IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v113y2019i01p38-54_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America

Author

Listed:
  • BARBER, MICHAEL
  • POPE, JEREMY C.

Abstract

Are people conservative (liberal) because they are Republicans (Democrats)? Or is it the reverse: people are Republicans (Democrats) because they are conservatives (liberals)? Though much has been said about this long-standing question, it is difficult to test because the concepts are nearly impossible to disentangle in modern America. Ideology and partisanship are highly correlated, only growing more so over time. However, the election of President Trump presents a unique opportunity to disentangle party attachment from ideological commitment. Using a research design that employs actual “conservative” and “liberal” policy statements from President Trump, we find that low-knowledge respondents, strong Republicans, Trump-approving respondents, and self-described conservatives are the most likely to behave like party loyalists by accepting the Trump cue—in either a liberal or conservative direction. These results suggest that there are a large number of party loyalists in the United States, that their claims to being a self-defined conservative are suspect, and that group loyalty is the stronger motivator of opinion than are any ideological principles.

Suggested Citation

  • Barber, Michael & Pope, Jeremy C., 2019. "Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 38-54, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:113:y:2019:i:01:p:38-54_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055418000795/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Boumans, Dorine & Gründler, Klaus & Potrafke, Niklas & Ruthardt, Fabian, 2024. "Political leaders and macroeconomic expectations: Evidence from a global survey experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    3. Clem Brooks & Elijah Harter, 2021. "Redistribution Preferences, Inequality Information, and Partisan Motivated Reasoning in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Jonathan Knuckey & Myunghee Kim, 2020. "The Politics of White Racial Identity and Vote Choice in the 2018 Midterm Elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1584-1599, July.
    5. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2023. "How do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multicountry Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 703-767.
    6. Sonja Settele, 2019. "How Do Beliefs about the Gender Wage Gap Affect the Demand for Public Policy?," CEBI working paper series 19-13, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    7. Arnaud Wolff, 2022. "The Signaling Value of Social Identity," Working Papers of BETA 2022-15, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    8. Su, Siyan, 2022. "Updating politicized beliefs: How motivated reasoning contributes to polarization," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    9. Arbatli, Cemal Eren & Gomtsyan, David, 2019. "Voting retrospectively: Critical junctures and party identification," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 356-390.
    10. Ernest M. Zampelli & Steven T. Yen, 2021. "Individual Attitudes Toward Government’s Role in Redistributing Income in the United States: Analysis by Ideological Subgroups," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(1), pages 115-137, March.
    11. Henry Milner, 2020. "Populism and Political Knowledge: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 226-238.
    12. Wesley Wehde & Matthew C Nowlin, 2021. "Public Attribution of Responsibility for Disaster Preparedness across Three Levels of Government and the Public: Lessons from a Survey of Residents of the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf Coast," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 51(2), pages 212-237.
    13. Simon Hetland & Rasmus Søndergaard Pedersen & Anders Rahbek, 2019. "Dynamic Conditional Eigenvalue GARCH," Discussion Papers 19-13, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    14. Stephen B. Billings & Eric Chyn & Kareem Haggag, 2021. "The Long-Run Effects of School Racial Diversity on Political Identity," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 267-284, September.
    15. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    16. James N. Druckman & Samara Klar & Yanna Krupnikov & Matthew Levendusky & John Barry Ryan, 2021. "Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 28-38, January.
    17. Sorace, Miriam & Hobolt, Sara, 2020. "A tale of two peoples: motivated reasoning in the aftermath of the Brexit vote," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105106, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. John T. Jost & Daniela Goya-Tocchetto & Aaron C. Kay, 2023. "The Psychology of Left-Right Political Polarization; and an Experimental Intervention for Curbing Partisan Animosity and Support for Antidemocratic Violence," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 46-63, July.
    19. Richard Bronk & Wade Jacoby, 2020. "The epistemics of populism and the politics of uncertainty," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 152, European Institute, LSE.
    20. Valentina Stöhr, 2022. "Climate protection in Germany: Party cues in a multi-party system," Munich Papers in Political Economy 23, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    21. Hassan Afrouzi & Carolina Arteaga & Emily Weisburst, 2022. "Can Leaders Persuade? Examining Movement in Immigration Beliefs," CESifo Working Paper Series 9593, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:113:y:2019:i:01:p:38-54_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.