Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-pkshj Total loading time: 0.287 Render date: 2021-12-03T02:52:17.517Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

9 - Multiculturalism and Party Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

Jack Citrin
University of California, Berkeley
David O. Sears
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access


The multicultural moment in American politics begins in the turbulent 1960s. Cultural nationalism and cries for black power among African-American activists; the embrace of affirmative action by the Johnson administration and then, more briefly, by Richard Nixon; immigration reform and its consequences for language policy; and the emergence of feminist and gay rights movements together made claims based on group identity a prominent feature of political debate. The multicultural movement argued that representation and recognition of disadvantaged groups – defined variously by race, ethnicity, language, gender, or sexual orientation – is paramount to attaining equal access to desired resources in society, whether money, power, or status. And these historically disadvantaged groups and demographic minorities merited special assistance from the government to overcome the obstacles they confront in the crucible of majoritarian politics.

The gradual adumbration of these ideas in elections, government policy, and academic debates proceeded apace through the 1970s and beyond. As multiculturalism and diversity became political catchwords, the social and ideological underpinnings of party politics underwent radical change. The civil rights movement precipitated the collapse of the New Deal coalition that had undergirded the dominance of the Democrats in national politics between 1932 and 1968. Civil unrest, the war in Vietnam, and the issues of “acid, amnesty, and abortion” further prodded a realignment that ended the South’s exceptional status as a one-party Democratic region. This nationalization of electoral politics culminated in the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. But well before that the two major parties began to polarize, with potential implications for conflict over policies related to the balance of national and ethnic identities.

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Hetherington, Marc J., “Putting Polarization in Perspective,” British Journal of Political Science 39 (2009): 413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uslaner, Eric, The Decline of Comity in Congress (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, Joseph A., “The New American Political Party,” American Political Science Review 79 (1985): 1152–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W., Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. and Rosenthal, Howard, “The Polarization of American Politics,” Journal of Politics 46 (1984): 1061–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James Q., “How Divided Are We?Commentary (February 2009)Google Scholar
Hunter, James Davison, Culture Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1991)Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary, A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People (New York: Pearson, 2007)Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard, Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006)Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009)Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, J. C., Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America (New York: Pearson Longman, 2004)Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. and Abrams, Samuel J.. “Where’s the Polarization?” in Controversies in Voting Behavior, 5th edition, ed. Niemi, Richard G. and Weisberg, Herbert F. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011)Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., “Disconnected or Joined at the Hip?” in Red and Blue Nation?: Characteristics and Causes of America’s Polarized Politics, vol. 1, ed. Nivola, Pietro S. and Brady, David W. (Washington, DC: Brookings, 2006)Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J., “Partisanship and Polarization,” in New Directions in Public Opinion, ed. Berkinsky, Adam (New York: Routledge Press, 2011)Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric, Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan and Saunders, Kyle L., “Is Polarization a Myth?Journal of Politics 70 (2006): 542–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M. and Layman, Geoffrey, “Changing Sides or Changing Minds?: Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate,” American Journal of Political Science 50 (2006): 464–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, Peter, “Flag Burning,” in Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, ed. Persily, Nathaniel, Citrin, Jack, and Egan, Patrick J. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 187Google Scholar
Hajnal, Zoltan and Lee, Taeku, Why Americans Don’t Join the Party: Race, Immigration, and the Failure (of Political Parties) to Engage the Electorate (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010)Google Scholar
Tichenor, Daniel, “Strange Bedfellows: The Politics and Pathologies of Immigration Reform,” Labor Studies in Working Class History 5 (2008)Google Scholar
National Council of La Raza, “Latino Voters and the 2010 Election: Numbers, Parties, and Issues,” 4. Accessed online at
Hillygus, D. Sunshine and Shields, Todd G., The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure 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.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ 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.

Available formats

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats