Mason

Abstract

• The alignment between partisan and other social identities has generated unprecedented rifts between Democrats and Republicans in American history.

• Traditional cross-cutting identities that stabilized the American two-party system are diminishing, leading to heightened prejudice and intolerance.

• The article examines social divisions in the 2016 electorate, focusing on the resistance to compromise and disdain for social outgroups among partisans.

• As Republicans and Democrats grow more socially distinct, they prioritize victory over national interests, particularly visible among the more homogeneous Republican Party.

• Some potential solutions to this issue are briefly discussed.

Introduction

• Quotation from Ignatieff (2013): "An adversary is someone you want to defeat. An enemy is someone you have to destroy."

• Historical stability in American democracy is attributed to cross-cutting cleavages that connected the parties and mitigated partisanship (Dahl 1972).

• Democrats and Republicans, despite voting differently, could maintain civility through shared social spaces (e.g., church, grocery store).

• Social isolation from opposing partisans leads to increased intolerance and potential dehumanization of opponents.

• Mason's book, Uncivil Agreement: How Partisanship Became Our Identity, explores the psychological mechanisms driving social polarization and rising partisan prejudice.

• The social divide is asymmetrical; Republicans and Democrats have vastly different social compositions (Mason and Wronski 2018).

Party Compositions

• Republican Party Composition:

  • Primarily White, Christian, self-identified conservatives.

• Democratic Party Composition:

  • Generally more diverse: non-White, non-Christian, self-identified liberals.

• The polarization is not merely demographic; it has cultivated a perception of partisan opponents as enemies rather than adversaries.

• The Republican Party's social homogeneity exacerbates intolerance towards outgroup members.

Cultural Divide

• Political polarization encompasses cultural distinctions, influenced by racial, religious, and ideological identities.

• In 2014, Time magazine studied the shopping habits associated with California congressional districts, correlating retail preferences with political affiliation (Wilson, Johnson, and Rebala 2014):

  • Democratic Districts: Whole Foods, Dunkin Donuts, Trader Joe’s.

  • Republican Districts: Arby’s, Cracker Barrel, Kroger.

• Stanford research using machine learning has shown that a higher presence of sedans indicates an 88% likelihood of voting Democrat, while more trucks correlate with an 82% likelihood of voting Republican (Gebru et al. 2017).

• Partisans increasingly struggle to understand and trust each other, illustrated by differing cultural preferences, even in entertainment.

• American partisans' social isolation jeopardizes opportunities for political cooperation and mutual recognition.

Historical Context of Political Divisions

• Social divisions along partisan lines are more acute in recent years compared to the past.

• After the Civil Rights Act of 1964, racially conservative Southern Democrats transitioned to the Republican Party over a generation.

• Christian conservatives have historically aligned with the Republican Party, solidifying its identity as predominantly White and conservative, whereas the Democratic Party encompasses a more diverse voter base.

• The 2016 election highlighted these social and cultural cleavages between partisans.

• Using data from the American National Election Studies (ANES), Figure 1 illustrates significant social differences between parties, with findings at p < 0.05:

  • Republican demographics lean towards a higher proportion of males, religious involvement, and higher incomes than Democrats.

  • Democrats in 2016 were more likely to be educated, Black, and Hispanic compared to Republicans.

Social Repercussions of the Partisan Divide

• Partisan differences are meaningful and substantial, affecting how members perceive one another:

  • Gender Gap: 10 percentage points (Republicans: 52% male; Democrats: 42% male).

  • Religious Attendance: Republicans attend religious services on average once or twice a month; Democrats attend a few times a year.

  • Racial Composition: Republicans identified as 85% White, 2% Black, and 7% Hispanic. Democrats identified as 56% White, 19% Black, and 16% Hispanic.

• Affective polarization revealed an intergroup loathing based on partisan identity, as quantified with feeling thermometers to measure warmth toward opposing parties:

  • Average warmth felt by Republicans towards Democrats: 27 degrees.

  • Average warmth felt by Democrats towards Republicans: 28 degrees.

• Despite general left-leaning tendencies, significant partisan differences in issue preferences exist, even across ideological divides, as indicated by scoring systems used for issue constraint.

Social Identity Theory and Group Dynamics

• Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979):

  • Explains preference for ingroup members over outgroup members; individuals showing bias towards their own parties may dehumanize opponents.

  • This preference stems from an inherent psychological inclination to maintain status and a preference for “us” versus “them” dynamics. - As partisans perceive conflict, they express hostility towards opponents, perpetuating prejudice.

• The alignment of social identities increases intolerance towards outsiders, involving psychological dynamics influenced by perceived competition.

• Findings by Roccas and Brewer (2002) and others demonstrate that well-sorted identities increase intergroup prejudice and intolerance.

• Changes in party social compositions lead to diverging perceptions of outsider communities, with Republicans showing greater intolerance.

Resistance to Compromise and Partisan Intolerance

• Measurement of compromise perceptions indicates a significant partisan split: Republicans perceive compromise as an affront to principles, while Democrats view it as essential.

  • Figure 4 demonstrates partisan attitudes regarding the nature of political compromise, with Republicans leaning towards viewing it as a sellout of principles.

• The unwillingness to compromise has been noted in studies, indicating resistance to bipartisan outputs despite expressed support for them.

• Factors contributing to resistance include differences in social homogeneity, as Republicans perceive more social distance from political opponents.

• Affective polarization reflects a general deficit in tolerance towards various social groups.

Feelings Toward Social Groups

• Average feelings toward various non-political social groups reveal Republicans exhibit lower warmth scores (below 50 degrees) on several groups than Democrats.

  • Of the fourteen groups analyzed, Republicans rate six groups negatively, while Democrats rate three negatively.

• Average warmth scores illustrate the systematic distinctions in feelings towards outgroup members, influenced by party social identities (Figure 5).

• Notable findings indicate Republicans demonstrate more negativity toward marginalized groups, suggesting differential acceptance in society.

Conclusion

• Recommendations for addressing polarization include fostering interactions beyond partisan identities, as maintaining divisive identities hinders cooperation.

• Demographic changes are anticipated to alter party composition, which could lessen polarization in the future.

• Although intermarriage patterns suggest potential for reducing perceived racial differences, there exists a risk that they could reinforce existing identities.

• National identity could serve as a mechanism to transcend partisan loyalties if emphasized over party identity, as suggested by Levendusky (2017).

• Without significant shifts in social makeups or unifying events, chronic affective polarization is unlikely to diminish.

Appendix (ANES 2016 Items)

1. Immigration policy preferences (increase, decrease or maintain current immigration levels).

2. Health care reform preferences (favor or oppose the Affordable Care Act).

3. Abortion opinions (varying degrees of legal permissibility).

4. Legal recognition of LGBTQ+ relationships (civil unions versus marriage).

5. Gun control preferences (increase or decrease regulations).

6. Federal budget deficit importance (varying levels of importance).

References

• The reference list follows the transcript, documenting all cited works throughout the study.