Is a Polarized Party System a Too Extreme Party System? Understanding Perceptions of Party Extremity in the United States

IF 1.5 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Research Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-09-27 DOI:10.1177/10659129221129215
J. Robison
{"title":"Is a Polarized Party System a Too Extreme Party System? Understanding Perceptions of Party Extremity in the United States","authors":"J. Robison","doi":"10.1177/10659129221129215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Democratic and Republican parties have polarized since the 1960s. Does the American public believe that the parties have grown “too extreme?” I leverage data from 18 national surveys to explain perceptions of party extremity as well as text-analysis of open-ended survey responses from an additional national survey to examine what the public associates with the concept of extremity. Three key results emerged. First, a growing proportion of Americans believe that both parties are too extreme, but this belief remains in the decided minority. Second, ideology and partisanship interact to shape beliefs about extremity. Moderates are more likely to believe that both parties are too extreme, but this is conditional on the presence of partisan motivations to say that only one party is too extreme. Finally, the public has a multifaceted conceptualization of extremity that is frequently tied to perceived procedural failures with only the highly knowledgeable reliably connecting perceived extremity to programmatic considerations. These results suggest that elite partisans have little reason to moderate their views given that most Americans do not perceive them to be too extreme, partisan considerations gain them ideological leeway, and many fail to connect extremity with the parties’ ideological reputations.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":"76 1","pages":"1180 - 1195"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221129215","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Democratic and Republican parties have polarized since the 1960s. Does the American public believe that the parties have grown “too extreme?” I leverage data from 18 national surveys to explain perceptions of party extremity as well as text-analysis of open-ended survey responses from an additional national survey to examine what the public associates with the concept of extremity. Three key results emerged. First, a growing proportion of Americans believe that both parties are too extreme, but this belief remains in the decided minority. Second, ideology and partisanship interact to shape beliefs about extremity. Moderates are more likely to believe that both parties are too extreme, but this is conditional on the presence of partisan motivations to say that only one party is too extreme. Finally, the public has a multifaceted conceptualization of extremity that is frequently tied to perceived procedural failures with only the highly knowledgeable reliably connecting perceived extremity to programmatic considerations. These results suggest that elite partisans have little reason to moderate their views given that most Americans do not perceive them to be too extreme, partisan considerations gain them ideological leeway, and many fail to connect extremity with the parties’ ideological reputations.
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
两极分化的政党制度是过于极端的政党制度吗?理解对美国政党极端主义的认知
自20世纪60年代以来,民主党和共和党就出现了两极分化。美国公众是否认为两党已经变得“过于极端”?我利用来自18个国家调查的数据来解释对党派极端的看法,并对来自另一个国家调查的开放式调查回应进行文本分析,以检查公众与极端概念的联系。出现了三个关键结果。首先,越来越多的美国人认为两党都过于极端,但持这种观点的人仍然是少数。其次,意识形态和党派关系相互作用,形成了对极端的信念。温和派更有可能认为两党都太极端,但这是有条件的,因为存在党派动机,所以不能说只有一个党太极端。最后,公众对极限有一个多方面的概念,它经常与感知到的程序失败联系在一起,只有高度了解的人才能可靠地将感知到的极限与程序性考虑联系起来。这些结果表明,鉴于大多数美国人并不认为精英党派人士过于极端,他们几乎没有理由缓和自己的观点,党派考虑为他们赢得了意识形态上的余地,许多人无法将极端与政党的意识形态声誉联系起来。
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 Research Quarterly
Political Research Quarterly POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: Political Research Quarterly (PRQ) is the official journal of the Western Political Science Association. PRQ seeks to publish scholarly research of exceptionally high merit that makes notable contributions in any subfield of political science. The editors especially encourage submissions that employ a mixture of theoretical approaches or multiple methodologies to address major political problems or puzzles at a local, national, or global level. Collections of articles on a common theme or debate, to be published as short symposia, are welcome as well as individual submissions.
期刊最新文献
Disinformation and Regime Survival. A Deepening/Widening Tradeoff? Evidence from the GATT and WTO Ethnicity and Response to Internal Environmental Migrants in the United States Countering “Fake News” Through Public Education and Advertisements: An Experimental Analysis Deceptively Stable? How the Stability of Aggregate Abortion Attitudes Conceals Partisan Induced Shifts
×
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