Ideology vs. Identity: What Drives Political Preferences? | HISPBC Ch.1

Hoover Fellow, Elizabeth Elder, challenges the notion that voters engage with politics based on consistent policy preferences and, instead, shows that people make sense of politics through the lens of social group identities. Group factors such as race and gender provide citizens with emotional stakes and informational cues that guide their political decision-making, often leading to polarization. Elder explores how race strongly predicts public opinion and voting behavior, while gender, though not as strongly associated with political views, significantly impacts patterns of political engagement and representation.
Check Out More on Elections:
Watch "The Partisan Myth: How Voting Laws Actually Affect Election Results" with Justin Grimmer here:
www.policyed.org/policy-stories/partisan-myth-how-voting-laws-actually-affect-election-results/video
Watch "By Constitutional Design: The Electoral College" from John Yoo here:
www.policyed.org/unarchived/constitutional-design-electoral-college/video
Watch "Ranked-Choice Voting: Capturing Voter Preferences" from David Brady here:
www.policyed.org/intellection...
Be sure to visit The Hoover Institution at www.hoover.org/ and PolicyEd at www.policyed.org/
The opinions expressed on this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Hoover Institution or Stanford University. © 2024 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University.

[@RN-lo6xc]

Professor Elder suggests a group/tribal lens is useful for people to understand their policy preference. Although she qualifies this by insisting on electors remaining critical, I do not think that is possible. Office-holders will rush to weaponise (as they already have) tribal loyalties. Breaking people into ethnic/regional/cultural or any other kind of ‘group’ might help people engage in politics by understanding them through an intuitive group lens, but it has the countervailing consequence of opening them up to emotive arguments and ‘bundles’ of related policies which they might not otherwise push for. It contributes to the disingenuity of electoral politics. The entire discussion brings to mind Schumpeter’s ‘elite democracy’ - the quality of public participation in modern policymaking is deficient. We can either leave people disengaged, or we can tribalise the process (increasing participation, but making outcomes no more constructive). We should also appreciate the impact of ethnic and cultural diversification since the 2000s, and the innate tendency of some sectors/groups within society to tribalise. 1960s America was obviously less tribal than 2000s America, and it has to do partly with the number of minorities.

[@juvalue_]

Great insight

[@bitcoinbelle]

My first disobedience as a child was age 6 to my dad.
First act of civil disobedience age 12
55 today and can say anecdotally that we do who we are. If you are nobody, you will do nothing. Know yourself and do it better and better every day.

[@gravitationalwaverider]

Blah blah blah

[@RN-lo6xc]

Live and let live. If you’re not interested, move on. I don’t come to your peasant bar to mock your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

[@nero_defi]

I bet you represent that 37% who doesn't care about politics and yada yada yada