No abstract

Using American National Election Studies (NES) data from 1952 to 2008—a longer timespan than any analysis to date—we evaluate the leading claims about growing polarization along authoritarian/nonauthoritarian lines and the reasons for that growth. We find authoritarianism’s impact has grown for partisanship and voting but has been consistent for policy attitudes—usually present for “social” and defense issues, but less so for social welfare and foreign policy. This suggests that authoritarianism’s importance is related to strategic politicians advancing issues that touch on the authoritarian/nonauthoritarian divide, and varies across election years.

Partisan polarization in the Senate is in part a product of the increased sorting of evangelical Christians into the Republican caucus. The relationship between senators' religious identities, party affiliation, and ideology has changed since the 1970s. Whereas congressional party caucuses in the past were more diverse in their religious composition, evangelical Christian senators have sorted themselves into the party that most closely resembles the values of their religious identities, leading to greater overall polarization.

Using a nationally representative data set ( N = 3,000), the Public Religion Research Institute’s American Values Survey, we conduct multivariate regression analysis to determine the empirical impact of attitudes regarding the birth control mandate and abortion on presidential vote choice. We also conduct factor analysis to determine whether voters conceptualized the birth control mandate and abortion similarly. We find that support for the Obama administration’s birth control mandate was significantly related to voting for Obama for both women and men voters, although the impact was stronger for women. However, the impact of the “War on Women” rhetoric on voters’ choices was limited to the issue of insurance coverage for birth control rather than extending to the issue of abortion. Unlike attitudes about abortion, we find that voters conceptualized the birth control mandate less as a “culture war” issue and more as a “role of government” issue. Given this conceptualization of the mandate by voters, our findings reaffirm previous research that suggests that the gender gap in voting is largely driven by attitudinal differences regarding the role of government in providing social welfare benefits and equal opportunity for women.

Is there a relationship between legislators’ religious affiliations and the consistency of their voting records? Building on the theory of “the personal roots of representation,” we argue that a legislator's likelihood of switching positions depends on whether the issue is central to their personal values. We evaluate this claim using a data set including senators’ religious affiliations and “culture war” votes from 1976 to 2004 and find that different religious groups vary in their voting consistency on issues such as abortion, public prayer, and gay and lesbian rights.