Ideology PDF

Ideology Converse and Michigan school research on ideology Converse and the Michigan school found that most voters are not ideological at all. Only found that ⅛ of Americans are consistent with the issue. People had non-attitudes where people did not have stable stances on issues. They specificall...

Ideology Converse and Michigan school research on ideology Converse and the Michigan school found that most voters are not ideological at all. Only found that ⅛ of Americans are consistent with the issue. People had non-attitudes where people did not have stable stances on issues. They specifically found that 42% had group interests in their considerations. With this voters look based on their group identity and vote on the party based on how the group identity fits. Examples are how supporters of planned parenthood vote Democrats because the democrats support abortion. They also found that 24% of the population considered the nature of the time like retrospective voting. Additionally they found that 22.5% had no issue content and cared more about saving twinkies or voting for the next American Idol. There has been an increase of the voters considering ideology more. In 1956, there were only 3.5% who considered ideology when voting while there was 10% that considered ideology in 2000. This is considerable because group benefits/interest decreased from 45% to 28%. However, people that consider the nature of times (retrospective) did not shift as much. We can see a change of people considering there was a realignment where before they were more liberal republicans and conservative democrats. However, it does seem like that ideology concentrated among the most informed. Theory of Moderates More Americans identify as moderates, and a plurality have taken middle of the road positions on abortion and health care for decades. It is theorized that if you're moderate you can get along with both sides. However, there is a social desirability bias for moderates because moderates are considered to be the most approachable and are heavily considered in politics so someone might consider themselves as moderates. Additionally, others think that people describe themselves as moderate because they can not fit into a category. About 75% of Americans are on a left-right spectrum, and the majority of those are moderates. About 20% of Americans are neither random nor fitting on a left-right spectrum which they are most likely libertarians and populists. About 30% of Americans are inattentive, giving inconsistent answers. They can be extremely right or extremely left on some issues. Moderates are the most sensitive to candidate moderation and go back and forth between parties based on candidates. Basic definitions of liberal, conservative, libertarian, populist Liberals are more individualistic with people doing whatever they want in life socially. They tend to be more hands off in the culture movement compared to conservatives but both are not anarchists. On economics, liberals see the need for government intervention. They believe in the equality of opportunity. Conservatives are more individualistic about economics but see the need for intervention socially. Socialist are more about equality of outcome, not just opportunity. People are born into positions that they cannot control. So they see more equity to get people to the same amount of opportunity and prioritizing people they are born into positions that leads them to less. Capitalists see socialism as easier to achieve forced equality by lowering the top than raising the bottom. Socialist see capitalism as inequality that is not a result of individual differences in talent or effort but a product of the institutions. Libertarians are anti- government all around with economics and social culture which they believe that the government should have a hands off approach. Populist works for the people that are not a part of the elites. People like Pope Francis are populist like he criticized capitalist but is anti-gay. A more refined definition is that populist strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups One critique of the left right spectrum is that it does not fit other ideologies like populist, libertarians. The Myth of Left and Right (lecture 12, week 7) Ideology as a social construct It is said that ideology is a set of issues positions believed by many to relate to each other. There is an organized structure to the beliefs. Many tend to believe that ideology is a preset for the party. With the essentialism view where ideology is on a left-right spectrum and positions on topics from abortion, taxes, and civil rights have a philosophical common denominator. For parties, there are a consistent set of principles that define the left and right and ultimately define their party. Ideology starts out then reflects on the party. However, ideology is more of a social construct that is used. Ideology especially on the left-right spectrum is not consistently the same over the years and ideology changes as parties do. For example, Goldwater and Reagan both are labeled as conservatives, however Goldwater favored abortion rights and opposed tax cuts but Reagan was pro-life and favored tax cuts. The social theory of ideology can explain why this happens. The social theory of ideology says that political issues correlate because they unite a political group together and not because of a shared ideology. This theory predicts that people are first anchored into a political group for social reasons like their family, peers, or based on single issues. Ideology is then used to keep together groups and political allies even with slight differences in issues. Before ideology was attached to parties, it did not matter where conservatives or liberals were associated with a party. There could have been liberal republicans or conservative democrats. However, now since parties are attached to a political ideology. Instead of being influenced by ideology, people are now influenced by the attachment of ideology to parties. Parties are able to change the definition and the criteria of being a specific ideology based on position stances. In the 1970s republicans were more likely to be pro-choice but when Reagan came, men switched to pro-life positions. Additionally, democrats in the 90s were tough on crime but now take a different stance. Under the social theory of ideology, people who change political groupings should conform to their new group rather than changing their group to conform to their principles in order to hold together the group. When the group changes its issues position, then so should group members or realign themselves with that position. Ideology hides partisan sins. “I follow liberalism” sounds better than “I follow whatever the Democratic Party happens to be doing” Political parties often shift their positions to align with their evolving constituencies, further demonstrating that ideology is not fixed or absolute Fluidity of ideological categories Under the assumption of the essential theory of ideology is that ideology and its principles are fixed. This means that based on the ideology principles we should be seeing the same position on issues as we saw in the past. However, we do not at all. Liberals and conservatives switched places on hawkishness and dovishness. The use of the military to contain communism started gaining traction in the Eisenhower administration. Eisenhower was a liberal however, this is not the same that liberals now take on. Ideology is fluid since principles nor issue positions would ever remain the same. Ideology can change over time and place. Universal healthcare is considered progressive or liberal in the United State however is uncontroversial nor associated with an ideology. Additionally, UK liberals are different from US liberals on the basis of government control and intervention. The fluidity of ideological categories also has to deal with the fact that parties ultimately change definitions of ideology based on the positions the party takes on issues. By saying that Trump is not a true conservative but Reagan is even though he is not, does not realize the shift of ideology based on party stances. Another thing about ideology is that it is not just on the left-right spectrum. Many people including populist and libertarians do not fit on the left-right spectrum and also people within the spectrum itself. There are many principles of ideology like big government vs small, Tolerance vs intolerance, compassion vs greed. This also shows how people within the binary spectrum differ based on place and time like the USSR and China’s “left-wing” governments restricting pornography, drug use, and homesexuality while the US left-wing necessarily does not restrict that. Additionally, Romania’s left wing communist government restricted abortion which would be considered as Historical contingency of “left” and “right” The use of left and right in a political context emerged during the french revolution when supporters of the revolution sat on the left hand side and opponents on the right. Left and right became political identities. The term spread throughout Europe and eventually ended up in the Russian Revolution. In America, there was consideration of a political spectrum. Though they say that the suppositories of the American revolution were liberal or left wing, they believed in lower taxes and free markets. Additionally, they say that the Jeffersonian republicans were on the left with free regulation but the essence of this left does not exist anymore. These considerations of the political spectrum in history were added later on by historians. At the turn of the 20th century the terms “progressive” were used to describe followers of Teddy Roosevelt but “radicals” for the supporters. However, there was no use of left-wing until the reporting of left and right from the Russian revolution. American reporting on the Russian Revolution adopted the left-right frame used to categorize different types of socialists. However the left and right were not associated with mainstream ideologies or parties. In the early 20th century, liberal evoked a more pro-government connotation and became a synonym to progressive. A change came when LaFollette, one of the leaders within the progressive movement, decided to pitt progressives against conservatives in the Republican party. The new deal further this pitting against each other for those that are for it was associated with “liberal “left-wing” and the opposite for those who were against. FDR wanted to depict himself as the liberal descendent of Jefferson. Called his opponents conservatives and reactionaries as a political strategy. However FDR and Jefferson are not similar but because of history books by historians called the age of Jackson to make similarities between FDR and Jackson. Many embraced the title of liberal but many did not embrace conservative until FDR opponents like WIlliam F Buckley and Russel Kirk embraced these labels and associated them with historical figures. Not until the 1950s where there was an association with ideological labels and an ideological political spectrum and parties. Where people like Dwight Eisenhoewer called himself a liberal republican. Once issues started to emerge like abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action changed being a ideology label and associated with party (conservative, liberal). The history of left and right in the US started with big government vs small government within politics and policy like the new deal. Reasons for the persistence of “right” and “left” Political spectrum and political labels have shifted over time and have not remained the same as they were originally defined. However, they are still used within politics. Left and right often simplest complex views and put it on a single dimensional spectrum. In the left and right spectrum usually economics and culture are considered however, this does not include many people on the spectrum. The spectrum primarily focuses on big government vs small government which is not the only dimension that is considered. There is also Equality vs hierarchy, Tolerance vs intolerance, Idealism vs realism which reshapes the spectrum. The persistence of the left and right also have to deal with partisanship. Specifically with partisanship, people would rather say that they are following ideological principles instead of their party and also parties are able use labels like “far-left” to compare others. Identifying with someone's ideology makes someone seem more rational than irrational. Additionally, for a opposition party comparing someone to like Obama to someone like Stalin (USSR) by calling both far-left allows inaccurate assumptions without considering The label of left and right allows those that are uniformed to have an information shortcut. By associating this spectrum onto parties, people can just consider the label conservative and think of republican policies. The spectrum of left and right also tends to correlate with irrelevant things. Like some may correlate liberal are most likely to be gay, a person of color, donates to npr, or is a vegetarian. While some may say that conservatives tend to enjoy country music, are white, male, married, have kids. These associations on the basis of ideology are not true instead on the basis of party. Media (lecture 14, week 8) General claims of media influence Some people believe that the media shapes how we are or change our views. With the Hypodermic needle model, the media can change who you are. The causal effect of a given treatment or intervention on an outcome variable of interest. What we can attribute to this is how the media have bias and what they cover could influence people. However, there is a Minimal effects model where it emphasizes selection effect. Instead of the media influencing people, people seek out media that reflects who we are. So media bias does not matter since people are seeking media that coincide with their own biases. Framing The media frames things in specific ways that could influence people's feelings about the issue. This assumes that people don’t understand the concepts well enough to recognize the media is not being subjective. Example, Swamps -> wetlands, Trolleys -> light rail, Cages -> detention which change the meaning of the word to change people's feelings about it. However, politicians can use framing to control their message. 60 minutes, pollster with Bill Clinton and the scandal with Monica Lewinsky. It showed how as Bill Clinton changed the words that he used to things that are seen forgivable to the general public allows the opinion about Bill Clinton to change. For example, he said that he had sinned which could make it seem like he knew what he did but is asking for forgiveness. At first Bill Clinton tried to deny it and people did not agree with him at all. But he changed his message which changed people’s minds. With the aid of media, you can also frame images. People retain images more and believe them more than words. An example is Trump after his attempted assanation. Agenda setting The media can’t tell someone to change their mind about the issue but instead a sense of importance. Whatever the media covers, the person, people are more likely going to think about it. What the media focuses on does not need a sophisticated relation to the world to understand what is happening, it could be something that the public would care about like the there is an analogy that “ if it bleeds, it leads (like something related to murder or crime or war).” An example of this is after 1993 the media continued to report on violent crime even though it was not as frequent. This led the public to believe that crime was important and was prevalent. The importance of crime leads to a tough on crime stance for governments. Different factors that go into what the press tends to cover, Drop in the bucket effect, Identifiable victim effect, Proximity effect, and Immediacy Effect. Drop in the bucket effect basically means that the issue has a solution to it. Identifiable victim effect is that can someone see the victim and can they resonate with them. The Immediate effect is is there a immediate solution that can happen. In the lecture they highlighted Baby Jessica where a baby was stuck in a well. It had more coverage in America compared to the the rwanda genocide. An example that is extended to politics The Bully Pulpit The bully pulpit acknowledges that the president is able to set their agendas through the media. For example, Jimmy Carter said it was an energy crisis and the media covered this, Reagan with “Say No to Drugs,” Clinton made healthcare the story of the year by trying to get national healthcare that ultimately did get out of committee. However, this does not always work even though being seen as a “Great communicator.” FDR with his fireside chat put pressure on congress and used the media to encourage people to hold congress accountable. He advertised things to people that were already enacted like the new deal. However, it did not change the minds of people all the time. When he tried to expand the supreme court, everyone was against it and was not trying to hear it. Additionally trying to persuade people into going into WWII earlier. Only events like Pearl Harbor influenced people, not the president. Reagan in 1981 urged people to call congress to pass the tax cut but he was selling things that were easy to sell. People want to keep more money in their pockets. He did not change people's minds with Nicaragua. He thought that it was good to aid rebels to reject communism, however did not want another Vietnam to happen. In recent times, Obama rallied people to tell congress to pass a stimulus package for the great recession. People already supported it because they elected him for this. However, he failed with Obamacare since it was widely unpopular at first. Obama had the false belief that turning a minority of public opinion would lead to a majority. Traditional vs. Contemporary Media Traditional media used to be towards investigative journalism to figure out what was happening that was controlled to specific media organizations like local newspapers, CBS/NBC,ABC, Magazines. However, now there is a shift to that anyone can produce media with the aid of new technology like the internet. The emergence of blogs, podcasts, and social media. Also, there was a shift to opinion journalism with the emergence of FOX news and MSNBC. The emergence of social media plays a big part where it gains accessibility to spreading information no matter who you are. Early social media was mainly sharing pictures where people made new friends. There was a little censorship since your friends could see things. However with the retweet button on Twitter and other things expanded how media is seen now. Social media is able to know much more information about the audience since everyone uses it while before there used to be subscriptions. Now there are comments/likes/shares/retweets, so there is no control of the spread of media. Now within the media, if its outrage then it leads. No one is forced to follow political news unless enticed which outrage about things can lead to people being more attentive. Without social media there might not have been widespread knowledge of the MeToo movement or Black lives matter. According to the Washington Post, social media helps young people, especially minorities and the poor, get politically engaged. Voter Rationality (lecture 13, week 8) Rational ignorance vs. Rational irrationality Assumes that people maximize their desired political outcomes- peace, low crime, prosperity, better roads- in the most efficient way. This is saying that you are not involved for emotions but instead for good outcomes for people. Downs coins the phrase “rational ignorance”- irrational to invest time into learning politics unless your political activity will change the outcome of an election. Rational ignorance is based on that belief that people's votes do not matter. If someone knows that their vote doesn't matter or even their opinion, they choose not to invest in politics. Explains why people do not spend the time on who is running but under his explanation it does not tell us why people should vote if you have a slim chance of changing an election (why take the time to vote). People showing rational ignorance are Aware of their own ignorance and agnostic. Rational Irrationality are Unaware of their own ignorance, Get upset when they find out new evidence, Psychologically rewarded by confirmation bias, Motivated to find evidence that confirms their own beliefs, and Motivated to exclude evidence that does not confirm their beliefs. An example of this is Danish people comparing parental ratings of a public and a private school, where one was set up to be better than the other. When asked to fit with A and B people did it more accurately but when its public school and private they could not because of their own type of bias to defend the flaws. Rational irrationality are Informed and ideological voters that behave like sports fans. People involved themselves in politics but were motivated when someone got emotionally attracted to something in politics. Those most informed about politics are the least flexible in their views. They will screen out information that does not conform to their world view. In the lecture they used Hobbits, hooligans, and vulcans. Hobbits are the rational ignorant voters that are in fantasy land and close to themselves. They do not learn about new information. They would rather not learn. Hooligans are the voters that are informed but want to reinform their side (close minded). Vulcans are incompatible with telling lies. Rather care about the needs of others than their own. Does not use their own feelings (informed and open minded). However, these are not easy to find and are rare if you are trying to shut out your feelings. Conspiracy theory characteristics Very hard to not believe in conspiracy theories. You know what others do not. It feels a lot better knowing topics and how to solve them even if it's not real. More of a feel good for people. Psychological needs do conspiracy theories serve is desire to fit a chaotic world into a pattern or a story. People rather find more funding than randomness. An example is that some believe that the government was tasked with the assassination of JFK instead of thinking that one person decided to kill him. Someone would rather have anger than anxiety with Anxiety you do not know what it is while Anger you have a target. Many believe that in present time is the peak of conspiracy theories however that was in the 1950s like Joe McCarthy. The reason why we are aware of them is because of social media. Conspiracy theories are not just a thing of the right. Conspiracy theories come from all ages, races, and genders. Conspiracy theories depend on who you are and can often shift. Conservatives scapegoats are liberals and communist while liberals scapegoat corporations and conservatives in which they would create conspiracy theories based on that. Vaccines used to be left coded but after the pandemic shifted to the right. An example of conspiracy theories is most of 2011, 50-70 percent of republicans didn’t believe Obama wasn’t born in america. When Obama showed his birth certificate they agreed but then immediately went back. Some people did not believe it but if it was genuinely true then politicians would uncover it to try to get Obama out of office The Case Against Parties Contrast with UCLA and Downs/median voter theorem The Downs model of the tale of parties is that parties are brand names that seek out moderate positions to win elections for self-serving candidates. Under this model, parties are the tools of candidates. This model helps with the median voter theorem. In the 2024 election, Trump was perceived as more moderate than Kamala and he won the election. Additionally, within the democratic party, Harris was seen as more moderate than Warren or Sanders and performed better in their home states. But when there are two moderate parties, they are more close elections, for example, Kennedy and Nixon. Also, landslides are easy to predict when one candidate is more moderate than the other. In this model, parties push out moderate candidates to try to win elections. This ultimately influences how the party is seen as. UCLA Theory of parties is where party agendas are shaped by coalitions of groups that seek to push candidates to be more extreme. People that are extra motivated in politics are the activists and organizations that play much of a role in primaries where they choose party nominees loyal to them. These organizations and activists provide volunteers, networking, and donors for candidates. This theory does not use the median voter theorem due to the fact that not all voters are active and know the different positions that politicians are taking or issues. Theory of parties kin on the blindspots where voters are not aware what politicians are doing. Jimmy Carter did not want to be seen with LGBTQ+ people to get elected but voted in a judge that approved LGBTQ+ rights. Also, Mitt Romney’s race for the GOP nomination in 2008, he sought to win the South Carolina evangelicals to win the GOP nomination even though evangelicals do not like mormons at all. Within the theory of parties, interest groups have extreme demands that most people don’t want. None of these groups can win on their own, so they form a coalition. Calling a party the “Coffee Growers” party or the “Shepherds Party” doesn’t inspire anyone beyond the immediate groups because it shows the specific goals. So they find more lofty principles like “America First Party (with teachers (tariffs funds teachers and schools) and those that believe in tariffs (business owners). One way to fix this is collaborating with other coalitions that do not go against what they believe in. A clear difference between the theory of parties and downs model is that the theory of parties considers how there is polarization. Additionally, it considers who are the most active voters unlike the downs model. However, the UCLA theory of parties does not consider if they have influence on parties and candidates. For example, even though Jimmy Carter put in a judge that favored LGBTQ+ rights, he did not pass any laws that allowed things like gay marriage. Obama did not support gay marriage at one point because he believed it would influence swing states when he ran for re-election. The role of ordinary voters vs. elites When they talk about elites, we are going to be talking about factions.*** Ordinary voters can be disengaged to what is happening in politics and what type of bills are being passed. An ordinary voter is not going to care about things that do not spark their interest. However interest groups do. Political parties might tilt public policy by focusing more on factions and interest groups than on what the average voter thinks. The role of elites like interest groups depends on how effective the group is. Broad groups face a collective action problem and a free rider problem. When they are a bigger group of people where everyone would have a small payoff. It would be Individually irrational to contribute if other do not have to contribute (eg. conserving energy to stop global warming). The benefit to a narrow interest group is so big that one member will bear all the cost. Groups that benefit a lot of people a little will have less motivated members that leads to free riders.Sometime to alleviate collective action problem, can do this by Selective incentive, Solidary benefits, Forced contribution. But no matter what, groups that benefit a few people by a lot will have highly motivated members. Additionally, large groups will have higher organization and coordination costs, and will be more prone to division. An example of an interest group that differs from ordinary voters is the Renter car industry. There was a law requiring car insurance for car rental places. Consumers thought it was good but it was putting mom and pop car rental places because they could not afford it. This shows that some ordinary voters are clueless about things while others are not. Some laws can look for the public interest but not all the time. it is collectively rational to join some organizations but individually irrational to contribute individually. Role of parties in representation of minorities There is a thing called party capture where parties are able to gain the support of minorities. Parties are able provide assistance stealthily and by associating with minorities they are able to legitimize minorities movements and identities. An example is LGBTQ Rights groups. They were never a part of the republican party but it was also unclear if they could make gay rights mainstream in the democratic party. Carter’s campaign advisor talked to these groups and said that they have to win the election first before passing gay rights. However, this group could say they were voting for republicans since they were adamantly against them. Carter appointed judges that upheld gay rights and invited delegations to the white house but nothing else. At one point, they achieved concessions by threatening the draw attention to themselves, tainting the democratic party image when they were unpopular. At the 1980 democratic convention, tried to protest and show how the party is associated with the party when they were seen as unpopular. At first, LGBTQ rights group mostly focused on anti-sodomy laws but the early donation came from the bathhouses (something good to know). LGBTQ+ expanded their allyship to expand their political clout like Feminist,Civil rights groups, Public health groups. With the AIDS pandemic becoming really severe for LGBTQ people to the point where most people a part of the LGBTQ community focused on public health rather than discrimination. Supporting AIDS funding became a kind of dog whistle for democratic politicians who did not openly support all gay right like gay marriage. This legitimizes LGBTQ people as people instead of another. Additionally, there was this clear message that the democrats were for LGBTQ people. This association ended up paving the way to gay marriage. The pro-slavery position was caputred by the republicans which legitimized the minorities of Abolitionist. But that was because of the previous allyship with businessmen and disaffected Democrats and were able to accomplish much of what they wanted in the first republican presidential administration. at first parties tend to be scared to associate themselves with minorities groups Minorities might deserve a greater say but are those the ones that we want to have more of a say Role of parties in Checks and Balances and other democratic norms Parties tend to soften checks and balances and other democratic norms. It's usually due to the loyalty of their parties and to build their reputation. Both parties have advanced and suppressed suffrage. For example, though parties created the 15th amendment, 24th amendment, 26th amendment but created the alien act, jim crow laws, voter id laws, and exclusion of third parties. In Washington’s farewell address, he warned that parties inflame passions rather than deliberation, parties seek revenge on each other, and wish failure upon them. However, parties have allowed punishment for bad behaviors like The Hartford Convention, Secession of the South, Watergate, and January 6th but in all but one lead to punishment for all involved which was the hartford convention that lead to the downfall of the federalist party. Those that led the secession of the south like plantation were able to serve in office, Nixon allowed them into positions of power, and those that encouraged January 6th are still in power and instead people that were opposed within the republican party were punished by their own party. Additionally, parties soften checks and balances like impeachment since the same party as the president is less likely to vote for impeachment. This extends to overriding Inability to override presidential vetoes due to party loyalty. The establishment of the Executive Office of the President that gives the president more power to agenda set. Failure of the War Powers Act which now the president has more power to declare war than congress voting. Another thing of revenge is democrats helping push republicans out of the parties to push more extreme MAGA candidates in primaries so they have an easier chance to secure an election. The existence of parties provided trump with a bigger platform which allow non-democratic norms like the rejection of elections, the opposition of certain amendments like birthright citizenship. -​ Advisors and staffers for the executive office of the president serve the pleasure of the present and enable themes to shape policy agendas and implement president directives without congressional interference -​ The judicial system has become something of partisanship. Where presidents appoint people that are similar to them, when something goes to the supreme court, they tend to be in favor of the party of the president that appointed them. -​ Parties only have interest in opposing a president's agenda when they are not the same party.