"The two-party system has long characterized American politics, but partisanship as it is understood today is a relatively recent phenomenon. Today, partisanship is not simply based on one's voting record, but a totalizing sense of identification with one party over the other. Consequently, the US political climate is more polarized than ever before. Though this fact is often reported with alarm, it may be too soon to determine whether partisanship actually damages democracy. This volume examines what partisanship means today, how this differs from historical partisanship, its contributing factors, and the effect it has on the country"--
THIS ARTICLE RE-EXAMINES THE MEANING OF SOUTHERN PARTY LOYALTIES. DRAWING FROM SURVEY DATA GATHERED IN THE EARLY 1970S, IT IS ARGUED THAT THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CONVENTIONS HAVE UNDERESTIMATED THE DEGREE TO WHICH INTRA-PARTY DIVISION IS MANIFESTED IN SOUTHERN PARTISAN PERCEPTIONS AND IDENTIFICATIONS.
Dem Begriff der "Parteilichkeit" (partisanship) ist in den Sozial- und Geschichtswissenschaften bislang weniger Beachtung geschenkt worden als dem der "Objektivität". Der Autor setzt sich in seinem Beitrag mit zwei Fragestellungen auseinander: die eine befaßt sich mit der politischen oder ideologischen Dimension des Forschungsprozesses und der Forschungsergebnisse, die andere mit den Schlüssen, die sich hieraus für die subjektive Einstellung bzw. das leitende Interesse des Wissenschaftlers ergeben. Am Beispiel des Verhältnisses von Wissenschaft und Partei in der Anfangsphase der UdSSR werden die Grenzen aufgezeigt, bis zu denen die Parteilichkeit noch wissenschaftliche legitimiert ist. Im Anschluß hieran wird dargelegt, welche Erkenntnisfortschritte und praktisch-politische Fortschritte die richtigverstandene Parteilichkeit von Wissenschaftlern hervorbrachte. Die Parteinahme von Wissenschaftlern kann demnach durchaus ein Mechanismus sein, neue Ideen, neue Fragestellungen an die Wissenschaft heranzutragen und so deren Selbstisolierung aufzuheben. Ein Verzicht auf Parteilichkeit würde für die Humanwissenschaften ein schweres Risiko bedeuten. (NG)
"We argue that ideology lacks meaning in the United States: what is conservative and liberal is that which Republicans and Democrats have labeled "conservative," and "liberal." This premise is central to how we understand the role of the political parties in American political behavior and why political party leaders are so essential to crafting the beliefs of partisans in the electorate. Second, we trace how the parties have evolved on issues over time, highlighting the lack of ideological consistency in the party platforms. We then explain how negative partisanship and partisan-motivated reasoning create a situation where partisans are psychologically rewarded for adopting the party's position and being receptive to information from their own party while blocking information from other sources"--
THE 1980 AND 1982 AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES INCLUDE A NEW SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PARTISANSHIP. IT IS POSSIBLE TO CREATE A 5-POINT SCALE OF PARTY SUPPORT/ CLOSENESS FROM THESE QUESTIONS. THE NEW MEASURE PERFORMS REASONABLY AS REGARDS ITS RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER MEASURES OF PARTSANSHIP TO ITS OWN OVER TIME, AND TO DEPENDENT BEHAVIOR. THERE IS ALSO A NEW QUESTION ON INDEPENDENCE. BUT THIS IS BEST TREATED AS A SEPARATE ITEM RATHER THAN BEING INCORPORATED IN THE PARTY SUPPORT/CLOSENESS SCALE. THE NEW MEASURE ALSO PERFORMS WELL IN MEASURING STRENGTH OF PARTISANSHIP.
