Introduction: those fittest for the trust -- Who wants to run? -- A framework for studying elections and ideology -- The electoral preference for moderates -- Polarization and the devaluing of office -- Depolarization and the benefits of office -- Polarization and the costs of running -- Conclusion: who wants to run? in broader context -- Appendix 1: additional results on polarization and who runs -- Appendix 2: estimating the advantage of moderates -- Appendix 3: effects of office benefits on polarization -- Appendix 4: state legislators running for the U.S. House
Intro -- Title Page -- Dedication -- Contents -- 1 Prologue: The Shape of the Problem -- 2 Early Days: The Promise and the Power -- 3 Amplification and Algorithms: The Watcher Beneath Your Screen -- 4 Outrage and Scissor Statements: Our Tribal Mindset -- 5 Worst-Case Scenario: How Facebook Sent Myanmar Haywire -- 6 Divided Vote: How Social Media Polarises Politics -- 7 Fact to Fake: How the Media Ecosystem Collapsed -- 8 Democracy at Risk: Why Social Media Undermines Elections -- 9 Pandemic: Inoculated Against Truth -- 10 Regulation: Cutting the Problem Down to Size -- Acknowledgements -- Notes -- About the Author -- Imprint Page.
This book takes an innovative fan studies approach to investigating one of the most pressing issues of contemporary times: polarization. Drawing on three years of observational data from Facebook political discussions, as well as interviews and survey responses from those heavily engaged in online political debate, Barnes argues a fan-like investment in a political perspective initiates and drives polarization. She calls on us to move beyond the traditional Habermasian approach to political discussion, which privileges the rational and deliberative, and instead focus on how we perform the self. How we behave in these online debates is part of a performance, a performance of self, in which an affective investment in a particular political perspective drives a need to contribute, refute and other those opposing. Because this performance stems from an emotional basis, judgments and contributions are often not rational or factual, but rather a form of establishing and defending an identity. Renne Barnes is senior lecturer in Journalism at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia.
This book provides a concise and engaging analysis of the particularly unusual 2020 election year in the USA. The political science perspective illuminates societal tensions in the context of the Corona pandemic and elaborates election-deciding discourses. Larger socio-political trends such as ideological polarisation are addressed as well as the different campaign strategies of the two parties. In addition, the book offers insights into the election results of this landmark presidential election for American society and for the development of its democracy. The final evaluation of the resulting implications for transatlantic relations rounds off the book. The authors Dr. Christiane Lemke is Professor of Political Science at Leibniz Universität Hannover, specialising in international relations and US politics. Jakob Wiedekind is a research assistant and doctoral student in the "International Relations" department at the Institute of Political Science at Leibniz Universität Hannover.
The 21st-century political landscape has been defined by deep ideological polarization, and as a result scientific inquiry into the psychological mechanisms underlying this divide has taken on increased relevance. The topic is by no means new to social psychology. Classic literature on intergroup conflict shows how pervasive and intractable these group conflicts can be, how readily they can emerge from even minimal group identities, and the hedonic rewards reaped from adopting an "us vs. them" perspective. Indeed, this literature paints a bleak picture for the efficacy of any interventions geared toward reducing intergroup discord. But advances in the psychology of moral judgments and behavior, in particular greater understanding of how moral concerns might inform the creation and stability of political identities, offer new ways forward in understanding partisan divides. This volume brings together leading researchers in moral and political psychology, offering new perspectives on the moral roots of political ideology, and exciting new opportunities for the development of more effective applied interventions
Abstract Media coverage of affective polarization—partisans disliking and distrusting out-partisans while liking and trusting in-partisans—is abundant, both creating and reflecting a belief among the public that partisans are more affectively polarized than they are. These trends suggest that affective polarization among partisans could be viewed as socially desirable, which may then shape partisans' expressed attitudes and behavior. To examine this, I run four original surveys and study two broad research questions: (1) Does this social desirability exist?; and (2) Can it influence partisans' expressed affective polarization? I find that affective polarization among partisans is indeed socially desirable and that, largely motivated by self-presentation desires, this social desirability can shape partisans' expressed affective polarization. However, my results also suggest that affective polarization responses are rather ingrained in partisans, and that while partisans are aware of this social desirability and its effect on their behavior, small changes in survey context do not necessarily produce large changes in affective polarization responses. Overall, the results offer necessary nuance to our understanding of affective polarization, implying that social desirability—which can be shifted by contexts—can alter how affectively polarized people act.
Understanding polarization / David R. Brubaker -- Leadership and polarization / David R. Brubaker -- Communicating across the divide / Everett N. Brubaker -- Trauma, polarization, and connection / Carolyn E. Yoder -- Weathering polarization with resilience / Teresa J. Haase -- Transforming polarization / David R. Brubaker -- Love that transforms / David R. Brubaker.
America is "currently fighting its second Civil War." Partisan politics are "ripping this country apart." The 2016 election "will go down as the most acrimonious presidential campaign of all." Such statements have become standard fare in American politics. In a time marked by gridlock and incivility, it seems the only thing Americans can agree on is this: we're more divided today than we've ever been in our history. In Unstable Majorities Morris P. Fiorina surveys American political history to reveal that, in fact, the American public is not experiencing a period of unprecedented polarization. Bypassing the alarmism that defines contemporary punditry, he cites research and historical context that illuminate the forces that shape voting patterns, political parties, and voter behavior. By placing contemporary events in their proper context, he corrects widespread misconceptions and gives reasons to be optimistic about the future of American electoral politics.
People have a tendency to disregard information that contradicts their partisan or ideological identity. This inclination can become especially striking when citizens reject notions that scientists would consider "facts" in the light of overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus. The resulting polarization over science has reached alarming levels in recent years. This theoretical review conceptualizes political polarization over science and argues that it is driven by two interrelated processes. Through psychological science rejection, people can implicitly disregard scientific facts that are inconsistent with their political identity. Alternatively, citizens can engage in ideological science rejection by adhering to a political ideology that explicitly contests science. This contestation can in turn be subdivided into four levels of generalization: An ideology can dispute either specific scientific claims, distinct research fields, science in general, or the entire political system and elite. By proposing this interdisciplinary framework, this article aims to integrate insights from various disciplines.