This article investigates how a key stratum of the partisan elite—party activists—have been positioned across time and policy issues. We examine the extent to which activists have polarized symmetrically or asymmetrically and find that only on the issue of abortion has one party’s activists (Republicans) polarized notably more than the other’s. The article also analyzes party activist proximity to the mass public’s policy preferences and finds that Democrats are consistently closer to the public on economic issues, and Republicans are consistently closer on a subset of non-economic issues. Our findings suggest the need for more nuanced theories of party activism and polarization along with providing a useful lens through which to view party electoral competition.
AbrajanoM.HajnalZ. (2015). White backlash: Immigration, race, and American politics. Princeton University Press.
2.
AbramowitzA. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. Yale University Press.
3.
AdamsG. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 718–737.
4.
AldrichJ. H. (1983a). A Downsian spatial model with party activism. American Political Science Review, 77(4), 974–990. https://doi.org/10.2307/1957570
5.
AldrichJ. H. (1983b). A spatial model with party activists: Implications for electoral dynamics. Public Choice, 41(1), 63–100.
6.
AndersenR.FetnerT. (2008). Cohort differences in tolerance of homosexuality: Attitudinal change in Canada and the United States, 1981–2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn017
7.
BaileyM. A.MummoloJ.NoelH. (2012). Tea Party influence: A story of activists and elites. American Politics Research, 40(5), 769–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X11435150
8.
BartelsL. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111700
9.
BartelsL. M. (2016). Failure to converge: Presidential Candidates, Core Partisans, and the Missing Middle in American Electoral Politics. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216661145
10.
BaumgartnerF. R.De BoefS. L.BoydstunA. E. (2008). The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of innocence. Cambridge University Press.
11.
BawnK.CohenM.KarolD.MasketS.NoelH.ZallerJ. (2012). A theory of political parties: Groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 10(3), 571–597.
12.
BinderS. A.LeeF. E. (2015). Making deals in Congress. In PersilyN. (Ed.), Solutions to political polarization in America (pp. 240–261). Cambridge University Press.
13.
BonicaA. (2014). Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12062
BroockmanD. E.SkovronC. (2018). Bias in perceptions of public opinion among political elites. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 542–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000011
17.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1986). On the structure and sequence of issue evolution. The American Political Science Review, 80(3), 901–920. https://doi.org/10.2307/1960544
18.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton University Press.
19.
CarminesE. G.WagnerM. W. (2006). Political issues and party alignments: Assessing the issue evolution perspective. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 67–81.
20.
CarminesE. G.WoodsJ. (2002). The role of party activists in the evolution of the abortion issue. Political Behavior, 24(4), 361–377.
21.
ClaassenR. L. (2015). Godless democrats and pious republicans? Party activists, party capture, and the ‘god gap’. Cambridge University Press.
22.
CohenM.KarolD.NoelH.ZallerJ. (2008). The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. University of Chicago Press.
23.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row.
24.
Fiorina, M. P., with Jeremy Pope and Samuel J. Abrams. (2006). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. Pearson Education.
25.
Fiorina, M. P., with Samuel J. Abrams. (2009). Disconnect: The breakdown of representation in American politics. University of Oklahoma Press.
26.
Fiorina, M. P., with Samuel J. Abrams and Jeremy C. Pope. (2011). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America (3rd ed.). Longman.
27.
FreemanJ. (1986). The political culture of the democratic and republican parties. Political Science Quarterly, 101(3), 327–356. https://doi.org/10.2307/2151619
28.
GilensM. (2005). Inequality and democratic responsiveness. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(5), 778–796.
29.
GilensM. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton University Press.
30.
GrossmanM.HopkinsD. A. (2015). Ideological republicans and group interest democrats: The asymmetry of American party politics. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714003168
31.
GrossmanM.HopkinsD. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and group interest democrats. Oxford University Press.
32.
HackerJ. S.PiersonP. (2005). Off center: The republican revolution and the erosion of American democracy. Yale University Press.
33.
HackerJ. S.PiersonP. (2010). Winnter-take-all-politics: How Washington made the rich richer–and turned its back on the middle class. Simon & Schuster.
34.
HackerJ. S.PiersonP. (2014). After the ‘master theory’: Downs, Schattschneider, and the rebirth of policy-focused analysis. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001637
35.
HackerJ. S.PiersonP. (2015). Confronting asymmetric polarization. In PersilyN. (Ed.), Solutions to political polarization in America (pp. 59–70). Cambridge University Press.
36.
HajnalZ.RiveraM. U. (2014). Immigration, Latinos, and white partisan politics: The new democratic defection. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 773–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12101
37.
HopkinsD. J. (2018). The increasingly United States: How and why American political behavior nationalized. University of Chicago Press.
38.
KarolD. (2009). Party position change in American politics: Coalition management. Cambridge University Press.
39.
KeithB. E.MaglebyD. B.NelsonC. J.OrrE.WestlyeM. C.WolfingerR. E. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. University of California Press.
40.
KeleherA.SmithE. R. A. N. (2012). Growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(9), 1307–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2012.720540
41.
KinderD. R.SandersL. M. (1996). Divided by color. University of Chicago Press.
LaymanG. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. Columbia University Press.
44.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M.GreenJ. C.HerreraR.CoopermanR. (2010). Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 324–346.
45.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M. (1998). Why Do Party Activists Convert? An Analysis of Individual-Level Change on the Abortion Issue. Political Research Quarterly, 51(3): 723–749.
46.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M.HorowitzJ. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138
47.
LeeF. E. (2016). Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. University of Chicago Press.
48.
LelkesY.SnidermanP. M. (2016). The ideological asymmetry of the American party system. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 825–844. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000404
49.
LuptonR. N.MyersW. M.ThorntonJ. R. (2017). Party animals: Asymmetric ideological constraint among democratic and republican party activists. Political Research Quarterly, 70(4), 889–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917718960
50.
MasketS. E. (2009). No middle ground: How informal party organizations control nominations and polarize legislatures. University of Michigan Press.
51.
McCartyN. (2019). Polarization: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.
52.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (1997). Income redistribution and the realignment of American politics. American Enterprise Institute.
53.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. MIT Press.
McCartyN.ShorB. (2016). Partisan polarization in the United States: Diagnoses and avenues for reform. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2714013
56.
MillerG.SchofieldN. (2003). Activists and partisan realignment in the United States. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 245–260.
57.
MillerG.SchofieldN. (2008). The transformation of the Republican and Democratic Party Coalitions in the U.S. Perspectives on Politics, 6(3), 433–450.
58.
NicholsonS. P. (2005). Voting the agenda: Candidates, elections, and ballot propositions. Princeton University Press.
59.
O’BrianN. A. (2020). Before Reagan: The development of abortion’s partisan divide. Perspectives on Politics, 18(4), 1031–1047. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719003840
60.
PageB. I.GilensM. (2017). Democracy in America? What has gone wrong and what we can do about it. University of Chicago Press.
61.
PeressM. (2013). Candidate positioning and responsiveness to constituent opinion in the U.S. house of representatives. Public Choice, 156, 77–94.
62.
PersilyN. (Ed.). (2015). Solutions to political polarization in America. Cambridge University Press.
63.
PooleK. T.DanielsS. (1985). Ideology, party and voting in the U.S. Congress. American Political Science Review, 79(2), 373–399.
64.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (1984). The polarization of American politics. The Journal of Politics, 46(4), 1061–1079. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131242
65.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford University Press.
66.
RosenstoneS. J.HansenJ. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. Macmillan.
67.
SaundersK. L.AbramowitzA. I. (2004). Ideological realignment and active partisans in the American electorate. American Politics Research, 32(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X03259195
68.
SchicklerE. (2016). Racial realignment: The transformation of American liberalism, 1932–1965. Princeton University Press.
69.
SchlozmanK. L.VerbaS.BradyH. E. (1995). Participation’s not a paradox: The view from American activists. British Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 1–36.
70.
SchofieldN.MillerG. (2007). Elections and activist coalitions in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 518–531.
71.
SmithD. A.TolbertC. (2007). The instrumental and educative effects of ballot measures: Research on direct democracy in the American states. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(4), 416–445.
72.
TausanovitchC.WarshawC. (2017). Estimating candidates’ political orientation in a polarized congress. Political Analysis, 25(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2017.5
73.
TeslerM.SearsD. O. (2010). Obama’s race: The 2008 election and the dream of a post-racial America. University of Chicago Press.
74.
ValentinoN. A.SearsD. O. (2005). Old times there are not forgotten: Race and partisan realignment in the contemporary South. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 672–688.
75.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
76.
WilliamsonV.SkocpolT.CogginJ. (2011). The Tea Party and the remaking of Republican conservatism. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759271000407X
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.
