On his book Presidents and Parties in the Public Mind
Cover Interview of March 20, 2019
In a nutshell
From analyses of thousands of commercial and academic public
opinion surveys covering presidents from Truman to Trump, with results detailed
in 54 tables and 93 figures, I argue that modern American presidents have had a
profound and pervasive impact on how the public views their parties. Every president
has shaped public attitudes toward his party and the other politicians in it; beliefs
about who and what it stands for; assessments of how well it governs when in power;
and its attractiveness as an object of personal identification. Insofar as the
party label represents a brand name, the president bears prime responsibility
for the brand’s current image and status.
Specifically, I find that:
One. Although existing partisan biases influence
people’s feelings about prospective presidents as soon as they appear on the
political scene, presidential candidates and presidents immediately begin to exert
a reciprocal influence on how people feel about their parties that grows
stronger as election day approaches, remains potent while they serve, and
continues, though with diminished force, after they have departed.
Two. Evaluations of and feelings toward sitting
presidents strongly and persistently influence how Americans evaluate and feel
about their parties generally and about their party’s congressional wing and
its leaders more specifically. Presidential influence on attitudes toward the party
remains consistent across partisan subgroups (self-identified Republicans,
Democrats and independents), administrations and survey question formats.
Three. Popular evaluations of the president’s
performance generally and in specific domains have a direct effect on his party’s
reputation for competence in dealing with national problems generally and in
managing foreign relations, the economy, and several other issue domains.
Four. Presidents and presidential candidates shape
and reshape public perceptions of their party’s position on policy issues. Although
Americans have durable beliefs about where the parties stand on specific issues
and their location on the general left-right dimension, they adjust their
beliefs according to where they place the current president or presidential
candidates.
Five. Popular assessments of the president’s
performance influence both individual and mass partisanship both in the short
and longer runs. The balance of Democrats and Republicans in the electorate varies
with presidential approval ratings; such short run effects are usually
reversible but have at times solidified into durable changes. Because party
loyalties are most malleable early in political life, citizens newly entering
the electorate contribute disproportionately to shifts in mass partisanship. A
president’s most enduring influence is thus on the partisan identities of
people who come of political age during his administration, and the extent of a
president’s appeal—or lack thereof—to younger citizens has long-term implications
for the future partisan composition of the electorate.
Six. Views of presidents and presidential candidates affect
voters’ decisions in down-ballot races both directly and, through their effect
on party images and party identification, indirectly, and thereby influence their
party’s performance in congressional and other elections.
Seven. Presidents and presidential candidates have
contributed importantly to the gradual realignment of the parties that has left
the current American electorate more deeply divided along party lines than at
any time in living memory.
Eight. Partisan polarization was essential to the
election of Donald Trump. Although Trump executed a hostile takeover of the
Republican Party and continues to attract vigorous criticism from some of its
luminaries, his impact during his first year in office on how people view his
party has been at least as large as that of previous presidents. In the
intra-party struggle for the hearts and minds of ordinary Republicans, Trump
has so far emerged as the consistent winner. But given his unpopularity outside
core Republican circles, and especially among growing segments of the
population, Trump’s dominance and prospective rebranding of the Republican
Party threatens to erode its popular image, reputation, and appeal both
immediately and for the long term.
[T]he Holocaust transformed our whole way of thinking about war and heroism. War is no longer a proving ground for heroism in the same way it used to be. Instead, war now is something that we must avoid at all costs—because genocides often take place under the cover of war. We are no longer all potential soldiers (though we are that too), but we are all potential victims of the traumas war creates. This, at least, is one important development in the way Western populations envision war, even if it does not always predominate in the thinking of our political leaders.Carolyn J. Dean, Interview of February 01, 2011
The dominant premise in evolution and economics is that a person is being loyal to natural law if he or she attends to self’s interest and welfare before being concerned with the needs and demands of family or community. The public does not realize that this statement is not an established scientific principle but an ethical preference. Nonetheless, this belief has created a moral confusion among North Americans and Europeans because the evolution of our species was accompanied by the disposition to worry about kin and the collectives to which one belongs.Jerome Kagan, Interview of September 17, 2009
In a nutshell
From analyses of thousands of commercial and academic public opinion surveys covering presidents from Truman to Trump, with results detailed in 54 tables and 93 figures, I argue that modern American presidents have had a profound and pervasive impact on how the public views their parties. Every president has shaped public attitudes toward his party and the other politicians in it; beliefs about who and what it stands for; assessments of how well it governs when in power; and its attractiveness as an object of personal identification. Insofar as the party label represents a brand name, the president bears prime responsibility for the brand’s current image and status.
Specifically, I find that:
One. Although existing partisan biases influence people’s feelings about prospective presidents as soon as they appear on the political scene, presidential candidates and presidents immediately begin to exert a reciprocal influence on how people feel about their parties that grows stronger as election day approaches, remains potent while they serve, and continues, though with diminished force, after they have departed.
Two. Evaluations of and feelings toward sitting presidents strongly and persistently influence how Americans evaluate and feel about their parties generally and about their party’s congressional wing and its leaders more specifically. Presidential influence on attitudes toward the party remains consistent across partisan subgroups (self-identified Republicans, Democrats and independents), administrations and survey question formats.
Three. Popular evaluations of the president’s performance generally and in specific domains have a direct effect on his party’s reputation for competence in dealing with national problems generally and in managing foreign relations, the economy, and several other issue domains.
Four. Presidents and presidential candidates shape and reshape public perceptions of their party’s position on policy issues. Although Americans have durable beliefs about where the parties stand on specific issues and their location on the general left-right dimension, they adjust their beliefs according to where they place the current president or presidential candidates.
Five. Popular assessments of the president’s performance influence both individual and mass partisanship both in the short and longer runs. The balance of Democrats and Republicans in the electorate varies with presidential approval ratings; such short run effects are usually reversible but have at times solidified into durable changes. Because party loyalties are most malleable early in political life, citizens newly entering the electorate contribute disproportionately to shifts in mass partisanship. A president’s most enduring influence is thus on the partisan identities of people who come of political age during his administration, and the extent of a president’s appeal—or lack thereof—to younger citizens has long-term implications for the future partisan composition of the electorate.
Six. Views of presidents and presidential candidates affect voters’ decisions in down-ballot races both directly and, through their effect on party images and party identification, indirectly, and thereby influence their party’s performance in congressional and other elections.
Seven. Presidents and presidential candidates have contributed importantly to the gradual realignment of the parties that has left the current American electorate more deeply divided along party lines than at any time in living memory.
Eight. Partisan polarization was essential to the election of Donald Trump. Although Trump executed a hostile takeover of the Republican Party and continues to attract vigorous criticism from some of its luminaries, his impact during his first year in office on how people view his party has been at least as large as that of previous presidents. In the intra-party struggle for the hearts and minds of ordinary Republicans, Trump has so far emerged as the consistent winner. But given his unpopularity outside core Republican circles, and especially among growing segments of the population, Trump’s dominance and prospective rebranding of the Republican Party threatens to erode its popular image, reputation, and appeal both immediately and for the long term.