The evolution of political views

This paper examines the effect of party affiliation on an individual’s political views. To do this, we exploit the party realignment that occurred in the U.S. due to abortion becoming a more prominent and highly partisan issue over time. We show that abortion was not a highly partisan issue in 1982, but a person’s abortion views in 1982 led many to switch parties over time as the two main parties diverged in their stances on this issue. We find that voting for a given political party in 1996, due to the individual’s initial views on abortion in 1982, has a substantial effect on a person’s political, social, and economic attitudes in 1997. These findings are stronger for highly partisan political issues, and are robust to controlling for a host of personal views and characteristics in 1982 and 1997. As individuals realigned their party affiliation in accordance with their initial abortion views, their other political views followed suit.

That is a new paper by Eric D. Gould, and Estaban F. Klor, via the excellent Kevin Lewis.

p.s. don’t call it “tribalism,” that is something else.


Seems bogus. The paper is saying nothing more than a group of people are 'core' party members and don't seem to switch allegiances over time.

They may not switch allegiances but the important point of the paper (if it turns out to be true) is that they change their viewpoints to accord with the party they've chosen: "their other political views followed suit".

But isn't that a feature of being a 'loyal core party voter'? If you always vote Republican 'no matter what', you're stuck with 'agreeing' with whatever the Republican party morphs into over the years.

Ask the new Democratic Socialists.

"They may not switch allegiances but the important point of the paper (if it turns out to be true) is that they change their viewpoints to accord with the party they've chosen:"

That just seems to be self selection. Anybody who stayed goes into the 'loyal core party voter' anybody who left does not. However, it doesn't prove that the bucket of 'loyal core party voter' are pure partisans. A good portion may have critical issues to them that haven't been effected.

The abstract explicitly claims people switched party allegiance over time based on views on abortion, and subsequently shifted views on other topics; not that people don’t shift party allegiance.

It's also tied into the Democrats becoming the party of low fertility urban living and the Republican becoming the party of higher fertility exurban living. Which one is the chicken and which one is the egg is a difficult question.

Except Democrats boost their fertility with blacks and Hispanics, who have much higher rates of fertility, though it is partially offset by the much higher rates of abortion among those groups.

How, just, how could those self-same "blacks and Hispanics" reject the loving embrace of a political-social movement which calls them out (at birth!) as the enemy?

Stop being so racist. You are a complete embarrassment.

The main thing is that we stop Mexican countries, like Puerto Rico, from taking so much foreign aid.

Again with your racism, just take a hint and Go away.

Trump's approval ratings among Hispanics is improving:

The big tell, on tribalism, is that Anon7 skates in this group on the assumption that "Democrats boost their fertility with blacks and Hispanics," but my calling that out becomes "racist" or wrong in detail.

Dudes. Slow down and think that through.

You're always trying to deflect.

It's just a descriptive statement bro. And absolutely true. Quit with the strawmans and race baiting

Do we really need to work this through?

Anon7 says "blacks and Hispanics" born now, will be a generation from now, Democrats.

If you can't understand that "racial expectation" as (1) a problematic self-reinforcing Republican identity, and (2) racism, what can I do?

You are all literally signing on to expectations for an unborn generation based on race alone.

Since I think you identify "right" you are setting the expectation that this unborn generation will be your political opponents, based on race alone.

Likely just mocking your hypocrisy.

As usual, you've got nothing to gainsay those facts, which Democrats have been touting for quite some time with their triumphalist demographics is destiny argument. And relevant to the cited paper, those groups have higher abortion rates (in addition to higher fertility rates), so one would expect them to favor the pro-abortion political party.

Some Republicans have recognized those same demographics and crafted messages for the millennial generation and beyond.

The interesting thing, the self-harm from the conservative perspective, is that you reject that effort.

Can't you see that what you did was declare generation unborn unreachable by your party? You write them off, by race.

Jeff R came closest above, but he should have been talking to you, not me.

He (you all) should have been saying "we can get those voters!" with a modern conservative message.

Don't invoke my name without permission.

lol, what, you don't want to be the least wrong?

I don't want you addressing me at all.

You should rethink your whole relationship with public forums.

Feels over reals. You’re reacting to phrasing instead of the facts. The nonpartisan fact would be:

Democrat fertility and voter population is driven upwards by Hispanics.

Is that racist?

There’s a population of people like anonymous that are terrified of truth, and thus want to declare facts ***-cist.

You moron, we have the moral high ground. Free movement of people! We don’t need to shout racism when confronted by facts. We can say yes, Hispanics overwhelmingly vote for socialism!! But their freedom of movement is more important than the “need” of a racist white person to feel secure.

The capable of us will own enough capital to leave if it ever turns.

Open borders 2020.

Where ya gonna go when "it" "turns"?

Responding to the best part of that, Democratic parents: How does that help you in the least?

Why on earth would you assume Democratic parents produce children Republicans cannot reach with their message of 2040?

Blacks reproduce at the replacement level. Their total fertility rate is about 15% higher than that of white Anglos &c. Hispanics do have high fertility (3.9 children per woman per lifetime); it's a reasonable wager that lasts one generation.

(Black women also tend to have their first child by age 23, whereas for white Anglos the median age when the first child is born is 26).

'This paper examines the effect of party affiliation on an individual’s political views.'

How about the other way round - that is, how an individual’s political views effect their party affiliation.

And to do this, we could exploit the party realignment that occurred in the U.S. due to the civil rights movement.

And the Southern Strategy as explained by Lee Atwater (apparently, quoting what he actually said is too controversial for this comment section) provides a framework of intentional party policy designed to lead many to switch parties over time as the two main parties diverged in their stances on this issue.

Almost as if this is actually a complex subject, where it is not only individuals, but parties that change over time. One trusts that merely linking to Atwater's actual words (you can listen to the entire 42 minute recording) is not the sort of thing requiring removal -

So all blacks are pro-abortion because all blacks are democrats? Not all blacks are democrat because they're pro-abortion?

No. One's views on abortion in 1982 influenced the future course of your party affiliation and the future course of your views on other issues.

Such is life in Trump's America. As famous German writer Thomas Mann pointed out, Americans are conformists. They follow their leaders blindly.

As famous German writer Thomas Mann pointed out, Americans are conformists. They follow their leaders blindly.
And of course, the Germans would never do such a thing. That thing that occurred from 1933 to 1945 was just some kind of weird aberration.

It was atypical. The Huns usually don't behave like that.

Does anyone want to take a wild stab at what "tribalism" is?

I hope Tyle isn't suggesting it is rude because of Natives.

Developing new associations based on shared philosophical views seems like the opposite of tribalism.

They are saying that after the trigger, group membership shaped beliefs in unexpected ways. Of course. That *is* how you get from something semi-rational to "lock her up!" chants.

'Lock her up' chants are just fine. She committed several felonies, as Comey listed, and skated for political reasons. I was wondering if they would use her as an example for the yearly security clearance videos. Sadly, no.

I'm fine with investigations and due process, remember?

I don't flip my belief in those by party.

Release the Mueller *and* Comey reports.

Agreed. You won't see either likely. Mueller report probably has more damning info on the Dems than anyone else. Comey spent 10 min of the 11 min announcement going over the felonionies Hills committed. We have the facts.

I'm releasing the Mueller report mid April, so, keep on doing your being wrong thing.

Trump committed several felonies too, and he's not in jail. So what?

Like what?

Same ones you listed here for Clinton.

If you take any kind of socio-biological view, this is the kind of thing that underpins tribalism, of the original kind. That is, it is easier to hold together bands of people if they agree. So they do.

If I were really mean, I'd say this is how "independent thinkers" might end up mentally captive in some Jordon Peterson, Intellectual Dark Web, hellscape.

Being independent is hard, unnatural.

The notion that adherence to Peterson's views puts you in a hellscape is inane. No, you're not an independent thinker. You're a putz.

In which you use the word "adherence."

Guru much?

You'll certainly never have to deal with that kind of problem, at least.

We’re seeing phenomenon again in real time and it is fascinating. I’ve had a few friends go from being lifelong libertarian-leaning Republicans to supporting Green New Deal and Medicare For All because Trump’s immigration stance and crudeness drove them to the Democrats. It makes one wonder which positions are really deeply held and which are just partisan affiliation.

Hmm, interesting Zaua. Personally I’d support pollution reducing policies in a heartbeat, and I’d consider Medicare for all in exchange for us we policing our borders. (I’m pro immigration and anti illegal, but even more, I’m pro having the freedom to discuss immigration candidly without being called a fascist.)

You have the right to say what you like about immigrants and they have a right to call you a fascist. That's called freedom of speech.

Pat Buchanan was right.

Pat Buchanan thought abortion was the way to capture the Catholic democrats if he could make abortion an issue.

Here is Buchanan's platform (from Wiki): " He ran on a platform of immigration reduction and social conservatism, including opposition to multiculturalism, abortion, and gay rights."

Roger Stone helped him, just as he did Donald.

Sounds like today's Republican Party.

Peter Thiel spoke at the R national convention, at Trumps invitation. He clearly has no issue with homosexuals.

Trump holds up rainbow flags to standing ovations at his rallies, and apparently makes fun of Pence for his homophobia.

Trump is a lot of terrible things, a conservative Christian is not one of them. When asked what his favorite Bible passages were he famously said “so many good ones, who can choose?” Points to Trump for that, I wish every president couldn’t name a bible verse.

His overlap with Buchanan includes military noninterventionism, immigration enforcement, and a skepticism regarding current trade deals.

Trump is terrible. There are actual issues we can agree on regarding the Orange One. If liberals would stop hyperventilating and stupidly overreaching, we could agree to kick him out because he’s awful on:

1. Threatening Trade agreements
2. Going against de facto Open Borders
3. Increasing military spending
4. Attempting to change “dry foot, dry foot” asylum seeker procedures

OK, all you can point to is Trump's position on Gay rights, which was proven on his transgender military ban.

Look at Buchanan's agenda again: " immigration reduction and social conservatism, including opposition to multiculturalism, abortion, and gay rights."

That is and was the Republican party, or at least one branch of it, so it is not a departure.

1982 as the dividing line is quite confusing. 2 years later 49/50 states voted for a Republican. I guess it takes 15 years for someone's views on abortion to really manifest...

"“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

How about calling it "factionalism"

How about emotionalism?

We see more appeals to feelings and fewer appeals to reason as time goes by. More name-calling, more fights in the streets, more sneering tribalism.

People who agree with one party on some issues and the other party on other issues (okay, people like me) have dropped out.

Tribalism is the correct word.

I think this really highlights how incredibly stupid it is for Republicans to be driving blacks, Latino's etc. into the arms of the Democrats. Once people align with a party, they change their other political views to align with that party
In other words, if you force people to line up with the Democratic party due to abortion or immigration, or some other social issue (gay rights), then over time, they will change their views on economics to match the dominant views of the Democratic party.
If you want immigrants to vote for libertarian economic policies 20 years from now, it's a bad idea to take an anti-immigrant stance that forces new immigrants to affiliate with Democrats. It's not that they bring socialism with them, it's that they affiliate with Democrats because of their pro-immigrant, multi-cultural social position, and then subsequently absorb socialist ideals from the Democratic party.

As we see above, they are already hard at work driving unborn non-whites into the arms of the Democrats.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Black Americans vote on masse for the Democrats, despite being more socially conservative and remaining so.

Sometimes new additions conform in their beliefs and sometimes they don't - if there ever were truly "abortion Republicans" they likely changed the Republican party at least as much as it changed them. Groups don't simply follow the party ideology, or we wouldn't see shift away from the pro-immigration tosh within the Republican party or the turn to socialism from the Democrat rank and file, which we actually see.

(In a broader sense, no immigrants will not simply accept your institutions, so best to include them lest their kids get attracted to revolutionary alternatives, yes they will inevitably change them one way or another, particularly rapidly if you include them, and the choice about whether to be inclusive is then more complex and risky as a bet).

The Democrats have arguably been more socialist in the past than they are now. For instance under FDR. There was an evolution in a more capitalist direction under Clinton and now an evolution back towards socialism. I don't think Latin American immigration is all that big a driver of this.

It's hard to know if its a "big driver". I'd guess that young Hispanic folk with a consciousness of a Latin American romanticised socialist tradition don't help. Main point is I think this study oversells the degree of passive consumption shaping views and ideas, vs new voters shaping those (esp. in the 90s heyday of the focus group?). Ethnic and migrant voters are not just passive consumers who are misled by majority activists.

I think most people are biased to *undersell* the degree to which passive consumption shapes views. We want to think that our views are decided rationally, not based on a desire to "fit in" or be esteemed by other people in our peer group. We also want to think our elected representative represent what we think, instead of telling us what to think.
In my experience it's much more often the opposite. People adopt views that are fashionable in their peer group. Very few people drive the views of the peer group. It's much like how the "Queen Bee" in high school decides what is cool, invents fashion trends, and everyone else mindlessly follows them. You have to have a high status within the peer group to be able to influence it to change it's policies. Now, an ethnic minority might eventually develop political leaders that rise to a high status, like Barack Obama, or AOC, but that takes time. And usually the high status people don't really want to challange the orthodoxy, because the reason they got to be at a high status in the first place is because they adapted themselves to the orthodoxy. It takes a special rare kind of person to both rise to a high status and then go against the orthodoxy and move the position of the group to a new position.

Specifically on target, and on topic, and that boys and girls is how Republicans became a white nationalist party.

The crucial test and turning point was probably when Donald Trump called Gonzalo Curiel a "Mexican judge" and too many Republicans acquiesced.

Now the party is far gone, not wanting to risk any more "Mexicans" like Judge Curiel in the future.

Tucker Carlson's Show Is Losing Advertisers After Comment that Immigrants Make the U.S. 'Dirtier'

Comments for this post are closed