This article examines citizens who combine liberalism on one of two major issue dimensions with conservatism on the other, assessing whether they are less politically engaged than “consistent” liberals and conservatives and whether this relationship has strengthened over time with elite polarization. It also explores the contributions of cross-pressures, partisanship, and alienation to contemporary ideological differences in political engagement. This article departs from most existing research by defining ideology two dimensionally. Using the 1984-2008 American National Election Studies, it finds that culturally conservative, economically liberal Americans and to a lesser extent culturally liberal, economically conservative Americans are less engaged in elections than “consistent” liberals and conservatives. Different factors explain these differences with liberals and conservatives, but cross-pressures do not demobilize either “two-dimensional ideologue.” Over time, the increased involvement of liberals and conservatives has produced a growing ideological gap in political engagement.
AbramowitzA. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
AbramowitzA. I.SaundersK. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth?Journal of Politics, 70, 542-555.
3.
AdamsG. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 718-737.
4.
AdamsJ.DowJ.MerrillS.III. (2006). The political consequences of alienation-based and indifference-based voter abstention: Applications to presidential elections. Political Behavior, 28, 65-86.
5.
BerelsonB. R.LazarsfeldP. E.McPheeW. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign (Midway reprint ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BraderT.TuckerJ. A.TherriaultA. (2009). The cross-pressured citizen: Revisiting social influence on voting behavior. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
7.
CarminesE. G.EnsleyM. J.WagnerM. W. (n.d.-a). Ideological heterogeneity and the resurgence of mass partisanship. Working Paper. Accessed June 16, 2009. mypage.iu.edu/~ensley.
8.
CarminesE. G.EnsleyM. J.WagnerM. W. (n.d.-b). Party polarization and mass partisan identification in the United States: 1972-2000. Working Paper. Accessed June 16, 2009. mypage.iu.edu/~ensley.
9.
ClaassenR. L. (2007). Campaign activism and the spatial model: Getting beyond extremism to explain policy motivated participation. Political Behavior, 29, 369-390.
10.
ClaassenR. L.HightonB. (2009). Policy polarization among party elites and the significance of political awareness in the mass public. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 538-551.
11.
FeldmanS.JohnstonC. (2009). Understanding political ideology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
12.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
13.
FinifterA. W. (1970). Dimensions of political alienation. American Political Science Review, 64, 389-410.
14.
FiorinaM. P. (with AbramsS. J.). (2009). Disconnect: The breakdown of representation in American politics. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
15.
FiorinaM. P.AbramsS. J.PopeJ. C. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
16.
GreenD.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
HetheringtonM. J. (2008). Turned off or turned on? How polarization affects political engagement. In NivolaP. S.BradyD. W. (Eds.),Red and blue nation? Consequences and correction of today’s polarized politics (pp. 1-34). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18.
HillygusD. S.ShieldsT. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
JacksonJ. S.IIIBigelowN.GreenJ. C. (2007). The state of the party elites: National convention delegates, 1992-2004. In GreenJ. C.CoffeyD. J. (Eds.), The state of the parties: 2004 and beyond (pp. 51-74). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M.GreenJ. C.HerreraR.CoopermannR. (2010). Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. American Political Science Review, 104, 324-346.
22.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M.HorowitzJ. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83-110.
23.
LevenduskyM. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
MaddoxW. S.LilieS. A. (1984). Beyond liberal and conservative: Reassessing the political spectrum. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
25.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
26.
MutzD. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855.
27.
NilsonS. S. (2002). Half a century of cross-pressures: A thesis reconsidered. Political Studies, 50, 354-361.
28.
NortonE. C.WangH.AiC. (2004). Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. The Stata Journal, 4, 154-167.
29.
PlaneD.GershtensonJ. (2004). Candidates’ ideological locations, abstention, and turnout in U.S. midterm senate elections. Political Behavior, 26, 69-93.
30.
RapoportR. B.StoneW. J. (2005). Three’s a crowd: The dynamic of third parties, Ross Perot, and Republican resurgence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31.
SanbonmatsuK. (2004). Democrats, Republicans, and the politics of women’s place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
32.
SchofieldN.MillerG.MartinA. (2003). Critical elections and political realignments in the USA: 1860-2000. Political Studies, 51, 217-240.
33.
SchwartzD. C. (1973). Political alienation and political behavior. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
34.
ShaferB. E.ClaggettW. J. M. (1995). The two majorities: The issue context of modern American politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
35.
SouthwellP. L. (2008). The effect of political alienation on voter turnout, 1964-2000. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 36, 131-145.
36.
SwedlowB.WyckoffM. L. (2009). Value preferences and ideological structuring of attitudes in American public opinion. American Politics Research, 37, 1048-1087.
37.
TreierS.HillygusD. S. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 679-703.
38.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. LBradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
WilliamsL. F. (2003). The constraint of race. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
40.
ZippJ. F. (1985). Perceived representativeness and voting: An assessment of the impact of “choices” vs. “echoes.”American Political Science Review, 79, 50-61.
