Conservative ideological self-identification on the rise

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 14:08


New numbers from Gallup suggest that the percentage of Americans self-identifying as "conservative" is on the rise:


It is important to keep in mind what this means, and what it doesn't mean:

  • It is not necessarily a reflection of policy preferences. For example, views of the role of government swing pretty wildly while ideological self-identification is flat. These views are also more tied to which partisan self-identification than to ideological self-identification.  For example, take a long-running poll conducted by Pew:


    Most Americans do not have particularly thoroughgoing, coherent ideological perspectives. So, a change in ideological self-identification does not necessarily reflect a change in policy preference.

  • What it does mean is that the Republican base has increased in size.  Ideological self-identification is a very good predictor of voting habits.  With Democrats consistently receiving only 15-20% of the conservative vote since the early 1980's (following the loss of the "solid South" in Presidential elections), a 5% shift toward conservative self-identification is a definite win for Republicans.  A shift of this size in the 2008 electorate would have resulted in Obama only defeating McCain by 2%, instead of by 7%.  Combined with an enthusiasm gap of at least 2-3%, this ideological shift thus represents the entirety of Republican gains since 2008.
Without more specifics, or perhaps even a larger sample size (Gallup sampled 8,000 people for the 2010 poll), attempting to pinpoint which groups are shifting toward increased conservative self-identification is pure guesswork.  Still, to speculate, my bet is that this is an exacerbation of the white Christian vs non-white and / or non-Christian dynamic that has been underlying the two major political coalitions for some time now.

Despite the greater population growth among demographics that tend to vote for Democrats, Republicans always had a path to remain competitive electorally if they increased their share of the white Christian vote, and remained steady among non-whites and non-Christians.  I have feeling that is exactly what is happening right now, and the two coalitions are becoming even more demographically polarized than ever.  Things are going to get a lot worse in this regard before they get better.

Chris Bowers :: Conservative ideological self-identification on the rise

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Moderates losing (0.00 / 0)
Since 92 conservatives are up 6%, liberals up 3% and moderates are down 8%.  All bipartisanship and gridlock seems to be doing is turning moderates into conservatives.  

More like (4.00 / 1)
the anti-populist Obama has nothing to offer declasse whites who abandoned Bush.

Obama did what he telegraphed he would do; it was the failure of the "Uprising" / "Crashing the Gates" people to realize that Obama was barricading the gates behind him.

After a few more hellish years of right-wing nihilism, perhaps next time you'll fight for genuine change.


[ Parent ]
Not offered (4.00 / 1)
Edwards was the best of the bunch and he didn't get out of Iowa.  Plus he had hidden faults that would have been deadly in a general election.

The left wing A list bloggers never settled on one, truly progressive candidate.  Waiting for one to emerge is like waiting for Godot.  We need to go out and get one and mostly support him/her.


[ Parent ]
You can't move the country or the party (0.00 / 0)
by the choice of a single candidate.  

If the party was sufficiently progressive, than the White House would act progressive, regardless of the personal views of the president.  If enough pressure was put on the White House, they would act progressive.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
You can (4.00 / 1)
Theodore Roosevelt was chosen for VP to get him out of the Governor's spot and into a nothing job.  When McKinley died, TR moved the country to the left. The Republicans certainly did not follow.

Lazaro Cardenas was supposed to be a safe choice on Mexico but the general proved to be a real reformer, perhaps the only successful one in Mexican history. The PRI did not follow.

Lincoln and FDR were more of a combination.  Lincoln moved forward a generation of changes in land ownership, college education, etc, along with the Civil War, slavery, etc.  FDR did the same with banking, social security, etc.  LBJ moved Medicare, Civil Rights, head start, housing and others.  The foundation was there but it might have gone yo naught with a poor President.

A President alone can provide change but alone he/she will likely be an island of progress in a sea of status quo.  A President with a movement behind him/her is clearly better.

The need and movement alone though is not enough in our system.  President Versailles alone could be a real sticking point.  We need both.


[ Parent ]
You're right that people matter (4.00 / 1)
I shouldn't have suggested otherwise. But - TR was able to move things because of the political context, where progressives held power within both political parties.

Movements pushed FDR and LBJ, but they made the most of the situation, something Obama has certainly not done.

I guess my is that right now, we don't have the power.  We'll either get fauxgressives, or a progressive that is weak at the candidate (at best), because the conservatives hold the power in the party and the grassroots are not engaged. I think those latter things are where our leverage lies.  I should have framed this comment in terms of current strategy, not the sweep of history.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
Concurring in part, dissenting in part (0.00 / 0)
It is not necessarily a reflection of policy preferences. For example, views of the role of government swing pretty wildly while ideological self-identification is flat. These views are also more tied to which partisan self-identification than to ideological self-identification.

Not exactly. Answers to questions about the role of government in the abstract swing relatively wildly, while more specific questions about particular government actions not swing at all.  This tells me that those abstract questions are bad questions - it doesn't tell us anything about what people believe. That said, you are right that there is little connection between self-identification and policy preferences - the latter are way more favorable for progressive positions.

Most Americans do not have particularly thoroughgoing, coherent ideological perspectives.

Not sure about this either. I think people do have a fairly coherent ideology, it's just doesn't fit easily into the boxes used by elites. Most people like the idea of free enterprise, are very supportive of government efforts to secure economic opportunity and security for all, support help for the poor, distrust "welfare" and think government wastes a lot of money.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


The problem is branding (4.00 / 3)

 Obama is perceived as a liberal, but his economic policies have been (a) very conservative, and (b) an abject failure.

 So this administration has done more to destroy the liberal brand than eight years of Bush ever did. One wonders if it was by design.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


Who is making the case? (4.00 / 2)
What else should we expect?  There is still almost no one explaining the benefits of a progressive approach to the public in ways that reach the public.  Almost all anyone out there heres is anti-government, anti-democracy, right-wing propaganda.  

The public is being told - with almost no one countering it in ways that reach the public - that the government caused the housing crisis by forcing banks to lend to minorities.  Very large numbers of people believe this.  They have been told over and over that "taxes take money out of the economy" and "tax cuts increase revenue" and nonsense like that.

Who is out there explaining to the public the value of government, the value of investing in infrastructure, schools, etc?  That's just "spending" and of course government spending is always bad.

Etc.



--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


How did I type "heres"??? (0.00 / 0)
HEARS.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox