Liberal and Conservative Ideological Identities

Political polarization may be the most fundamental problem in contemporary American democracy. Much of the literature on democratic backsliding centers, for example, on intense political polarization as the primary cause of this backsliding. Recent research suggests that ideological self-categorization underlies affective political polarization. A very recent paper by Kristen Hanson, Emma O’Dwyer, and Evanthia Lyons make this point very clear.

Social identity and political ideology

Using social identity theory and self-categorization theory Hanson et al. explore the subjective meaning people attribute to liberal and conservative labels. Social identity theory posits that politically polarizing behavior is a consequence of self-categorization. Self-categorization creates a social identity that forms a person’s self-concept. This leads to a person favoring and defending their in-group as an extension of himself or herself. It also leads to a person adopting the attitudes and beliefs of prototypical member of the group. Identifying with a social group strongly influences a person to act according to what they believe to be that identity’s content or meaning.

Using a limited but intense qualitative study, the paper shows how participants constructed their ideological ingroups and outgroups. It also describes the structure and content of these identities.

The narrative of the liberal participants “revolved around the individual while the conservative narrative most often reflected political ideology and symbols of the nation. Liberal participants constructed their ideological identity from a personal perspective, citing personal values, morals, and attributes together with a motivation to progress toward a more equal society. Conversely, conservative participants’ ideological identities were constructed as stemming directly from an American political philosophy, a perspective that equated conservatism and American national identity.”

The study found that each of the two groups had three main themes. For the liberal participants the themes included (1) issues make a movement, (2) my politics, myself, and (3) don’t label me. For the conservative group the themes were (1) it’s political, (2) I’m with the group, and (3) conservatives, to me, are really true Americans.

The liberal identity: individuals and issues

Liberal ideological identities contained few political values. Liberals generally resisted seeing themselves as a typical liberal. Rather, liberal descriptions contained a collection of political issue positions and personal attributes that focused on concerns for individuals.

Issues make a movement

Liberal participants did not express their ideological identity in broad political principles. They often cited a variety of political positions that evidenced a concern for achieving a more equal society. For example, about half the participants discussed expanding healthcare and education. Otherwise, participants identified a wide variety of issues as core to the liberal ideology, such as discrimination, the environment, and Native American issues. Interestingly, there appeared to be no connection between this array of issues and a national political ideology. Many even resisted making a connection. Clearly, liberal participants thought issues were more important than political ideology.

Liberal participants tended to define freedom not as freedom from government intervention but as “freedom of expression.” They believed providing greater equality was the means to provide this freedom. Overall, liberals positioned themselves as “moving toward a shared representation of a better way of life.” They considered specific issues as benchmarks (problems solved) in moving toward this ideal.

My Politics, myself

Liberal participants often saw their ideological label in terms of personal values and behaviors. Participants placed individuals at the center of their identity. The individual informed their political values, not a group ideology. Liberals saw their ingroup as “open, caring, and outward looking; they saw themselves as self- and social improvers.” Being open is the core of the American liberal identity. This openness embraces both tolerance and learning. Openness was most often seen as intellectual curiosity.

Participants thought openness as necessary for critical evaluation. To them, openness allows for better reasoning. This lends validity to the liberal issues that they see as the outcome of critical thinking. In this sense, liberals contrast their critical thinking with conservatives who are often seen as blindly following ideology. The liberal participants see themselves as “thinkers who are hungry for information, and as being in control of their ideas.” Again, the individual is seen as driving political ideas and behaviors.

Participants saw conservatives as either selfish or as hostages to their upbringing, their religion, or their geography. They believed these factors keep conservatives from the valuing the experience or education that would open them to more liberal ideas. They often saw conservatives as uninformed or having been duped by those in power and their doctrines. Liberals juxtaposed their individual-driven beliefs with conservatives’ socially constructed belief systems. Liberals thought conservatives were either “allowing themselves to be dictated to by societal constructs or as victims of their environment and of elites.” On the other hand, liberals pictured themselves being “more aware, outward looking, and personally in control of their values.”

Don’t label Me

Nearly all the participants believed there was no “typical” liberal. Participants saw their group as very diverse and thought having a prototype was impossible to imagine. This ingroup heterogeneity reinforces the liberals’ belief about a greater personal identity overarching any group identity. Liberals saw their identity as a “personally derived set of issue positions” resistant to political ideological labeling.

Related to the Democratic Party, most participants saw “little difference between being a liberal and being a Democrat, noting that, although not highly aligned with the participants’ beliefs, the party is the ‘only game in town.'” The liberal and Democratic identities are just best fit paths for what participants see as their personal identity first. That is, they see the Democratic Party “as a confederation of individuals who possess particular personality attributes, personal values, and a vision of a better, more equal world where individuals are able to fully express their personality and talents. Political ideology was positioned as the result, not the driver…” of their identity as liberals.

The Conservative Identity: Ideology and the Nation

Conservative participants perceived themselves as “typical group members and clearly articulated their ideological group’s political beliefs and goals – a system closely linked to the nation.

It’s political

Limited government, adherence to the Constitution, and self-reliance stood out to conservatives as a defined set of national political values. Among these three political beliefs limited government dominated. Conservatives believed it was foundational to the founding of the country and to the Constitution. Self-reliance, thought conservatives, is demonstrated at the individual level and is associated with personal fiscal responsibility and a strong work ethic. Conservatives saw self-reliance in themselves and expected it in others and of their country.

Consequently, conservatives thought benefits recipients who choose to rely on state support as contrary to their political belief of self-reliance. They believed “assistance programs degrade individual character and society by undermining self-reliance.” Further, they thought U.S. liberal policy robs “current citizens and future generations of an important personal characteristic that is seen as the key to both personal and national success.”

I’m with the Group

The conservative participants saw themselves as typical, that there is a clear conservative prototype. Those few conservatives who did not consider themselves prototypical cited differences on political issues, such as being socially moderate/liberal (e.g., being OK with gay marriage). Yet although some participants acknowledged their liberal social stances, they kept identifying themselves as a typical conservative. This acknowledges the strength of the conservative group identification.

Although nearly all conservatives thought of themselves as belonging to the same ideological group, some conservatives distanced themselves from the Republican Party. These participants felt closer to their ideology than to their party. [This disconnect, the authors note, may be related to the current Republican president as their data was collected in January and February 2018.]

Conservatives, to me, are really true Americans

Participants equated conservative beliefs “with American values, success, and strength.” Many equated liberals with socialism or heading toward socialism. Seeing liberalism as socialism, conservative participants “carry over their strong ideological framing of their ingroup to discuss the outgroup as un-American.” Although none of the liberal participants used the word socialism, many conservative participants saw socialism as a threat. Conservatives thus saw “U.S. political conflict as a battle between two ideologies (American and non-American).”

Conservatives saw themselves as the defenders of the country. Conservatism was not a separate political philosophy, “but as the same as the American founding philosophy.” Conservatives believed they hold the high ground, defenders of America against an “un-American liberal aggressor.” The connection between liberalism and socialism appears embedded in the conservative discussion.

America’s past success validates their conservative values. They see liberal change as “short-sighted and lacking in respect for the nation…” Most participants called liberals naïve. They see liberals as well intentioned but ignorant because they have little awareness of the threat they pose to the country. In sum, “reverence for the nation was a key component of the conservative ideological identity.”

Conclusion

The authors’ conclusion focused mainly on the asymmetry between the two groups. This asymmetry matches much prior research which show the tendency for Republicans to deploy ideology and the Democrats to reference interest groups. Liberals discussed individual rights and oppressed groups in contrast to the conservatives’ ideological discussion of American values.

A second symmetry regards threats. To liberals the conservative threat is to individual expression and is caused by their blind devotion to their political, national, or religious ideology. Conservatives see the liberal threat as the liberals’ support of socialism and the undermining of key value of self-reliance. These asymmetries tend to fuel group mobilization and conflict.

Comment

I have two thoughts about this study. One is that the liberal narrative resonated with me. Although the research was limited, the overall description of the liberal narrative appeared reasonably accurate. This is especially true of the focus on issues and problem solving and not ideology. As a registered Democrat who at times has voted Republican in federal elections, I would have taken issue with the notion that the only party is the Democratic party. However, given the nature of the Republican Party since 2000, I no longer have that reservation.

The second thought, which has several components, deals with the conservative ideology as expressed by the participants in this study. I felt I was back in 1980 or perhaps a few years earlier. The world we live in today is dramatically different than the 1980 world. Self-reliance and limited government works today only for a tiny sliver of citizens. And it works only for a sliver largely due to the consequences of public policy since the early ’70s. These policies were driven almost totally by the Republican Party’, albeit often with the acquiescence if not complicity of the Democratic Party. Future posts in Part 1 will develop this and related themes.

What really stuck out to me is the significance to conservatives on the individual, but in a much different way than the liberal focus on individual. It almost appears from the conservative narrative, to use Margaret Thatcher’s phrase, “there is no such thing as society.” The only reality, thus, is a fractured collectivity of atomized individuals. To me, the tension in significance between the individual and the community is at the heart of the tensions within our polity today.

Finally, perhaps the most pernicious characteristic of the conservative ideology expressed in the study is this statement: Conservatives thus saw “U.S. political conflict as a battle between two ideologies (American and non-American).” This perception goes back to at least the late 1970s. The statement does more than suggest that politics is war and no quarter is to be given.

My next post within the subcategory of political polarization follows up with further comments based on narratives reported in this study.