Jonathan D. Weiler

Putting Polarization in Perspective

Scholarly research has demonstrated rather conclusively that American political elites have undergone a marked partisan polarization over the past thirty years. There is less agreement, however, as to whether the American electorate is polarized. This review article evaluates the evidence, causes and consequences of polarization on both the elite and mass levels. A marked difference between the two is found. Elites are polarized by almost any definition, although this state of affairs is quite common historically. In contrast, mass attitudes are now better sorted by party, but generally not polarized. While it is unclear whether this potentially troubling disconnect between centrist mass attitudes and extreme elite preferences has negative policy consequences, it appears that the super-majoritarian nature of the US Senate serves as a bulwark against policy outcomes that are more ideologically extreme than the public would prefer. Moreover, a public more centrist than those who represent it has also at times exerted a moderating influence on recent policies.

Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics: Threat and Authoritarianism: Polarization or Convergence

As the literature has evolved from treating authoritarianism as a static personality characteristic a la Adorno et al. (1950) to seeing it as a disposition that manifests itself in situation-specific circumstances (e.g., Feldman 2003; Stenner 2005), threat has come to play a starring role in understanding its effect. Scholars today tend to believe that the level of authoritarianism in a population generally stays the same over time (but see, e.g., Altemeyer 1996, who measures authoritarianism differently). Its effect , however, changes depending upon measurable circumstances. Specifically, most scholars argue that an authoritarian disposition lies dormant in the absence of threat, meaning that under this condition the preferences of the more and less authoritarian will not differ by much. Threat activates an authoritarian disposition, which, in turn, causes it to have measurable effects on opinions, behaviors, and preferences (see, e.g., Feldman and Stenner 1997; Stenner 2005, for the most complete treatment). Although we wholeheartedly embrace the notion of situationism – that authoritarianisms effect will wax and wane depending on how threatened people feel – we will demonstrate that scholars have misunderstood the relationship between threat and authoritarianism. Worse, this flawed thinking encourages a fundamental misreading of the recent dynamics of American politics. In correcting this misunderstanding, we can better explain why support for gay rights, limitations on civil liberties, the use of force, and even approval of the president have tended to move in the directions they have over the last decade.

Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics: Spanking or Time Out: A Clash of Worldviews?

In September 2004, National Public Radio’s late afternoon news show, All Things Considered, visited West Virginia to interview potential voters. The state had gone to George W. Bush in 2000, marking a departure from its typical voting pattern. Between 1932 and 1996, Republicans won West Virginia only three times (1956, 1972, and 1984), and each victory was part of an overwhelming Republican landslide. Even in 1980, when Democrat Jimmy Carter carried a mere six states, one of them was West Virginia. Democrats have dominated the state’s congressional delegation for decades. In 2000, both U.S. Senators, Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller were Democrats, and two of the state’s three congressional districts were represented by longtime Democratic incumbents. Bush’s victory, moreover, was substantively important. Had West Virginia voted Democratic as was typical, Al Gore would have been elected president with 271 electoral votes. One of reporter Brian Naylor’s interviews on NPR was with a truck driver named Mark Methany. With the September 11 terrorist attacks only three years in the past, the candidates’ relative ability to deal with foreign threats and terrorism was, not surprisingly, on Methany’s mind. The way he talked about the issue, however, was a bit surprising. In sizing up the contest between Bush and Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Methany said, “I really think that [George Bush] is the man for the job to face down our enemy. He won’t just give [Osama bin Laden] a time out. He’ll smack him in the mouth.”1 Bush as tough and Kerry as wimp were familiar campaign personas in 2004. Such personas fit into larger themes of the parties and their respective “manliness.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, host of the popular political talk show, Hardball, has dubbed the Democratic Party the “Mommy Party” and the Republican Party the “Daddy Party.” Arnold Schwarzenegger, the

Authoritarianism's Structuring of Contemporary Issues

For authoritarianism to become relevant to helping us understand political conflict, peoples preferences on a wide range of salient issues must be, in some significant part, structured by it. This was not the case for the last seventy years of the twentieth century. New Deal–style conflicts mostly dominated American politics, although, as we detailed in the last chapter, the groundwork for the development of an authoritarian cleavage was being laid during this time. But the fundamental disagreements between Republicans and Democrats concerned the size of government, the amount of taxes, and governments role in assuring a minimum standard of living. As overtly racist appeals fell out of favor, even racial issues were discussed using a New Deal frame (see, e.g., Hurwitz and Peffley 1997; Peffley, Hurwitz, and Sniderman 1997; Gilens 1999; Peffley and Hurwitz 2002). Since these issues have comprised the dominant party cleavage since the 1930s, we would not have expected authoritarianism to be central in understanding New Deal–style political conflict. Especially since the dawning of the twenty-first century, the issue agenda has changed a great deal, with authoritarianism stitching together some existing patches with new ones to create the political tapestry we have described. We focus here on several issues, which on the surface do not seem to be interrelated. They include gay rights, the role of Christian fundamentalism in American politics, the use of force, and trade-offs between security and liberties.