Political Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 369–389 | Cite as

Who’s the Party of the People? Economic Populism and the U.S. Public’s Beliefs About Political Parties

  • Stephen P. NicholsonEmail author
  • Gary M. Segura
Original Paper


Some observers of American politics have argued that Republicans have redrawn the social class basis of the parties by displacing the Democrats as the party of the common person. While others have addressed the argument by implication, we address the phenomenon itself. That is, we examine whether the populist rhetoric used by conservatives has reshaped the American public’s perceptions about the social class basis of American political parties. To this end, we used NES data and created novel survey questions for examining the class-based images of the parties. We examine whether the public holds populist images of the Republican Party and whether the working class and evangelical Christians are especially likely to hold this belief. Contrary to this argument, most Americans view the Democrats as the party of the people. Furthermore, working class and evangelical Christians are no less likely to hold this belief.


Populism Party image Social class American elections 


  1. Ansolabehere, S. (2006). Cooperative congressional election study—common content. Palo Alto, CA: Polimetrix, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S. (2008). Guide to the 2006 cooperative congressional election survey. Palo Alto, CA: Polimetrix, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Jr. Snyder, J. M. (2006). Purple America. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bageant, J. (2008). Dear hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America’s class war. Crown: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barker, D. C. (2002). Rush to judgment: Talk radio and American political behavior. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barker, D. C. (2005). Values, frames, and persuasion in presidential nomination campaigns. Polit Behav, 27(4), 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartels, L. M. (2006). What’s the matter with what’s the matter with Kansas? Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1, 201–226.Google Scholar
  8. Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Baumer, D. C., & Gold, H. J. (1995). Party images and the American electorate. American Politics Quarterly, 23, 33–61.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, S. E. (2002). Predicting Americans’ exposure to political talk radio in 1996. 1998, 2000. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(1), 9–22.Google Scholar
  11. Bowler, S., Nicholson, S. P., & Segura, G. M. (2006). Earthquakes and aftershocks: Race, direct democracy, and partisan change. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brewer, M. (2009). Party images in the American electorate. New York: Routlege.Google Scholar
  13. Brewer, M. D., & Stonecash, J. M. (2007). Split: Class and cultural divides in American politics. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  14. Brooks, D. (2001). One nation, slightly divisible. Atlantic Monthly, 288(5), 53–65.Google Scholar
  15. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Polit Behav, 23(3), 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank, T. (2004). What’s the matter with Kansas? How conservatives won the heart of America. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  19. Frank, T. (2005). Class is dismissed. Unpublished manuscript.
  20. Geer, J. G. (1991). The electorate’s partisan evaluations: Evidence of a continuing democratic edge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(2), 218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gelman, A. (2008). Red state, blue state, rich state, poor state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gelman, A., & Cai, C. J. (2008). Should the democrats move to the left on economic policy? The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2(2), 536–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gelman, A., Shor, B., Bafumi, J., & Park, D. (2007). Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state: What’s the matter with Connecticut? Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(4), 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heit, E., & Nicholson, S. P. (2010). The opposite of republican: Polarization and political categorization. Cognitive Science, 34(8), 1503–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hernandez, N. (2008). For bush, happy trails to crawford. Washington Post, December 31, p. A3.Google Scholar
  27. Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jackman, R. W. (1986). Elections and the democratic class struggle. World Politics, 39(1), 123–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2008). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Polit Behav, 19(3), 221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nicholson, S. P., & Segura, G. M. (2006). Cooperative congressional election study—UC Merced and University of Washington module. Palo Alto, CA: Polimetrix, Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Nunberg, G. (2006). Talking right: How conservatives turned liberalism into a tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  33. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rein, L. (2005). Down on the ranch, president wages war on the underbrush. Washington Post, December 31, p. A3.Google Scholar
  35. Rivers, D. (2006). Sample matching: Representative sampling from internet panels. Polimetrix White Paper Series.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, M. A. (2007). The right talk: How conservatives transformed the great society into the economic society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Stonecash, J. M. (2000). Class and party in American politics. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  38. Stonecash, J. M. (2005). Scaring the democrats: What’s the matter with Thomas Frank’s argument? The Forum 3(3).Google Scholar
  39. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilgoren, J. (2004). Kerry on hunting photo-op to help image. The New York Times, October 22, 2004. Accessed February 21, 2011.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program in Political ScienceUniversity of California, MercedMercedUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations