Political Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 293–310 | Cite as

I'm Not That Liberal: Explaining Conservative Democratic Identification

  • Adam J. Schiffer


The persistence of self-identified conservative Democrats in the electorate is puzzling. Both the ongoing Southern realignment and the recent ideological polarization should have resulted in conservative Democrats changing their party identification to accord with their discrepant ideology. Instead, the number of conservative Democrats, as a percentage of the total electorate, has held steady over the last 20 years. I propose an explanation for this phenomenon that draws upon theories of mass belief systems, as well as an element of recent political reality: the popular stigmatization of the word “liberal.” I argue that Democrats who are susceptible to elite cues garner positive affect toward the conservative label and negative affect toward the liberal label. They then identify themselves accordingly, regardless of their issue positions.

ideology public opinion party identification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L. (1998). Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics 60: 634–652.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, Allen H., and Parsons, R. Wayne. (1977). Measuring belief system structure. Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 159–180.Google Scholar
  3. Black, Earl, and Black, Merle. (1987). Politics and Society in the South. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boyd, Gerald M. (1988, August 21). After a long march to nomination, Bush sprints to establish identity. New York Times, sec. 4.Google Scholar
  5. Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. (1981). The origins and meanings of liberal/conservative self-identification. American Journal of Political Science 25: 617–645.Google Scholar
  6. Converse, Philip E. (1962). Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 26: 578–599.Google Scholar
  7. Converse, Philip E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In David E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dionne, E. J. Jr. (1988, November). Describing liberalism. New York Times, sec. A.Google Scholar
  9. Fleishman, John A. (1986). Trends in self-identified ideology from 1972 to 1982: no support for the salience hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science 30: 517–541.Google Scholar
  10. Haufler, Hervie. (1988, December 4). Rekindling the good spirit behind the ‘L’ word. New York Times, sec. 12CN.Google Scholar
  11. Jacoby, William G. (1991). Ideological identification and issue attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 178–205.Google Scholar
  12. Judd, Charles M., and Krosnick, Jon A. (1989). The structural bases of consistency among political attitudes: effects of political expertise and attitude importance. In Anthony R. Pratkanis, Steven J. Breckler, and Anthony Greenwald (eds.), Attitude Structure and Function. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Lipset, Seymour Martin. (1988, October 28). “Why do Americans sneer at liberalism?” New York Times, sec. A.Google Scholar
  14. Miller, Warren E., and Shanks, J. Merrill. (1996). The New American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Petrocik, John R. (1974). An analysis of intransitivities in the index of party identification. Political Methodology 1: 31–47.Google Scholar
  16. Stimson, James A. (1999). Public Opinion in America (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview. Zaller, John R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam J. Schiffer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations