That chart certainly caught my attention, in no uncertain terms.
In the book, the authors, Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler, explain:
Of course, we do not argue that preferences for disciplining children are causally related to individuals' vote choice. It is absurd to think that spanking children led people to vote Republican in 2004. Indeed, if favoring corporal punishment actually caused people to vote for the more conservative candidate, liberals never would have been elected president. It is only very recently that alternatives to spanking children have been widely employed. Instead, support for spanking likely emanates from a particular worldview which that has a range of ramifications, including political ones.
By worldview, we mean a set of connected beliefs animated by some fundamental, underlying value orientation that is itself, connected to a visceral sense of right and wrong. Politics cleaved by a worldview has the potential for fiery disagreements because considerations about the correct way to lead a good life lie in the balance. Specifically, we demonstrate that American public opinion is increasingly divided along a cleavage that things like parenting styles and "manliness" map onto. We will call that cleavage authoritarianism.
Although authoritarianism in general has long been associated with the right, the authors refine their definition and their argument to such an extent that they capture a distinct phenomena that's noticably different from the broader race- and gender-based culture wars first set in motion in the 60s. They focus on using the NES (National Election Study) four-item authoritarianism index introduced in 1992. It asks people to choose between desired pairs of attributes in children:
The pairs of attributes are independence versus respect for elders, obedience versus self-reliance, curiosity versus good manners, and being considerate versus being well behaved. Those who value "respect for elders," "obedience," "good manners," and "being well behaved" score at the maximum of the scale. Those who value "independence," "self-reliance," "curiosity," and "being considerate" score at the minimum.
In particular, the authors show a great deal of recent movement on issues they show are connected to authoritarianism. One of their most striking tables of data comes from an analysis of items on two Pew Surveys, from 2003 and 2007, in which there is clear evidence of increased polarization on 10 of the 14 items related to authoritarianism, while the other items show a slight average decrease in polarization. I reproduce it on the flip.
Table 7.7 Differences between Partisans on Authoritarian-Structured versus Traditional Issues, 2003 and 2007, Nonblack Respondents
2003
2007
2007-2003
Authoritarian-Structured Values and Preferences
School Boards Should Fire Gay Teachers
16
21
5
Police Should Be Able to Search Known Drug Dealer w/o Court Order
1
18
17
Have Old-Fashioned Values about Family and Marriage
20
20
0
There Are Clear Guidelines about Good and Evil
12
19
7
Free Speech Should Not Extend to Neo-Nazis and Other Extremists
7
12
5
Books with Dangerous Ideas Should Be Banned from School Libraries
4
9
5
Concerned Gov't Is Gathering too Much Info about People like Me
21
25
4
Newcomers Threaten Traditional American Customs
11
20
9
Improve Position of Blacks even Providing Preferences
28
25
-3
Should Do More to Restrict People Coming into the Country
8
13
5
Discrimination against Blacks Is Rare
7
15
8
Hasn't Been Much Improvement in the Position of Blacks in US
28
25
-3
Best Way to Ensure Peace Is through Strength
29
35
6
Willing to Fight for Country, whether It Is Right or Wrong
17
25
8
Mean Change
14.9
20.1
5.2
Traditional Political Values and Preferences
Businesses Strike Fair Balance between Profits and Public Interest
17
20
3
Too Much Power Concentrated in a Few Big Companies
24
21
-3
Businesses Make Too Much Profit
28
22
-6
Unions Are Necessary to Protect Working People
24
26
2
Often Worry about the Chances of Nuclear War
16
7
-9
Today Rich Are Getting Richer, Poor Poorer
36
35
-1
I Often Don't Have Enough Money to Make Ends Meet
17
18
1
I Think the Tax System Is Unfair to People like Me
8
12
4
Poor Have Become Too Dependent on Gov't Assistance Programs
23
27
4
Government Must Take Care of Those Who Can't Care for Themselves
22
23
1
Gov't Should Help More Needy People Even if It Means More Debt
32
36
4
Government Should Guarantee All Enough to Eat and Place to Sleep
36
36
0
Government Regulation of Business Does More Harm than Good
17
3
-14
Federal Gov't Should Run ONLY Things that Can't Be Run at Local Level
16
4
-12
Mean Change
22.5
20.6
-1.9
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Values Study, 1987-2007
The differences between the two batteries of questions speak for themselves. While there's a great wealth of information in the book, what should make every political junkie interested in it is the simple fact that it uncovers and explains a great deal about a major shift in American politics that's gone on right under our very noses, virtually undetected.
The table above and the chart above the fold are two of the clearest indications of what is going on here. Conservatives and Republicans understand that intuitively. It's part of the basic logic of authoritarianism--to see the world in black and white terms, in terms of omnipresent threat, and to rally round a perceived strong leader, no matter what. Non-authoritarianism, which the authors argue is much more important than generally realized, is much less determinate in the sort of behavior it produces. If we're going to successfully organize the non-authoritarian side of the increasingly polarized political world we live in, we've going to have to understand it first. And so I invite everyone here to come follow--and join into--the discussion this week.
I promise to followup here next weekend with some further reflections on the book and the disucssion it generates.
