The power of Tribalism
You can ask just about anybody whether they think that the country is becoming more polarized, and in almost every case, the answer is a resounding “YES.” When I get on social media, every other post seems like a political post. Sometimes they are supporting the views of the person posting, but much of the time, they are attacks against those that disagree. This political polarization has become a lingering characteristic of American politics. The people who are engaged in politics, regardless of their party, spend their time predominately doing two things. The first is arguing against the opposing side, and the second is supporting their own. When we get wrapped up supporting our political tribe, we sometimes end up even fighting for things we disagree with. Tribalism ends up overriding a lot of our decision making.
A recent NPR article, titled “The Economy May Be Losing Its Impact On Presidential Elections” highlighted this trend well. The article, by Danielle Kurtzleben, really hit on this topic by making a few valuable points. If you would like to read the full article, click on the link below
The point that I want to focus on was that the margin of victory predicted for Joe Biden. In his race for the presidency, he is only expected to win by about 20 electoral votes (3.7% of the electoral college) despite an economy that has lost millions of jobs and an unemployment rate of 11.1% nationally. Generally, election trends have shown that worse economies predict worse results for incumbent candidates, but if this is the case, why is the margin only 20 electoral votes? Why does a terrible economy not predict a landslide defeat for the incumbent? Political Science students in a university might argue that presidents don’t have all that much effect on the economy, but academics aside, that’s not how the average American feels. In a recent Gallup poll studying the 2020 election, several issues were highlighted as being especially noteworthy. The economy, in particular, was ranked as either extremely important or very important by 84% of respondents. Out of the entire poll, “the economy” was the highest-rated issue of any in the survey. At first, these facts don’t add up. If the economy is terrible and most voters think the economy is essential, then shouldn’t that result in a landslide victory for the challenger?
Kurtzleben, in the article mentioned above, argues that the critical factor, in this case, is political tribalism. Basically, the idea that most people who will vote already know how they will vote, regardless of any of the current events in their lives. This perspective lines up well with a theory known as “Social Identity Theory.” This theory, when applied to political science, argues that people as social creatures tend to gravitate towards groups that they can identify with. Rather than focusing on the instrumental political motivations (policy and political preferences), social identity theory looks towards the effects of expressive (emotional) political motivations and uses those to explain voter behavior. This model has been used to explain the increased likelihood of party members to vote, pay attention to politics, and participate in other ways.
When we apply Social Identity theory, suddenly the 20-vote margin makes a lot more sense. If most voters have a partisan tie to one of the two candidates, then they will probably vote for the candidate that they identify with regardless of what has happened to the economy. This argument is strengthened by Pew Research findings that show that the vast majority of voters identify with either the Democrat or the Republican parties(48 % and 44% respectively), the smaller portion that has weak ties to the parties shift depending on the candidates in a given election and decide the final results. In this light, we see the real power of partisan tribalism, the ability to keep real-world situations, such as a weak economy and high unemployment, from turning an election into a landslide.
No comments:
Post a Comment