Authoritarianism, an individual-level predisposition that favors security, conformity, and certainty, has been powerfully linked with cultural conservatism and support for “strongman” politicians but weakly and inconsistently linked with public opinion toward economic issues. In examining this latter relationship, past work has tended to pose a dichotomous question, is authoritarianism associated with economic liberalism/conservatism or not? Here, I diverge from this approach and argue that authoritarianism is associated with support for one specific program—Social Security. I argue that the unique framing of this program, which emphasizes rule-following, certainty, and deservingness, should resonate with authoritarian-minded individuals. I test this with survey data, primarily from the American National Election Studies (ANES). Overall, I find a positive and substantively significant relationship between authoritarianism and support for Social Security but not for other types of domestic social welfare spending. These findings help us better understand the correlates of mass support for Social Security as well as the policy consequences of authoritarianism. These findings also suggest that Social Security will likely remain popular in an increasingly authoritarian Republican Party.
AnsolabehereStephenRoddenJonathanSnyderJames M.2008. “The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review102 (2): 215–32.
2.
ArikanGizemSekerciogluEser. 2019. “Authoritarian Predispositions and Attitudes Towards Redistribution.” Political Psychology40 (5): 1099–1118.
3.
BarberMichaelPopeJeremy C.2019. “Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America.” American Political Science Review113 (1): 38–54.
4.
BarkerDavid C.TinnickJames D.2006. “Competing Visions of Parental Roles and Ideological Constraint.” American Political Science Review100 (2): 249–63.
5.
BartelsLarry M.2018. “Partisanship in the Trump Era.” Journal of Politics80 (4): 1483–94.
6.
BeecheySusanne N.2016. Social Security and the Politics of Deservingness. New York: Springer.
7.
BroockmanDavidMalhotraNeil. 2020. “What Do Partisan Donors Want?” Public Opinion Quarterly84 (1): 104–18.
CampbellAndrea Louise. 2002. “Self-Interest, Social Security, and the Distinctive Participation Patterns of Senior Citizens.” American Political Science Review96 (3): 565–74.
10.
CizmarAnne M.LaymanGeoffrey C.McTagueJohnPearson-MerkowitzShannaSpiveyMichael. 2014. “Authoritarianism and American Political Behavior from 1952 to 2008.” Political Research Quarterly67 (1): 71–83.
11.
ConversePhilip E.1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by ApterDavid, 206-61. New York: Free Press.
12.
EngelhardtAndrew M.FeldmanStanleyHetheringtonMarc J.2021. “Advancing the Measurement of Authoritarianism.” Political Behavior1–24.
13.
FeldmanStanleyStennerKaren. 1997. “Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism.” Political Psychology18 (4): 741–70.
14.
FreederSeanLenzGabriel S.TurneyShad. 2019. “The Importance of Knowing “What Goes With What”: Reinterpreting the Evidence on Policy Attitude Stability.” Journal of Politics81 (1): 274–90.
15.
GarandJames C.XuPingDavisBelinda C.2017. “Immigration Attitudes and Support for the Welfare State in the American Mass Public.” American Journal of Political Science61 (1): 146–62.
16.
GilensMartin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
GorenPaul. 2008. “The Two Faces of Government Spending.” Political Research Quarterly61 (1): 147–57.
19.
GorenPaulChappChristopher. 2019. “When Worldviews Collide: Authoritarianism Is Endogenous to Culture War Issues.” Unpublished manuscript Presented at the 2019 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
20.
GrossmannMattHopkinsDavid A.2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
HaselswerdtJake.2020. “Who Benefits? Race, Immigration, and Assumptions about Policy.” Political Behavior 1–48.
22.
HetheringtonMarc J.SuhayElizabeth. 2011. “Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans’ Support for the War on Terror.” American Journal of Political Science55 (3): 546–60.
23.
HetheringtonMarc J.WeilerJonathan. 2018. Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
24.
HetheringtonMarc J.WeilerJonathan D.2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
JacobyWilliam G.2000. “Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science44:750–67.
26.
JohnstonChristopher D.FedericoChristopher M.LavineHoward G.2017. Open Versus Closed: Personality, Identity, and the Politics of Redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
KinderDonald R.SandersLynn M.1996. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
KinderDonald R.KalmoeNathan P.2017. Neither Liberal Nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
LuptonRobert N.MyersWilliam M.ThorntonJudd R.2017. “Party Animals: Asymmetric Ideological Constraint among Democratic and Republican Party Activists.” Political Research Quarterly70 (4): 889–904.
30.
LuttigMatthew D.2017. “Authoritarianism and Affective Polarization: A New View on the Origins of Partisan Extremism.” Public Opinion Quarterly81 (4): 866–95.
31.
LuttigMatthew D.2021. “Reconsidering the Relationship between Authoritarianism and Republican Support in 2016 and Beyond.” Journal of Politics83 (2): 783–87.
32.
MacWilliamsMatthew C.2016a. “American Authoritarianism in Black and White.” Doctoral diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
33.
MacWilliamsMatthew C.2016b. “Who Decides When the Party Doesn’t? Authoritarian Voters and the Rise of Donald Trump.” PS: Political Science & Politics49 (4): 716–21.
34.
MalkaArielSotoChristopher J.InzlichtMichaelLelkesYphtach. 2014. “Do Needs for Security and Certainty Predict Cultural and Economic Conservatism? A Cross-National Analysis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology106 (6): 1031–51.
35.
MalkaArielLelkesYphtachSotoChristopher J.2019. “Are Cultural and Economic Conservatism Positively Correlated? A Large-Scale Cross-National Test.” British Journal of Political Science49 (3): 1045–69.
PérezEfren O.HetheringtonMarc J.2014. “Authoritarianism in Black and White: Testing the Cross-Racial Validity of the Child Rearing Scale.” Political Analysis22 (3): 398–412.
38.
PistonSpencer. 2018. Class Attitudes in America: Sympathy for the Poor, Resentment of the Rich, and Political Implications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
RuedaDavidStegmuellerDaniel. 2016. “The Externalities of Inequality: Fear of Crime and Preferences for Redistribution in Western Europe.” American Journal of Political Science60 (2): 472–89.
40.
SchneiderAnneIngramHelen. 1993. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review87 (2): 334–47.
41.
SidesJohnTeslerMichaelVavreckLynn. 2018. “Hunting Where the Ducks Are: Activating Support for Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican Primary.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties28 (2): 135–56.
VelezYamil RicardoLavineHoward. 2017. “Racial Diversity and the Dynamics of Authoritarianism.” Journal of Politics79 (2): 519–33.
46.
WinterNicholas J. G.2006. “Beyond Welfare: Framing and the Racialization of White Opinion on Social Security.” American Journal of Political Science50 (2): 400–20.
47.
WronskiJulieBankertAlexaAmiraKarynJohnsonApril A.LevitanLindsey C.2018. “A Tale of Two Democrats: How Authoritarianism Divides the Democratic Party.” Journal of Politics80 (4): 1384–88.
48.
ZallerJohn R.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
