By nature, the youngest generation of voters is arguably the least-studied age group in the realm of political science and media. For equally apparent reasons, their political persuasions are highly impactful on current and future elections. There are several political patterns and social theories that have been formed and applied to the electorate as a whole that have potentially different agents and results for voters ages 18-29. Two of these are the theory of negative partisanship, and social identity theory.
Social identity theory is defined by Dr. Steven Greene as ‘‘that part of an individual’s self concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to the membership” (Greene, 2004, Tajfel 1978), a concept that has direct implications in the two-party American political system. Social identity theory stipulates that intergroup differentiation occurs either as out-group derogation or in-group favoritism. “Out-group derogation, in contrast, is exaggeration of the negative characteristics of relevant out-groups, thereby also making one’s in-group seem superior… In group favoritism simply refers to the tendency for group members to mentally exaggerate and enhance the favorable qualities of the relevant in-group to which they see themselves belonging” (Greene, 2004). In politics, this results in a phenomenon not unlike a positive feedback loop in which as partisan strength increases, so does partisan social identity and individuals then see politics as an “us vs them” zero-sum game. One example of social identity theory at work is the issue of abortion: many individuals form their opinions about abortion policy from their moral or religious standing, resulting in a “super-charged” identity that pervades both their personal and political character.
Negative partisanship is the idea that a voter is a member of (or leans towards) a party not out of deep ideological affiliation but out of stronger dislike for the alternative, according to political scientist Alan Abramowitz. According to the American National Election Studies (ANES), our recent elections exhibit the highest rates of straight-ticket voting and party loyalty since the organization’s mid 20th century formation. Not only that, but partisan divide is at a historical high in congressional voting and coalition building, on state legislatures, and Supreme Court decisions. However, identification with major parties is at its lowest in recent history (additionally, many Americans are now opting to register as independent so as to avoid negative association with parties and policies they prefer not to support). The 2016 election felt to many like a choice between two poor candidates; many voters who cast a ballot selected their pick not because they were pro-Trump or pro-Hillary, but because they were anti-Trump or anti-Hillary. This is a perfect example of negative partisanship.
My research intended to identify if these trends applied specifically to young millennial and Generation Z voters. The survey was conducted to about 300 18-29 year-old Americans through a 21-question, online questionnaire (via Reddit and social media). The vast majority of respondents were white, and many of them Christian. As it turns out, the trends that Professor Greene describes don’t apply forcibly to the respondents I polled. While their data is not necessarily representative of the population as a whole, it is interesting to observe their feelings about the degree to which partisanship is involved in their social identity. Based on several batteries of questioning (both overt and more generalized), I observed that young adults do not feel high levels of attachment to their party, including referring to their party more often as “them” than “we,” feeling low levels of embarrassment as a result of media criticism, and low likelihood to feel like a compliment for the party was a personal compliment. In sum, their social identification with partisan politics in this non-issue-based study is lower than the general population. Dr. Abramowitz’s research is reinforced by this data, however. Because most of the respondents reported having officially registered with this party, and the majority reported that they consider themselves to be regularly up-to-speed with politics, their affiliation can be assumed to be one made out of slight preference. Given the fraught nature of politics today, this is likely a decision informed by policies or candidates they prefer, but also as a result of dislike towards the alternative. We can therefore see negative partisanship at work in young Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment