1. (EXERCISE 8) THE IMPACT OF POLITICAL IDEOLOGY ON POLITICAL PARTY IDENTIFICATION CONTROLLING FOR EDUCATION Roger C. Lowery PLS 401, Senior Seminar Department of Public & International Affairs UNC Wilmington 3/1/20161

2. 2 Univariate Hypothesis Theory: –With the rise of new and cross-cutting issues in the 1960s, there were two major regional realignments of voters across party lines: (Sundquist, 1983) 1.the Northeast realigned from strongly Republican to strongly Democratic 2.the South realigned from solidly Democratic to strongly Republican. – However, at the national level, these regional realignments largely counterbalanced and neither major political party has managed to win over a stable majority of voters in national elections. (Black & Black, 2007) H 1 : in the 2004 national electorate, neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party had a majority of identifiers.

3. 3/1/20163 Table 1: 3 March 20093 Political Party Identification Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or what? If Democrat or Republican, would you call yourself a strong or a weak Democrat or Republican? If independent, are you closer to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? Cells contain: -Column percent -Weighted N Distribution Political Party Identification 1: Democrats 48.1 504 2: Independents 9.6 101 3: Republicans 42.3 443 COL TOTAL 100.0 1,049 Random-sampling error margin = ± 3.0 %

4. 3/1/20164 Univariate Findings H 1 (in the 2004 national electorate, neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party had a majority of identifiers) is not supported by the sample data in Table 1 (because both necessary & sufficient conditions are not observed): 1.The lack of majority support for either major party is observed in the sample data: 48% of the sample identifies with the Democratic Party and 42% with the Republican Party. 2.However, given the random-sampling error margin of ± 3.0 percent, the Democratic Party’s support in 2004 could have been as high as 51.1 percent.

5. Bivariate Hypothesis Theory: –V. O. Key, Jr. first argued in 1942 that U.S. political parties are best understood in terms of three components: 1) the party organization (leaders & activists), 2) the party in government (candidates & office- holders), and 3) the party in the electorate (party identifiers & voters). –Prior to the 1960s, the presence of Southern conservative Democrats and Northeastern progressive Republicans diluted the ideological polarization of the two parties. (Abramowitz & Saunders, 1988) –However, since the 1960s, political-party elites have become increasingly polarized in terms of political ideology. Hence, it is likely that the mass base of each party has also become ideologically polarized. (Black & Black, 2007) H 2 : in the national electorate in 2004, political conservatives were more likely than liberals to identify with the Republican Party. 3/1/20165

6. Table 2: 3/1/20166 Party Identification by Political Ideology Cells contain: -Column percent -Weighted N Political Ideology 1 Liberal 2 Moderate 3 Conservative ROW TOTAL Party ID 1: Democrats 85.4 169 55.7 147 17.3 59 46.6 376 2: Independents 3.6 7 11.1 29 4.7 16 6.5 53 3: Republicans 10.9 22 33.2 88 78.0 268 46.8 377 COL TOTAL 100.0 198 100.0 264 100.0 343 100.0 806 Summary Statistics Tau-b = 0.54 Chi-square probability = 0.00

7. Bivariate Findings H 2 ( political conservatives are more likely than liberals to identify with the Republican Party ) is strongly supported by the sample data in Table 2 (because both necessary & sufficient conditions are observed): 1.Ideological polarization of the mass base of the U.S. political parties is observed in the sample data (the tau b of 0.54 indicates that this polarization is very strong in the sample voters). 2.In addition, this sample finding is statistically significant and thus can be extrapolated to the national electorate. The χ 2 probability of random-sampling error is less than 0.05 (it is 0.00). 3/1/20167

8. Multivariate Hypothesis Theory: –Education provides the intellectual skills to deal with abstractions like political ideology. (McCloskey, 1964) –Hence, the impact of political ideology on party identification in the mass public is positively related to levels of formal education. (Key, 1961) H 3 : the intensity of ideological polarization in the mass electorate will be stronger among those with more formal education than among those with less formal education. 3/1/20168

9. Table 3a 3/1/20169 Party Identification by Political Ideology (High school diploma or less) Cells contain: -Column percent -Weighted N Political Ideology 1 Liberal 2 Moderate 3 Conservative ROW TOTAL Party ID 1: Democrats 72.5 46 55.5 70 25.3 31 47.1 148 2: Independents 9.8 6 11.3 14 6.9 9 9.3 29 3: Republicans 17.7 11 33.2 42 67.8 83 43.6 137 COL TOTAL 100.0 64 100.0 127 100.0 123 100.0 314 Summary Statistics Tau-b = 0.37 Chi-square probability = 0.00

10. Table 3b 3/1/201610 Party Identification by Political Ideology (Some college) Cells contain: -Column percent -Weighted N Political Ideology 1 Liberal 2 Moderate 3 Conservative ROW TOTAL Party ID 1: Democrats 86.0 40 56.4 49 20.0 21 45.9 110 2: Independents 2.1 1 9.5 8 3.4 4 5.3 13 3: Republicans 11.9 6 34.1 30 76.6 82 48.8 117 COL TOTAL 100.0 46 100.0 87 100.0 107 100.0 240 Summary Statistics Tau-b = 0.50 Chi-square probability = 0.00

11. 3/1/201611 Table 3c 3 March 200911 Party Identification by Political Ideology (College degree or more) Cells contain: -Column percent -Weighted N Political Ideology 1 Liberal 2 Moderate 3 Conservative ROW TOTAL Party ID 1: Democrats 94.6 83 55.0 28 6.0 7 46.7 118 2: Independents.0 0 13.2 7 3.6 4 4.3 11 3: Republicans 5.4 5 31.9 16 90.4 102 49.0 123 COL TOTAL 100.0 88 100.0 51 100.0 113 100.0 252 Summary Statistics Tau-b = 0.75 Chi-square probability = 0.00

12. Multivariate Findings H 3 (the intensity of ideological polarization in the mass electorate is stronger among those with more formal education than among those with less formal education) is supported by the sample data in Tables 3a-c (because both necessary & sufficient conditions are observed in all three partial tables): 1.The strength of ideological polarization did change as predicted in the partial-table subgroups: the tau b was strong (0.37) within non-college respondents, even stronger (0.50) within some-college respondents, and strongest of all (0.75) within respondents with a bachelors degree or more. 2.These sample findings were statistically significant in all three partial tables at the 0.00 level. 3/1/201612

13. Substantive Implications The ideological polarization of partisan elites that strengthened in the 1960s was very strong in the mass base of both parties in the 2004 election. The ideological polarization of all three components of American political parties has the advantage of offering clarity to candidate and issue choices in a democracy. The ideological polarization of all three components of American political parties has the disadvantage of impeding the bargaining and compromise so often crucial to achieving the best approximation of the common good in a pluralistic society with a fragmented political system. 3/1/201613

14. Methodological Implications Because there was a regional realignment of the two major U.S. political parties that began in the 1960s, with the Republicans picking up support in the South and the Democrats gaining support in the northeast, region is another control necessary to elaborate the impact of ideology on party identification. Because there was a racial and ethnic realignment of the mass base of both parties since the 1960s, those controls also need to be investigated. 3/1/201614

15. 3/1/201615 References Abramowitz, Alan I. and Kyle L. Saunders. 1998. “Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate.” The Journal of Politics, 60(3):634-52. Black, Earl and Merle Black. 2007. Divided America: The Ferocious Power Struggle in American Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. Key, Jr., V.O. 1942. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Key, Jr., V.O. 1961. Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. McClosky, Herbert. 1964. “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics.” American Political Science Review. 58(2):361-82. Shively, W. Phillips. 2008. Power & Choice: An Introduction to Political Science. 11e. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Sundquist, James L. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. 2e. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.