Over the last several decades, scholars have noted a strengthening link between ideology and party identification among the public, but the causal direction of this phenomenon remains contested. The ideological realignment thesis holds that ideology now strongly influences party identification, but this position conflicts with literature suggesting that party identification remains the primary causal force behind most important political attitudes. This study examines the causal forces at work between ideology and party identification by focusing on the distinction between symbolic and operational ideology. The methodology involves the use of panel data that span several decades, and structural equation modeling. The findings indicate that between 1982 and 1997, symbolic ideology had a strong influence party identification, but operational ideology had little effect on party identification. The results suggest an important revision to the ideological realignment thesis, as the evidence indicates that symbolic ideology has been the primary force driving realignment.
AbramowitzA. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
AbramowitzA. I.KnottsH. G. (2006). Ideological realignment in the American electorate: A comparison of Northern and Southern White voters in the pre-Reagan, Reagan, and post-Reagan eras. Politics & Policy, 34, 94-108.
3.
AbramowitzA. I.SaundersK. L. (1998). Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics, 60, 634-652.
4.
AbramowitzA. I.SaundersK. L. (2006). Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American electorate: Social identity vs. ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 175-187.
5.
AbramowitzA. I.SaundersK. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth?Journal of Politics, 70, 542-555.
6.
AdamsG. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 718-737.
7.
AnsolabehereS.RoddenJ.SnyderJ. M. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102, 215-232.
8.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: John Wiley.
9.
CarminesE. G.StanleyH. W. (1992). The transformation of the new deal party system: Social groups, political ideology, and changing partisanship among Northern Whites, 1972-1988. Political Behavior, 14, 213-237.
10.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
CarseyT. M.LaymanG. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 464-477.
12.
ConoverP. J.FeldmanS. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617-645.
13.
DwyerJ. H. (1983). Statistical models for the social and behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
EllisC.StimsonJ. A. (2012). Ideology in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
FinkelS. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
FleishmanJ. A. (1986). Trends in self-identified ideology from 1972 to 1982: No support for the salience hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 517-541.
17.
FranklinC. H. (1984). Issue preferences, socialization, and the evolution of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 459-478.
18.
FreeL. A.CantrilH. (1967). The political beliefs of Americans: A study of public opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
19.
GorenP. (2005). Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 881-896.
20.
GreenD. P.PalmquistB. (1990). Of artifacts and partisan instability. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 872-902.
21.
GreenD. P.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisans hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
HightonB.KamC. D. (2011). The long term dynamics of partisanship and issue orientations. Journal of Politics, 73, 202-215.
23.
JacobyW. G. (1991). Ideological identification and issue attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 178-205.
24.
JostJ. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651-670.
25.
KeyV. O.Jr. (1959). Secular realignment and the party system. Journal of Politics, 21, 198-210.
26.
LaymanG. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
27.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M. (2002). Party polarization and party structuring of policy attitudes: A comparison of three NES panel studies. Political Behavior, 24, 199-236.
28.
LevenduskyM. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
LevineJ.CarminesE. G.HuckfeldtR. (1997). The rise of ideology in the post-new deal party system, 1972-1992. American Politics Quarterly, 25, 19-34.
30.
LevitinT. E.MillerW. E. (1979). Ideological interpretations of presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 73, 751-771.
31.
LuttbegN. R.GantM. M. (1985). The failure of liberal/conservative ideology as a cognitive structure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 80-93.
32.
MacKuenM. B.EriksonR. S.StimsonJ. A.KnightK. (2003). Elections and the dynamics of ideological representation. In MacKuenM. B.RabinowitzG. (Eds.), Electoral democracy (pp. 200-237). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
33.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
35.
PoppE.RudolphT. J. (2011). A tale of two ideologies: Explaining public support for economic interventions. Journal of Politics, 73, 808-820.
36.
PutzD. W. (2002). Partisan conversion in the 1990s: Ideological realignment meets measurement theory. Journal of Politics, 64, 1199-1209.
37.
RotundaR. D. (1986). The politics of language: Liberalism as word and symbol. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
38.
SchifferA. J. (2000). I’m not that liberal: Explaining conservative democratic identification. Political Behavior, 22, 293-310.
39.
SchreckhiseW. D.ShieldsT. G. (2003). Ideological realignment in the contemporary U.S. electorate revisited. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 596-612.
40.
SearsD. O.LauR. R.TylerT. R.AllenH. M.Jr. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 670-684.
41.
StimsonJ. A. (2004). Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
42.
TreierS.HillygusD. S. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 679-703.
43.
WileyD. E.WileyJ. A. (1970). The estimation of measurement error in panel data. American Sociological Review, 35, 112-117.
44.
WoodT.OliverE. (2012). Toward a more reliable implementation of ideology in measures of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 636-662.
45.
YoungJ. P. (1996). Reconsidering American liberalism: The troubled odyssey of the liberal idea. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
