our shores.
Yahbut any Republican will bring in Republican appointments at all levels of this monstrously huge federal government.
I had a very difficult time voting for McCain. I was so opposed to the campaign finance reform bill he put through. The only things that got me through the act of voting for him was that I was honoring him for his service and I knew he would bring in Republicans. But that was a hard moment for me. :)
Those appointees are rarely libertarian, to put it mildly.
If Webb would appoint Cruz as a Supreme, I’d prefer him to most of the Republican field.
Great illustration of the way I feel lately. And in a real example, a woman who was a member of Planet Fitness was shocked to see a man in her locker room calmly changing clothes. She reported him to the management, secure in the knowledge that they would eject him. Instead, they told her he is a “transgender person” and is allowed in the women’s locker room and showers. When she continued to complain, they canceled HER membership. We are in the Twilight Zone.
I think it’s a great idea. Any help I can give you with that project, I will.
Why can’t we have sensible compromises like this? I reckon much more of the country would be happy with this arrangement than would be with what we’re apt to get.
Yeah. I’d add to my comments above that the successful march through the institutions (academia, media) has made the situation worse. Look at what sell themselves as apolitical magazines like People and you realize they are saturated in progressive tropes. Go to a movie that you think has nothing to do with politics and get smacked in the face with insults to Republicans or conservatives.
I’m much more partisan than I used to be for two reasons.
First, the scale and scope of government affects me more and more. I have to be constantly alert to more intrusions so have to think more politically. Moreover, progressives now also want me to shut up if I disagree so I have to speak even more loudly.
Second, I used to be more amenable to compromise which I know now is a flawed strategy. Every legislative or regulatory compromise with progressives just becomes the floor for their next initiative so freedoms are eroded away step by step. Further, if progressives control the government they will ignore whatever legislative or regulatory compromises were made to enact so we non-liberals lose the benefit of the bargain and are just stuck with the downside (Obama’s executive actions on immigration are Exhibit 1).
No constitution, no peace!
I used to think that the solution to campaign finance was no limits on contributions but complete transparency on donors. Given that the progressives are using these laws to force people out of their jobs and intimidate their opponents from making political contributions I now think complete privacy regarding contributions is the right way to go.
I keep telling people that conservatives need to learn and love NAACP v. ALABAMA, and put an end to all of this stuff.
The breaking point for me was when they geotagged everybody who donated to prop 8, or had a concealed carry permit in NY.
Thats basically making murder maps, and low and behold shortly there after the SPLC incited an act of terrorism against the FRC.
So yeah. I don’t donate to politics either.
As to the choice of a conservative over a liberal for any situation in life, I’d avoid the liberal based on the fact that identifying as such shows poor judgment and thinking skills.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
I don’t trust Jim Webb. At all.
I don’t think that the current polarization is new, but I agree that it has increased since, say, 1980. Political polarization has ebbed and flowed during American history, as electoral coalitions have realigned.
For example, FDR’s coalition included racist, religious Southern Democrats and left-wing, socialist/fascist, atheistic Progressives. The Civil Rights Movement split this coalition. As racism receded in the South, the religious Southerns became Republicans. (Though the current left-wing belief is that racism did not recede in the South, but rather went underground, and that the Republicans appeal to that racism through code-words.)
The overall decline in religious belief is also important in the current polarization. Before the 1960s, the electorate was overwhelmingly Christian, so both parties appealed to the religious voter. Over recent decades, most religious believers have self-sorted into the Republican party, and the Democrats have appealed more explicitly to the non-religious. Though the Dems understand the political hazard of being branded the “Godless” party, and therefore continue to use some religious rhetoric.
This means that, increasingly in recent decades, there is a divergence of basic world-view between Republicans and Democrats.
[Continued]
LOL, I like it.
[Continued]
The religious divide lurking behind the current polarization is obscured by the fact that many people report being Protestant or Catholic, based more on cultural factors, but have little connection to their religion.
For example, according to the 2012 exit polls:
Protestants supported Romney 62-37. But Protestants who attend church weekly supported Romney 70-29. (This actually understates the divide, as it includes many black Protestants who overwhelmingly supported Obama.)
The results were similar for Catholics, who supported Obama 50-48. But Catholics who attend church weekly supported Romney 57-42.
FYI, about 77% of the 2012 electorate was some type of Christian (29% Protestant, 25% Catholic, 23% Other Christian), plus 2% were Mormon (which some people consider Christian, while some do not). 2% were Jewish, 1% Muslim, 7% Other (i.e. an unspecified other religion) and 12% were of no religion.
Voters in the Other and no religion categories supported Obama 73-24 and 70-26, respectively.
My analysis of the Christian vote is confused by the “Protestant” and “Other Christian” categories. The “Other Christian” voters narrowly supported Obama, 50-49. I think that the classification of the Christian electorate presents a semantic challenge.
The single most lopsided demographic group in the exit polls is racial — blacks, who were 13% of the electorate, supported Obama 93-6.
The second most lopsided demographic group is “white evangelical or born-again Christians,” 26% of the electorate, which supported Romney 78-21.
So, to answer Claire’s question: No, I don’t think that partisanship is the deepest social cleavage in America. Sadly, race remains the deepest social cleavage. Religion is number two.
In Australia the politics is also vey partisan, but I still manage to have left-wing friends. We’re all millennials, from a variety of backgrounds. Maybe there is more slack given to those on the opposing side.
It’s left-wing Gen Xers that I really can’t stand. These people have the mindset that if it’s traditional or conventional, it must be torn down. They would willingly destroy us all just to score points against conservatives. (And they’re doing just that). They seem to me the most fervent and deranged believers in multiculturalism and PC, whereas us kids might get a whiff of BS about all that (possibly because we are in fact more ethnically diverse).
The Boomers are a mixed bag. Maybe they are from a time when left and right shared more common values and were less willing to justify violence as a tool and dehumanise the other side.
The Boomers are the ones responsible for the whole mess. As soon as those Woodstock Kids started getting out of college and taking their places in the world as teachers and politicians, that’s when it all began. They’re the ones who trained those Gen-Xers. These people have always confused growing up with “selling out,” so they still run around the landscape with their long gray hair and saggy jeans, looking for ways to Stick it to the Man. Apparently they didn’t notice that somewhere along the line, they succeeded and became the Establishment they so hated.
Like Mark I also used to believe in compromise more, about 10 years ago. Now I refuse to compromise, but refusing to associate with any lefty at all on principle alone would be impossible. I’m surrounded. The fish have to swim in the sea.
If politics comes up I am polite but firm. Once they are done snarling at you they tend to realise that either they have to accept who you are or be so petty as to demand you never speak to them again. Most people are decent enough and don’t do that.
I agree. I think we’ve all seen with the Gang of 8 and other debacles what happens every time we try to meet these people halfway. They are the scorpion hitching a ride across the river on our backs.
Yep. These days it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy for me.
“Do you know what bought me all this?” he asked, waving his hand in the general direction of his prosperity. “Not my political ideas. Conservatism didn’t buy this house. First and foremost I’m a businessman. My first goal is to attract the largest possible audience so I can charge confiscatory ad rates. I happen to have great entertainment skills, but that enables me to sell airtime.”
-Rush Limbaugh, to the New York Times, 6 July 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html?_r=0
El Rushbo just saw a market, didn’t he?
He did let his aide take the fall for his federal firearms violation.
So?