Advertisement

Does Intolerance Dampen Dissent? Macro-Tolerance and Protest in American Metropolitan Areas

  • Christopher Claassen
  • James L. Gibson
Original Paper

Abstract

Political tolerance has long been regarded as one of the most important democratic values because intolerant political cultures are believed to foster conformity and inhibit dissent. Although widely endorsed, this theory has rarely been investigated. Using multilevel regression with poststratification to measure levels of macro-tolerance in U.S. metropolitan areas, and event data to measure rates of protest, we test whether cultures of intolerance do indeed inhibit public expressions of dissent. We find that they do: levels of macro-tolerance are positively and strongly associated with higher rates of protest in American metropolitan areas. Our findings have implications for the study of political tolerance, for normative theories of free speech and other civil liberties, and for scholarship on protest and collective action.

Keywords

Political tolerance Dissent Protest Political culture Multilevel regression with poststratification 

Notes

Funding

This research was made possible by a Grant from the National Science Foundation to Gibson (“Creating a State-Level Public Opinion Data Base for Law and Courts Scholarship: New Frontiers in Research on the Public’s Views of Third Branch Politics,” SES 1228619). The Freedom and Tolerance Surveys upon which this paper relies were funded by the Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis. We greatly appreciate the support provided for this research by Steven S. Smith, Director of the Center. We also appreciate the thoughtful comments and suggestions provided by Adam Green, George Marcus, Lauren McLaren, David Muchlinski, Neil Munro, Niccole Pamphilis, Mark Peffley, Paul Sniderman, and Karen Wright on an earlier version of the paper. Replication materials are available on the Political Behavior Dataverse ( https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OUAYYH).

Supplementary material

11109_2018_9444_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (420 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 419 kb)

References

  1. Ackerman, B. A., & Fishkin, J. S. (2004). Deliberation day. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, S. H., & Kaase, M. (1979). Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Brace, P., Sims-Butler, K., Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2002). Public opinion in the American states: New perspectives using national survey data. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dalton, R. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalton, R., Van Sickle, A., & Weldon, S. (2010). The individual–institutional nexus of protest behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, D. W. (2007). Negative liberty: Public opinion and the terrorist attacks on America. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Duch, R. M., & Gibson, J. L. (1992). ‘Putting up with’ fascists in Western Europe: A comparative, cross-level analysis of political tolerance. Western Political Quarterly, 45(1), 237–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Earl, J., Soule, S. A., & McCarthy, J. D. (2003). Protest under fire? Explaining the policing of protest. American Sociological Review, 68(4), 581–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. American Political Science Review, 67(1), 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enns, P. K. (2016). Incarceration nation: How the United States became the most punitive democracy in the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enns, P. K., & Koch, J. (2013). Public opinion in the U.S. states: 1956 to 2010. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 13(3), 349–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Enos, R. D. (2016). What the demolition of public housing teaches us about the impact of racial threat on political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Erisen, C., & Kentmen-Cin, C. (2017). Tolerance and perceived threat toward Muslim immigrants in Germany and the Netherlands. European Union Politics, 18(1), 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gelman, A., & Little, T. C. (1997). Poststratification into many categories using hierarchical logistic regression. Survey Methodology, 23(2), 127–135.Google Scholar
  18. Ghitza, Y., & Gelman, A. (2013). Deep interactions with MRP: Election turnout and voting patterns among small electoral subgroups. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 762–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibson, J. L. (1988). Political intolerance and political repression during the McCarthy Red Scare. American Political Science Review, 82(2), 511–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibson, J. L. (1989). The policy consequences of political intolerance: Political repression during the Vietnam War Era. Journal of Politics, 51(1), 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson, J. L. (1992). The political consequences of intolerance: Cultural conformity and political freedom. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson, J. L. (1995). The political freedom of African Americans: A contextual analysis of racial attitudes, political tolerance, and individual liberty. Political Geography, 14(1995), 571–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibson, J. L. (1997). Mass opposition to the Soviet putsch of August 1991: Collective action, rational choice, and democratic values in the former Soviet Union. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson, J. L. (2005). On the nature of tolerance: Dichotomous or continuous? Political Behavior, 27(4), 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibson, J. L. (2006). Enigmas of intolerance: Fifty years after Stouffer’s communism, conformity, and civil liberties. Perspectives on Politics, 4(1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gibson, J. L. (2008). Intolerance and political repression in the United States: A half-century after McCarthyism. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibson, J. L. (2013). Measuring political tolerance and general support for pro-civil liberties policies: Notes, evidence, and cautions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gibson, J. L., & Bingham, R. D. (1985). Civil liberties and Nazis: The Skokie free-speech controversy. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  29. Gibson, J. L., & Gouws, A. (2003). Overcoming intolerance in South Africa: Experiments in democratic persuasion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Giles, M. W., & Evans, A. (1986). The power approach to intergroup hostility. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30(3), 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goldstein, R. J. (1978). Political Repression in Modern America: From 1870 to the Present. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall & Co.Google Scholar
  32. Hammond, J., & Weidmann, N. B. (2014). Using machine-coded event data for the micro-level study of political violence. Research & Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168014539924.Google Scholar
  33. Hanna, A. (2014). Developing a system for the automated coding of protest event data. Social Science Research Network, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2425232.
  34. Hero, R. E., & Tolbert, C. J. (1996). A racial/ethnic diversity interpretation of politics and policy in the states of the U.S. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 851–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kalkan, K. O., Layman, G. C., & Uslaner, E. M. (2009). ‘Band of others’? attitudes toward Muslims in contemporary American society. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 847–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2009). How should we estimate public opinion in the states? American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leemann, L., & Wasserfallen, F. (2017). Extending the use and prediction precision of subnational public opinion estimation. American Journal of Political Science.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12319.Google Scholar
  39. Leetaru, K., & Schrodt, P. A. (2013). GDELT: Global data on events, location and tone, 1979–2012. GDELT Project, http://data.gdeltproject.org/documentation/ISA.2013.GDELT.pdf.
  40. Lichbach, M. I. (1989). An evaluation of ‘does economic inequality breed political conflict?’. World Politics, 41(4), 431–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2015). The coddling of the American mind. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/. Accessed 3 May 2016.
  42. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 64–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McClosky, H. (1964). Consensus and ideology in American politics. American Political Science Review, 58(2), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muller, E., Jukam, T., & Seligson, M. (1982). Diffuse political support and antisystem political behavior: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 240–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). The spiral of silence: Public opinion—Our social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Nunn, C. Z., Crockett, H. J., & Williams, J. A. (1978). Tolerance for nonconformity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Okamoto, D. G. (2003). Toward a theory of panethnicity: Explaining Asian American collective action. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 811–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Olzak, S., & Shanahan, S. (1996). Deprivation and race riots: An extension of Spilerman’s analysis. Social Forces, 74(3), 931–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Olzak, S., Shanahan, S., & McEneaney, E. H. (1996). Poverty, segregation, and race riots: 1960 to 1993. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 590–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pacheco, J. (2011). Using national surveys to measure dynamic U.S. state public opinion: A guideline for scholars and an application. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 11(4), 415–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Park, D. K., Gelman, A., & Bafumi, J. (2004). Bayesian multilevel estimation with poststratification: State-level estimates from national polls. Political Analysis, 12(4), 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peffley, M., & Rohrschneider, R. (2003). Democratization and political tolerance in seventeen countries: A multi-level model of democratic learning. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Prothro, J. W., & Grigg, C. M. (1960). Fundamental principles of democracy: Bases of agreement and disagreement. Journal of Politics, 22(2), 276–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rapp, C., & Ackermann, K. (2016). The consequences of social intolerance on non-violent protest. European Political Science Review, 8(4), 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schussman, A., & Soule, S. A. (2005). Process and protest: Accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces, 84(2), 1083–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spilerman, S. (1970). The causes of racial disturbances: A comparison of alternative explanations. American Sociological Review, 35(4), 627–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stouffer, S. (1955). Communism, conformity, and civil liberties. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  62. Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J. E., & Marcus, G. E. (1982). Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Uslaner, E. M. (2012). Segregation and mistrust: Diversity, isolation, and social cohesion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Ward, M. D., Beger, A., Cutler, J., Dickenson, M., Dorff, C., & Radford. B. (2013). Comparing GDELT and ICEWS event data. ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303211430_Comparing_GDELT_and_ICEWS_event_data.
  66. Warshaw, C., & Rodden, J. (2012). How should we measure district-level public opinion on individual issues? Journal of Politics, 74(1), 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  3. 3.Centre for Comparative and International PoliticsStellenbosch UniversityStellenboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations