Abstract: U.S. historical accounts of partisanship recognize its contentiousness and its inherent, latent threat of violence, but social scientific conceptions of partisan identity developed in quiescent times have largely missed that dangerous dimension. We rebalance scholarly accounts by investigating the national prevalence and correlates of 1) partisan moral disengagement that rationalizes harm against opponents, 2) partisan schadenfreude in response to deaths and injuries of political opponents, and 3) explicit support for partisan violence. In two nationally representative surveys, we find large portions of partisans embrace partisan moral disengagement ( 10 - 60%) but only small minorities report feeling partisan schadenfreude or endorse partisan violence (5 - 15 %). Party identity strength and trait aggression consistently increase each kind of extreme party view. Finally, experimental evidence shows inducing expectations of electoral victory give strong partisans more confidence to endorse violence against their partisan opponents. We conclude with reflections on the risks of lethal partisanship in democratic politics, even as parties continue to serve as essential bedrocks of democracy.
---
The remaining moral disengagement items in Figure 1 indicate support ranging from about 10 perc ent of the sample (MD10 . .Breaking a few rules to help [own party] win does no lasting harm.) to 50 percent (MD8 among Democrats . .[Own party] are not just better for politics . they are morally right.). The most disturbing items may be those comparing o utgroup partisans to animals (MD5 and MD9). About 20 percent of respondents agree with these items in the CCES data,. Furthermore, MD7, which rates the degree to which respondents believe opposing partisans have their hearts in the right place, is only end orsed by about 30 percent of partisans , meaning that more than 60 percent of respondents do not hold this more generous belief. Taken as a whole, even the lower bounds of partisan moral disengagement provide some cause for concern. Extrapolated to the elec torate at large, this figure represents many millions of partisans.
---
Table 1. Partisan Hostility Items
Moral Disengagement
MD1
Would you say [Opposing party] are a serious threat to the United States and its people, or wouldn’t you go that far?
MD2
Only [Own party] want to improve our country.
MD3
[Opposing party] are not just worse for politics—they are downright evil.
MD4
If [Own party] break a few rules to oppose [Opposing party], it’s because they needto do it for the sake of the country.
MD5
If [Opposing party] are going to behave badly, they should be treated like animals.
MD6
[Opposing party] deserve any mistreatment they get from [Own party].
MD7
[Opposing party] have their heart in the right place but just come to different conclusions about what is best.
[reverse-coded]
MD8
[Own party] are not just better for politics—they are morally right.
MD9
Many [Opposing party] lack the traits to be considered fully human—they behave like animals.
MD10
Breaking a few rules to help [Own party] win does no lasting harm.
Partisan Schadenfreude
PS1
If you heard a politician had died of cancer, would your feelings about that depend on whether they were a Republican or a Democrat?
PS2
If you heard a politician had been murdered, would your feelings about that depend on whether they were a Republican or a Democrat?
PS3
Have you ever wished that someone would physically injure one or more politicians?[Yes, outparty]
PS4
When a [Own party] politician votes against the party on a key issue, have you ever wished they would get sick and die?
PS5
Who would you rather see bad things happen to: [Opposing party] politicians, or[Own party] politicians who vote against the party on a key issue? [Answer: outparty]
PS6
Do you ever think: we’d be better off as a country if large numbers of [Opposingparty] in the public today just died?
Political Violence
PV1
When, if ever, is it OK for [Own party] to send threatening and intimidating messagesto [Opposing party] leaders?
PV2
When, if ever, is it OK for an ordinary [Own party] in the public to harass an ordinary [Opposing party] on the Internet, in a way that makes the target feel unsafe?
PV3
How much do you feel it is justified for [Own party] to use violence in advancing their political goals these days?
PV4
What if [Opposing party] win the 2020 presidential election? How much do you feel violence would be justified then?
“Unsafe” was replaced with “frightened” in the Nielsen survey.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment