Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-28jzs Total loading time: 0.662 Render date: 2021-02-26T10:46:49.542Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2015

Abstract

Scholarship commonly implies that the major political parties in the United States are configured as mirror images to each other, but the two sides actually exhibit important and underappreciated differences. The Republican Party is primarily the agent of an ideological movement whose supporters prize doctrinal purity, while the Democratic Party is better understood as a coalition of social groups seeking concrete government action. This asymmetry is reinforced by American public opinion, which favors left-of-center positions on most specific policy issues yet simultaneously shares the general conservative preference for smaller and less active government. Each party therefore faces a distinctive governing challenge in balancing the unique demands of its base with the need to maintain broad popular support. This foundational difference between the parties also explains why the rise of the Tea Party movement among Republicans in recent years has not been accompanied by an equivalent ideological insurgency among Democrats.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L.. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?Journal of Politics 70(2): 542–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John. 2011. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands, and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10(3): 571–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, Janet. 2012. The Occupy Handbook. New York: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter., David E. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmarais, Bruce A., La Raja, Raymond J., and Kowal, Michael S.. 2014. “The Fates of Challengers in U.S. House Elections: The Role of Extended Party Networks in Supporting Candidates and Shaping Electoral Outcomes.” American Journal of Political Science, online preview at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12106/abstract Google Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2012. “Democratic Representation and the Constituency Paradox.” Perspectives on Politics 10(3): 599616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher, and Stimson, James. 2012. Ideology in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Zaller, John. 1992. “The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science 36(1): 268307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 2005. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Francia, Peter L., Herrnson, Paul S., Green, John C., Powell, Lynda W., and Wilcox, Clyde. 2003. The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Free, Lloyd A., and Cantril, Hadley. 1967. The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, Jo. 1986. “The Political Culture of the Democratic and Republican Parties.” Political Science Quarterly 101(3): 327–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galvin, Daniel. 2010. Presidential Party Building: Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 1998. Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, Matt, and Dominguez, Casey B. K.. 2009. “Party Coalitions and Interest Group Networks.” American Politics Research 37(5): 767800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2005. Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2014. “After the ‘Master Theory’: Downs, Schattschneider, and the Rebirth of Policy-Focused Analysis.” Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 643–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagner, Paul R. and Pierce, John C.. 1982. “Conceptualization and Party Identification: 1956–1976.” American Journal of Political Science 26(2): 377–87.Google Scholar
Hagner, Paul R., Pierce, John C., and Knight, Kathleen. 1989. Content Codings of Levels of Political Conceptualization, 1956–1984. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.Google Scholar
Heritage Action. 2011. “Heritage Action Releases Legislative Scorecard.” Press release, August 25. http://heritageaction.com/2011/08/heritage-action-releases-legislative-scorecard/, accessed October 20, 2014.
Herrnson, Paul S. 2009. “The Roles of Party Organizations, Party-Connected Committees, and Party Allies in Elections,” Journal of Politics 71(4): 1207–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., Smith, Kevin B., and Alford, John R.. 2014. Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaiser Family Foundation. 2013. “Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: March 2013.” http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/march-2013-tracking-poll/, accessed October 20, 2014.
Kaplan, Rebecca. 2013. “Boehner: Conservative Groups Have ‘Lost All Credibility.’CBS News, December 12. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boehner-conservative-groups-have-lost-all-credibility/, accessed October 20, 2014.Google Scholar
Karol, David. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kibbe, Matt. 2013. “Fighting a Hostile Takeover of Freedom’s Party.” Politico, November 12. http://politi.co/1pMFUWA, accessed October 20, 2014.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, Gregory, Masket, Seth, and Noel, Hans. 2009. “Partisan Webs: Information Exchange and Party Networks.” British Journal of Political Science 39(3): 633–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, Robert E. 1962. Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., and Horowitz, Juliana Menasce. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 83110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lelkes, Yphtach, and Sniderman, Paul M.. Forthcoming. “The Ideological Asymmetry of the American Party System.” British Journal of Political Science.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Jacoby, William G., Norpoth, Helmut, and Weisberg, Herbert F.. 2008. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman J.. 2012a. It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman J.. 2012b. “Let’s Just Say It: The Republicans Are the Problem.” Washington Post, April 27. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html, accessed October 20, 2014.Google Scholar
Masket, Seth. 2009. No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1966. Party Loyalty among Congressmen: The Difference between Democrats and Republicans, 1947–1962. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1986. Placing Parties in American Politics: Organization, Electoral Settings, and Government Activity in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nexon, David. 1971. “Asymmetry in the Political System: Occasional Activists in the Republican and Democratic Parties, 1956–1964.” American Political Science Review 65(3): 716–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P., and Segura, Gary M.. 2005. “Issue Agendas and the Politics of Latino Partisan Identification.” In Diversity in Democracy: Minority Representation in the United States, ed. Segura, Gary M. and Bowler, Shaun. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Noel, Hans. 2013. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Christopher S., and Barreto, Matt A.. 2013. Change They Can’t Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rucker, Philip. 2009. “S.C. Senator Is a Voice of Reform Opposition.” Washington Post, July 28, A01.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda, and Williamson, Vanessa. 2012. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skrentny, John D. 2004. The Minority Right Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Sowell, Thomas. 1987. A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. New York: William Morrow & Company.Google Scholar
Stettner, Edward A. 1993. Shaping Modern Liberalism: Herbert Croly and Progressive Thought. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Vandehei, Jim, Allen, Mike, and Sherman, Jake. 2013. “Double Trouble: House GOP Eyes Default, Shutdown.” Politico, January 13. http://politi.co/VmHVxp, accessed October 20, 2014.Google Scholar
Volkens, Andrea, Lehmann, Pola, Merz, Nicolas, Regel, Sven, and Werner, Annika. 2013. Comparative Manifestos Project. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, Alan. 1996. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 301
Total number of PDF views: 1356 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *