The Partisan Contours of Attitudes About Rights and Liberties.

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Behavior Pub Date : 2023-01-28 DOI:10.1007/s11109-023-09860-3
Miles T Armaly, Adam M Enders
{"title":"The Partisan Contours of Attitudes About Rights and Liberties.","authors":"Miles T Armaly, Adam M Enders","doi":"10.1007/s11109-023-09860-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Americans of all political stripes abstractly support most of the rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, such as free expression. Yet, we argue that attitudes regarding the basic mechanics of civil liberties-e.g., from whom they are protections-are divided across partisan lines. Because of elite rhetoric, we hypothesize that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to perceive rights violations, often by non-government entities (generally incapable of violations), and that they will perceive rights as under threat with greater frequency. Using a survey containing unique questions about rights, we first demonstrate that a large majority of the mass public has fixed preference structures regarding rights, suggesting that attitudes about liberties are not merely error-ridden, top-of-the-head assessments. These preference structures differ for Democrats and Republicans. Next, we find support for our theory that attitudes regarding rights, from whom they are protective, and their level of protectiveness are asymmetric across partisanship. Beyond implications for citizens' democratic capacities, our results also highlight potential concerns about the influence of partisan bias in demands on leaders regarding rights protection.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-023-09860-3.</p>","PeriodicalId":48166,"journal":{"name":"Political Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9883813/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-023-09860-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Americans of all political stripes abstractly support most of the rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, such as free expression. Yet, we argue that attitudes regarding the basic mechanics of civil liberties-e.g., from whom they are protections-are divided across partisan lines. Because of elite rhetoric, we hypothesize that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to perceive rights violations, often by non-government entities (generally incapable of violations), and that they will perceive rights as under threat with greater frequency. Using a survey containing unique questions about rights, we first demonstrate that a large majority of the mass public has fixed preference structures regarding rights, suggesting that attitudes about liberties are not merely error-ridden, top-of-the-head assessments. These preference structures differ for Democrats and Republicans. Next, we find support for our theory that attitudes regarding rights, from whom they are protective, and their level of protectiveness are asymmetric across partisanship. Beyond implications for citizens' democratic capacities, our results also highlight potential concerns about the influence of partisan bias in demands on leaders regarding rights protection.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-023-09860-3.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
权利与自由态度的党派轮廓》。
所有政治派别的美国人都抽象地支持美国宪法所保障的大多数权利和自由,例如言论自由。然而,我们认为,对于公民自由的基本机制--例如,公民自由受到谁的保护--的态度在党派之间存在分歧。由于精英言论的影响,我们假设共和党人比民主党人更有可能认为权利受到侵犯,而且往往是非政府实体(通常不可能侵犯权利),他们认为权利受到威胁的频率也更高。通过一项包含有关权利的独特问题的调查,我们首先证明了绝大多数公众对权利有固定的偏好结构,这表明对自由的态度并不仅仅是错误百出、头脑发热的评估。民主党人和共和党人的偏好结构有所不同。接下来,我们发现我们的理论得到了支持,即不同党派对权利的态度、权利保护对象及其保护程度是不对称的。除了对公民民主能力的影响之外,我们的结果还凸显了党派偏见对领导人权利保护要求影响的潜在担忧:在线版本包含补充材料,可查阅 10.1007/s11109-023-09860-3。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Behavior
Political Behavior POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Political Behavior publishes original research in the general fields of political behavior, institutions, processes, and policies. Approaches include economic (preference structuring, bargaining), psychological (attitude formation and change, motivations, perceptions), sociological (roles, group, class), or political (decision making, coalitions, influence). Articles focus on the political behavior (conventional or unconventional) of the individual person or small group (microanalysis), or of large organizations that participate in the political process such as parties, interest groups, political action committees, governmental agencies, and mass media (macroanalysis). As an interdisciplinary journal, Political Behavior integrates various approaches across different levels of theoretical abstraction and empirical domain (contextual analysis). Officially cited as: Polit Behav
期刊最新文献
Perceptions of Electability: Candidate (and Voter) Ideology, Race, and Gender Risk Preferences in the Delegation Process Support for Gun Reform in the United States: The Interactive Relationship Between Partisanship and Trust in the Federal Government Millionaire Justices and Attitudes Towards the Supreme Court Racial and Partisan Social Information Prompts Campaign Giving: Evidence from a Field Experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1