根植于种族主义?华盛顿特区的种族、党派、地位威胁与公众舆论

IF 1.5 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Research Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-01-23 DOI:10.1177/10659129231151413
Tatishe M. Nteta, Jesse H. Rhodes, Gregory Wall, K. Dixon-Gordon, Raymond J. La Raja, Brian Lickel, Andrea Mah, Matthew Macwilliams, E. Markowitz, Allecia E. Reid, Alexander G. Theodoridis
{"title":"根植于种族主义?华盛顿特区的种族、党派、地位威胁与公众舆论","authors":"Tatishe M. Nteta, Jesse H. Rhodes, Gregory Wall, K. Dixon-Gordon, Raymond J. La Raja, Brian Lickel, Andrea Mah, Matthew Macwilliams, E. Markowitz, Allecia E. Reid, Alexander G. Theodoridis","doi":"10.1177/10659129231151413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, a number of prominent elected officials on both sides of the partisan divide have weighed in on the possibility of making Washington, D.C., the nation’s fifty-first state. While Democratic supporters of statehood for D.C. emphasize issues of equal representation, some Republican opponents have stressed the partisan and ideological consequences of D.C. statehood. Other Republican opponents, in justifying their position, have made the claim that Washington, D.C., lacks the necessary and sufficient characteristics associated with statehood, and these claims have been widely interpreted as implicitly racist appeals. In this paper, using three nationally representative surveys, we explore whether mass opinion on this issue is primarily shaped by partisanship, ideology, racial status threat, or racial prejudice. We find clear and consistent evidence that while partisan and ideological attachments, as well as perceptions of racial status threat, influence opinion on statehood for Washington, D.C., the strongest determinant of opposition to statehood are negative racial attitudes. We take these results as further evidence of the debate over D.C. statehood, like debates over public policies that are purported to benefit African Americans, is intimately intertwined with negative racial views expressed by the mass public.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":"76 1","pages":"1486 - 1501"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rooted in Racism? Race, Partisanship, Status Threat, and Public Opinion Toward Statehood for Washington, D.C.\",\"authors\":\"Tatishe M. Nteta, Jesse H. Rhodes, Gregory Wall, K. Dixon-Gordon, Raymond J. La Raja, Brian Lickel, Andrea Mah, Matthew Macwilliams, E. Markowitz, Allecia E. Reid, Alexander G. Theodoridis\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10659129231151413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, a number of prominent elected officials on both sides of the partisan divide have weighed in on the possibility of making Washington, D.C., the nation’s fifty-first state. While Democratic supporters of statehood for D.C. emphasize issues of equal representation, some Republican opponents have stressed the partisan and ideological consequences of D.C. statehood. Other Republican opponents, in justifying their position, have made the claim that Washington, D.C., lacks the necessary and sufficient characteristics associated with statehood, and these claims have been widely interpreted as implicitly racist appeals. In this paper, using three nationally representative surveys, we explore whether mass opinion on this issue is primarily shaped by partisanship, ideology, racial status threat, or racial prejudice. We find clear and consistent evidence that while partisan and ideological attachments, as well as perceptions of racial status threat, influence opinion on statehood for Washington, D.C., the strongest determinant of opposition to statehood are negative racial attitudes. We take these results as further evidence of the debate over D.C. statehood, like debates over public policies that are purported to benefit African Americans, is intimately intertwined with negative racial views expressed by the mass public.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51366,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Research Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"76 1\",\"pages\":\"1486 - 1501\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Research Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129231151413\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129231151413","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: 1

摘要

近年来,党派分歧双方的一些杰出民选官员都在权衡使华盛顿特区成为美国第51个州的可能性。支持华盛顿成为州的民主党人强调平等代表权的问题,而一些共和党反对者则强调华盛顿成为州的党派和意识形态后果。其他共和党反对者在为自己的立场辩护时,声称华盛顿特区缺乏与州地位相关的必要和充分的特征,而这些说法被广泛解读为含蓄的种族主义诉求。在本文中,我们使用三个具有全国代表性的调查,探讨大众对这个问题的意见是否主要由党派关系、意识形态、种族地位威胁或种族偏见所塑造。我们发现明确而一致的证据表明,虽然党派和意识形态的依恋,以及对种族地位威胁的看法,影响了华盛顿特区对州地位的看法,但反对州地位的最强烈决定因素是消极的种族态度。我们认为这些结果进一步证明了关于华盛顿州地位的辩论,就像关于公共政策的辩论一样,据称有利于非裔美国人,与公众表达的负面种族观点密切相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Rooted in Racism? Race, Partisanship, Status Threat, and Public Opinion Toward Statehood for Washington, D.C.
In recent years, a number of prominent elected officials on both sides of the partisan divide have weighed in on the possibility of making Washington, D.C., the nation’s fifty-first state. While Democratic supporters of statehood for D.C. emphasize issues of equal representation, some Republican opponents have stressed the partisan and ideological consequences of D.C. statehood. Other Republican opponents, in justifying their position, have made the claim that Washington, D.C., lacks the necessary and sufficient characteristics associated with statehood, and these claims have been widely interpreted as implicitly racist appeals. In this paper, using three nationally representative surveys, we explore whether mass opinion on this issue is primarily shaped by partisanship, ideology, racial status threat, or racial prejudice. We find clear and consistent evidence that while partisan and ideological attachments, as well as perceptions of racial status threat, influence opinion on statehood for Washington, D.C., the strongest determinant of opposition to statehood are negative racial attitudes. We take these results as further evidence of the debate over D.C. statehood, like debates over public policies that are purported to benefit African Americans, is intimately intertwined with negative racial views expressed by the mass public.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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