Ideology and American Political Elites

In: Public opinion quarterly: journal of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Band 42, Heft 4, S. 484-502

Abstract

P. Converse's The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964) (no further publication information provided) launched the debate on the absence or presence of ideology in mass US politics. Insufficiently elucidated is the question of the role of ideology within American political elites. Until the mid 1960s, opinion was sharply divided. One school of thought, headed by McClosky et al (1960 -- no further publication information provided), claimed that greater ideological differences exist among political elites than among the general public. A second school of thought took the position that despite such differences, there is overall agreement between political elites (Mills, 1956; & Bell, 1960 -- no further publication information provided). The principal weakness of both viewpoints is that they neglect to define "ideology" or fail to recognize its components. Here, "ideology" is defined as a "system of beliefs centered upon a small number of central principles." To determine the absence or presence of elite ideology, an examination was made of interrelationships between belief elements. Of particular importance was the concept of "constraint," since it indicated the presence of a subjacent, "meaningful" structure. Through factor analysis of attitude scales rather than individual items, it was concluded that Converse's argument was correct: elite attitudes exhibit more constrainment than mass attitudes. In addition, when attention was focused on behavior rather than words, & when the behavior was the result of specific conflicts & well-defined interests, evidence of structuring became clearly recognizable. It is recommended that students of American political behavior be less eager to reject an ideological perspective in their examination of political elites. 6 Tables, Appendix. Modified AA.