Authoritarianism and American Political Behavior from 1952 to 2008

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.

The Contingent, Contextual Nature of the Relationship Between Needs for Security and Certainty and Political Preferences: Evidence and Implications

“…Their results were similar: Since the middle of the twentieth century, authoritarianism has become increasingly predictive of Republican partisanship and Republican presidential voting. Importantly, both Weiler (2009) andCizmar et al (2014) found relatively stable relationships between authoritarianism and various issue preferences over time. This strongly suggests that the changes in the relationships between authoritarianism, partisanship, and presidential voting that they observed were due to changes in the parties' issue reputations, as opposed to changes in the relationship between authoritarianism and attitudes toward the issues themselves.…”

The role of right‐wing authoritarianism and political sophistication in shaping attitudes toward redistribution

“…While several studies have shown that authoritarian individuals tend to support conservative economic policies (Bobbio, Canova, & Manganelli, 2010;Cornelis & Van Hiel, 2006;Everett, 2013;Jost, Blount, Pfeffer, & Hunyady, 2003;Napier & Jost, 2008;Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez, 2004), other studies have found that authoritarianism is associated with greater support for interventions related to the economy (Radkiewicz, 2017;Van Hiel & Kossowska, 2007), protectionism (Johnston, 2013), government redistribution in the general population (Calzada, G omez-Garrido, Moreno, & Moreno-Fuentes, 2014;Staerkl e, Likki, & Scheidegger, 2012), and government redistribution in favor of ethnic in-groups (Mewes & Mau, 2012). However, other studies have found no or weak relationships between authoritarian dispositions and economic policy preferences (Benjamin, 2015;Cizmar, Layman, McTague, Pearson-Merkowitz, & Spivey, 2014;Duriez, Van Hiel, & Kossowska, 2005;Feldman & Johnston, 2014;Roets & Van Hiel, 2006). Recently, political sophistication has been shown to play a crucial role in the association between RWA and economic policy preferences (Johnston et al, 2017;Malka et al, 2014).…”

Authoritarian Predispositions and Attitudes Towards Redistribution

“…However, few researchers have tackled this apparent puzzle, and those who did reported conflicting findings. While some studies found no significant relationship between authoritarianism and economic attitudes (Cizmar, Layman, McTague, Pearson‐Merkowitz, & Spivey, ; Feldman & Johnston, ), others reported substantial numbers of voters with economically liberal and socially conservative tendencies (Van der Brug & van Spanje, ; Lefkofridi, Wagner, & Willmann, ). In even more nuanced treatments of the subject, researchers have demonstrated that the effect of authoritarianism on economic attitudes depends on political engagement (Johnston, Lavine, & Federico, ) and that economic conservatism is not always associated with social conservatism (Cochrane, ; Federico & Malka, ; Malka, Lelkes, & Soto, ).…”

“…While this reasoning is quite straightforward, evidence have been mixed and mostly limited to the United States. Within the American context, empirical evidence has generally revealed either no association (Cizmar et al, ; Feldman & Johnston, ) or a negative association (Ellis & Stimson, ; Treier & Hillygus, ) between authoritarianism and support for redistribution. Recently, however, Johnston et al () provide a partial solution to this puzzle by showing that this relationship depends on political engagement.…”