Political Behavior

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 199–236 | Cite as

Party Polarization and Party Structuring of Policy Attitudes: A Comparison of Three NES Panel Studies

  • Geoffrey C. Layman
  • Thomas M. Carsey
Article

Abstract

The conventional wisdom in the partisan change literature predicts that increasing party conflict on one issue agenda leads to a decline in party conflict on another agenda—a process called “conflict displacement.” We have argued that recent party politics in the United States has experienced “conflict extension,” with the Democratic and Republican parties in the electorate growing more polarized on cultural, racial, and social welfare issues, rather than conflict displacement. Here, we suggest that the failure of the literature to account for conflict extension results from incomplete assumptions about individual-level partisan change. The partisan change literature typically considers only issue-based change in party identification, which necessarily leads to the aggregate prediction of conflict displacement. This ignores the possibility of party-based change in issue attitudes. If party-based issue conversion does occur, the aggregate result can be conflict extension rather than conflict displacement. Our analysis uses data from the three-wave panel studies conducted by the National Election Studies in 1956, 1958, and 1960; in 1972, 1974, and 1976; and in 1992, 1994, and 1996 to assess our alternative account of individual-level partisan change. We show that when Democratic and Republican elites are polarized on an issue, and party identifiers are aware of those differences, some individuals respond by adjusting their party ties to conform to their issue positions, but others respond by adjusting their issue positions to conform to their party identification.

political parties party identification elections public opinion voting behavior party realignment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abramowitz, Alan I. (1994). Issue evolution reconsidered: racial attitudes and partisanship in the U.S. electorate. American Journal of Political Science 38: 1–24.Google Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L. (1998). Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics 60: 634–652.Google Scholar
  3. Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L. (2002). Ideological realignment and U.S. congressional elections. In Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox (eds.), Understanding Public Opinion, 2nd ed., pp. 203–216. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andersen, Kristi (1979). The Creation of a Democratic Majority, 1928-1936. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Andersen, T. W. (1957). Maximum likelihood estimates for a multivariate normal distribution when some observations are missing. Journal of the American StatistIcal Association 52: 200–203.Google Scholar
  6. Bentler, Peter M., and Bonett, Douglas G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88: 588–606.Google Scholar
  7. Bollen, Kenneth A. (1986). Sample size and Bentler and Bonett's nonnormed fit index. Psychometrika 51: 375–377.Google Scholar
  8. Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989a). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research 17: 303–316.Google Scholar
  9. Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989b). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Bond, Jon R., and Fleisher, Richard eds. (2000). Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. (1960). The American Voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carmines, Edward G. (1991). The logic of party alignments. Journal of Theoretical Politics 3: 65–80.Google Scholar
  13. Carmines, Edward G., Renten, Steven H, and Stimson, James A. (1984). Events and alignments: The party image link. In Richard E. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg (eds.), Controversies in Voting Behavior, 2nd ed., pp. 545–560. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
  14. Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A. (1989). Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Carsey, Thomas M., and Layman, Geoffrey C. (1999a). A dynamic model of political change among party activists. Political Behavior 21: 17–41.Google Scholar
  16. Carsey, Thomas M., and Layman, Geoffrey C. (1999b). Changing parties or changing attitudes? Uncovering the partisan change process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Clubb, Jerome M., Flanigan, William H., and Zingale, Nancy H. (1980). Partisan Realignment. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Converse, Philip E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In David E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, pp. 206–257. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Converse, Philip E., and Markus, Gregory B. (1979). Plus ca change...: the new CPS election study panel. American Political Science Review 73: 32–49.Google Scholar
  20. Dwyer, James H. (1983). Statistical Models for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Erikson, Robert S. and Tedin, Kent L. (1981). The 1928-1936 partisan realignment: the case for the conversion hypothesis. American Political Science Review 75: 951–962.Google Scholar
  22. Finkel, Steven E. (1995). Causal Analysis with Panel Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Jackson, John E. (1993). Endogenous preferences and the study of institutions. American Political Science Review 87: 639–656.Google Scholar
  24. Green, Donald Philip, and Palmquist, Bradley (1990). Of artifacts and partisan instability. American Journal of Political Science 34: 872–902.Google Scholar
  25. Herrera, Richard (1995). The crosswinds of change: sources of change in the Democratic and Republican parties. Political Research Quarterly 48: 291–312.Google Scholar
  26. Hetherington, Marc J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: the role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review 95: 619–631.Google Scholar
  27. Hurley, Patricia A. (1989). Partisan representation and the failure of realignment in the 1980s. American Journal of Political Science 33: 240–261.Google Scholar
  28. Hurley, Patricia A. (1991). Partisan representation, realignment, and the Senate in the 1980s. Journal of Politics 53: 3–33.Google Scholar
  29. Key, V. O. (1955). A theory of critical elections. Journal of Politics 17: 3–18.Google Scholar
  30. Knoke, David (1979). Stratification and the dimensions of American political orientations. American Journal of Political Science 23: 772–791.Google Scholar
  31. Layman, Geoffrey C. (2001). The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Layman, Geoffrey C. and Carsey, Thomas M. (1998). Why do party activists convert? An analysis of individual-level change on the abortion issue. Political Research Quarterly 51: 723–750.Google Scholar
  33. Layman, Geoffrey C., and Carsey, Thomas M. (2000a). Ideological realignment in contemporary American politics: the case of party activists. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  34. Layman, Geoffrey C., and Carsey, Thomas M. (2000b). Parties at the poles: mass party polarization on multiple ideological dimensions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  35. Layman, Geoffrey C., and Carsey, Thomas M. (2002). Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science 46: 786–802.Google Scholar
  36. Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 73: 1055–1070.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, Warren E. (2000). Temporal order and causal inference. Political Analysis 8: 119–139.Google Scholar
  38. Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John R. (1976). The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Page, Benjamin I. and Jones, Calvin C. (1979). Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties and the vote. American Political Science Review 73: 1071–1090.Google Scholar
  40. Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard (1997). Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Putz, David W., and Shepherd, Adrian J. (2001). The dynamics of ideological realignment among elite and mass partisans. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  42. Rae, Nicol C. (1989). The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Republicans: from 1952 to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rapoport, Ronald B., and Stone, Walter J. (1994). A model for disaggregating political change. Political Behavior 16: 505–532.Google Scholar
  44. Riker, William H. (1982). Liberalism Against Populism. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  45. Rohde, David W. (1991). Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  47. Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E. (1991). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sniderman, Paul M., and Piazza, Thomas (1993). The Scar of Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Stone, Walter J., Rapoport, Ronald B., and Abramowitz, Alan I. (1990). The Reagan revolution and party polarization in the 1980s. In L. Sandy Maisel (ed.), The Parties Respond. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sundquist, James L. (1983). Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  51. Wiley, David E., and Wiley, James A. (1970). The estimation of measurement error in panel data. American Sociological Review 35: 112–117.Google Scholar
  52. Wothke, Werner, and Arbuckle, James L. (1996). Full-information missing data analysis with Amos.SPSS White Paper.Google Scholar
  53. Zaller, John (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey C. Layman
    • 1
  • Thomas M. Carsey
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceVanderbilt UniversityNashville
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahassee

Personalised recommendations