What do you think?
Rate this book
Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
Although politics at the elite level has been polarized for some time, a scholarly controversy has raged over whether ordinary Americans are polarized. This book argues that they are and that the reason is growing polarization of worldviews – what guides people's view of right and wrong and good and evil. These differences in worldview are rooted in what Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler describe as authoritarianism. They show that differences of opinion concerning the most provocative issues on the contemporary issue agenda – about race, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and the use of force to resolve security problems – reflect differences in individuals’ levels of authoritarianism. This makes authoritarianism an especially compelling explanation of contemporary American politics. Events and strategic political decisions have conspired to make all these considerations more salient. The authors demonstrate that the left and the right have coalesced around these opposing worldviews, which has provided politics with more incandescent hues than before.
248 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
January 11, 2021
The whole Donald Trump phenomenon has mostly seemed pretty baffling to most observers since he entered the Republican party race for the presidential nomination in the middle of 2015. What on earth is it that attracts masses of people to a candidate with seemingly no coherent political platform? Here is a man of no political experience, who has never held elected office, and who apparently has nothing more to offer than his over-the-top boastfulness, appeals to patriotism and "making America great", a promise to build a wall on the Mexican border (and get Mexico to pay for it, no less), a rejection of all our trade agreements, and a general willingness to insult not only his opponents, but also immigrants, women, the disabled, and anyone else who happens to rouse his ire that day. Oh, and he's also a billionaire who says he's funding his own campaign and so will be beholden to no one. Yet he won the GOP nomination, over the opposition of most of the party's leadership. Why?
I think this book holds the answer. The reason that Trump appeals to so many is, first and foremost, that he appeals to those with an authoritarian mindset. The evidence for this comes from a source outside of this book, from a PhD candidate researcher at the University of Massachusetts who surveyed Trump supporters (at the end of 2015) and found that authoritarianism was the single strongest predictor of the support for this candidate. Yes, his core supporters have a few shared demographic traits -- they're male, white, older, less educated, more likely to be outside the workforce, and more likely to identify their ethnicity as "American" -- but first and foremost they rank high on authoritarianism. This is what shapes their world view, not being less educated or lower income as such. Non-authoritarians who have the same demographic traits do not support Trump. Something else is a more important driver, and that is authoritarianism.
This book defines authoritarianism as the tendency to respect authority, value obedience to rules highly, mistrust members of the "outgroup" (such as immigrants and gays), resist change. and view issues in black and white terms. The two researchers who authored the book, like other researchers before them, have used an interesting approach to identify authoritarians: they ask about their subjects views on child raising. There are four contrasting pairs of parenting values that respondents are asked to choose between: independence or respect for elders, being considerate or being well-behaved, self-reliance or obedience, curiosity or good manners. A strong authoritarian always picks the second of these pairs as the values that he (it's usually a he, not a she) teaches to his children; a non-authoritarian makes the opposite choice. This approach to parenting is what another political theorist, George Lakoff, calls the "strict father" mode of parenting. Conservatives generally and authoritarians in particular are very big on it. Not surprisingly, they're also big on the "spare the rod, spoil the child" approach to spanking kids.
Donald Trump fits the bill for these voters, in probably much the same way that Mussolini did for Italians. He plays the man in charge, he boasts of his sexual conquests, he blames most problems on outsiders who need to be kept out of the country, he puts down anyone he deems weak (whether the disabled or those who don't think that ISIS can be simply bombed into submission), he promises to fix everything by negotiating "great deals" -- and by generally making things "great" all around. No details. Nothing gray, only black and white.
The authors argue that there used to be little to choose between Democrats and GOP voters in terms of the likelihood of their being authoritarians. But the two parties' voters have tended to sort themselves into opposing ideological camps since the 1960's, notably as conservative southerners abandoned the Democrats in the wake of their party taking up the banner of racial equality with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1964. The Republicans quickly exploited this with their "Southern strategy" under Nixon, and the whole process has continued apace since then under every Republican president.
This sorting process is far from being perfect or absolute, but the authors present convincing survey data to prove that there is a very strong correlation between views on authoritarianism and party voting patterns. Republicans are more authoritarian and the Democrats are less so -- or, as Chris Matthews put it, the Republicans are the "Daddy party" and the Democrats are the "Mommy party."
Still, Democrats too have their authoritarian supporters. The authors show that, in the showdown between Obama and Clinton in their race for the Democratic nomination in 2008, Obama's supporters were more likely to be non-authoritarian and Clinton's to be authoritarian. His supporters were more educated and higher income, hers were less educated and more blue-collar. In the 2016 version of this contest, with Sanders vs. Clinton, I suspect the same divide is present. (Of course, this also implies that if Clinton is the candidate, she is more likely than Sanders to be able to appeal to voters who otherwise might vote Republican.)
Authoritarianism shapes voters views on a whole range of issues, especially those that are more symbolic and more emotion-charged, such as gay marriage, immigration, terrorism, civil liberties, torture and the use of military force instead of diplomacy. Authoritarians are more likely to look to strong leaders for their views on these and other issues, since (according to survey data once again) they generally do not have a high level of political knowledge and tend not to have their own opinions about most things other than those touted by the leader they blindly follow.
The result of this decades-long sorting process, with Republicans growing more authoritarian and the Democrats markedly less so, is the highest level of political polarization among political elites and among voters in 100 years of US politics. But here's a curious thing: when the level of perceived threat is high, especially a high level of PERSONAL threat -- as in a personal fear of being a victim of a foreign terrorist attack -- authoritarians and non-authoritarians think very similarly. The differences largely vanish. It's not because authoritarians shift towards the center; it's because non-authoritarians shift towards the right. Authoritarians are already fearful and mistrustful of outsiders, even under normal circumstances, so they have no room to become much more so; non-authoritarians have lots of room to move to the right, and do so, even if only as long as the threat lasts. So, could Trump win the 2016 presidential election? If there's a high-profile foreign terrorist attack on US soil, he very well might. Sobering thought, at least for non-authoritarians.
This book, despite its somewhat data-dense, academic style, is quite readable considering the subject matter. It's well worth taking a look at it. It will change your understanding of US politics.
I think this book holds the answer. The reason that Trump appeals to so many is, first and foremost, that he appeals to those with an authoritarian mindset. The evidence for this comes from a source outside of this book, from a PhD candidate researcher at the University of Massachusetts who surveyed Trump supporters (at the end of 2015) and found that authoritarianism was the single strongest predictor of the support for this candidate. Yes, his core supporters have a few shared demographic traits -- they're male, white, older, less educated, more likely to be outside the workforce, and more likely to identify their ethnicity as "American" -- but first and foremost they rank high on authoritarianism. This is what shapes their world view, not being less educated or lower income as such. Non-authoritarians who have the same demographic traits do not support Trump. Something else is a more important driver, and that is authoritarianism.
This book defines authoritarianism as the tendency to respect authority, value obedience to rules highly, mistrust members of the "outgroup" (such as immigrants and gays), resist change. and view issues in black and white terms. The two researchers who authored the book, like other researchers before them, have used an interesting approach to identify authoritarians: they ask about their subjects views on child raising. There are four contrasting pairs of parenting values that respondents are asked to choose between: independence or respect for elders, being considerate or being well-behaved, self-reliance or obedience, curiosity or good manners. A strong authoritarian always picks the second of these pairs as the values that he (it's usually a he, not a she) teaches to his children; a non-authoritarian makes the opposite choice. This approach to parenting is what another political theorist, George Lakoff, calls the "strict father" mode of parenting. Conservatives generally and authoritarians in particular are very big on it. Not surprisingly, they're also big on the "spare the rod, spoil the child" approach to spanking kids.
Donald Trump fits the bill for these voters, in probably much the same way that Mussolini did for Italians. He plays the man in charge, he boasts of his sexual conquests, he blames most problems on outsiders who need to be kept out of the country, he puts down anyone he deems weak (whether the disabled or those who don't think that ISIS can be simply bombed into submission), he promises to fix everything by negotiating "great deals" -- and by generally making things "great" all around. No details. Nothing gray, only black and white.
The authors argue that there used to be little to choose between Democrats and GOP voters in terms of the likelihood of their being authoritarians. But the two parties' voters have tended to sort themselves into opposing ideological camps since the 1960's, notably as conservative southerners abandoned the Democrats in the wake of their party taking up the banner of racial equality with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1964. The Republicans quickly exploited this with their "Southern strategy" under Nixon, and the whole process has continued apace since then under every Republican president.
This sorting process is far from being perfect or absolute, but the authors present convincing survey data to prove that there is a very strong correlation between views on authoritarianism and party voting patterns. Republicans are more authoritarian and the Democrats are less so -- or, as Chris Matthews put it, the Republicans are the "Daddy party" and the Democrats are the "Mommy party."
Still, Democrats too have their authoritarian supporters. The authors show that, in the showdown between Obama and Clinton in their race for the Democratic nomination in 2008, Obama's supporters were more likely to be non-authoritarian and Clinton's to be authoritarian. His supporters were more educated and higher income, hers were less educated and more blue-collar. In the 2016 version of this contest, with Sanders vs. Clinton, I suspect the same divide is present. (Of course, this also implies that if Clinton is the candidate, she is more likely than Sanders to be able to appeal to voters who otherwise might vote Republican.)
Authoritarianism shapes voters views on a whole range of issues, especially those that are more symbolic and more emotion-charged, such as gay marriage, immigration, terrorism, civil liberties, torture and the use of military force instead of diplomacy. Authoritarians are more likely to look to strong leaders for their views on these and other issues, since (according to survey data once again) they generally do not have a high level of political knowledge and tend not to have their own opinions about most things other than those touted by the leader they blindly follow.
The result of this decades-long sorting process, with Republicans growing more authoritarian and the Democrats markedly less so, is the highest level of political polarization among political elites and among voters in 100 years of US politics. But here's a curious thing: when the level of perceived threat is high, especially a high level of PERSONAL threat -- as in a personal fear of being a victim of a foreign terrorist attack -- authoritarians and non-authoritarians think very similarly. The differences largely vanish. It's not because authoritarians shift towards the center; it's because non-authoritarians shift towards the right. Authoritarians are already fearful and mistrustful of outsiders, even under normal circumstances, so they have no room to become much more so; non-authoritarians have lots of room to move to the right, and do so, even if only as long as the threat lasts. So, could Trump win the 2016 presidential election? If there's a high-profile foreign terrorist attack on US soil, he very well might. Sobering thought, at least for non-authoritarians.
This book, despite its somewhat data-dense, academic style, is quite readable considering the subject matter. It's well worth taking a look at it. It will change your understanding of US politics.
October 24, 2019
According to Marc J. Hetherington (Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University) and Jonathan D. Weiler (Director of Undergraduate Studies in Global Studies at UNC Chapel Hill) the political divide in the country isn’t between the left and the right, it’s between authoritarians and non-authoritarians. So, while there is great polarization between Republicans and Democrats, it’s not because the parties have become polarized, but because significant self-sorting has occurred such that individuals with authoritarian tendencies have moved into the Republican camp and non-authoritarians into the Democratic. The authors argue that the specific points over which the parties are polarized are explained more by this fact than by any other ideological difference.
What are the characteristics of authoritarians? Authoritarian behavior can roughly be grouped into the following behavioral clusters:
Authoritarian submission - a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
Typical behaviors include:
• Unquestioning belief in their strong-man leader, even when being told easily debunked lies
• More willing to cast aside civil liberties in the name of safety
• Because views are so strongly shaped by what the authority tells them to think they are often self-contradictory, which is why authoritarians show higher than normal levels of hypocrisy
Authoritarian aggression - a general aggressiveness directed against outgroups and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
Typical behaviors include:
• Inclination toward moral, ethnic, and political intolerance
• Tend to favor the use of military force over diplomacy
• Heightened response to fear, often with aggression
Conventionalism - a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms.
Typical behaviors include:
• Tendency to be social conformists and the expectation that others conform to the established social code
• Favor traditional moral standards
• Tend to be more religious
• A tendency to rigid thinking and an unwillingness or inability to process new information that might challenge pre-existing beliefs
Lower need for cognition – individuals are not inclined to effortful cognitive activities.
Typical behaviors include:
• Strong preference for simple explanations to complex, nuanced ones
• Tend to favor black and white interpretations of events
• Are disinclined to critically evaluate information if it is delivered from a source they trust (i.e. an authority)
Those scoring low in authoritarianism are more inclined to favor the abstract, seeing the world in more complex terms. Other characteristics of non-authoritarians include:
• Place more emphasis on personal autonomy
• Have a tolerance for ambiguity
• Strong affinity for fairness
• Aversion to ethnocentrism
• Higher need for cognition
It should go without saying after reading the traits above ... the Republican Party is the party of authoritarians. While authoritarianism and conservatism are closely intertwined in contemporary American politics, it’s important to point out that the two are not inextricably linked. Authoritarianism doesn’t dictate a person’s attitude towards the free market, for example. It’s also possible for left-wing organizations to be authoritarian, such as communism in China under Mao Zedong. With that said, authoritarianism today, which is on the rise throughout the world, is entirely a right-wing phenomenon. So how did this occur?
The authors suggest that one issue was largely (though certainly not entirely) responsible for this sorting … that of race (other issues that split along authoritarian lines include feminism, immigration, gay rights and national defense). Race is a particularly effective issue to organize individuals with authoritarian personalities since they are naturally hostile towards outgroups … ethnic and religious outgroups in particular. It’s thus no accident that immigration has been used by the 45th president to rally his base and that a wall separating the U.S. from our neighbors to the south has played such a central role in his rhetoric.
Authoritarian individuals are inflexible, hypocritical, self-righteous, prejudiced, fearful, aggressive and closed to new information and ideas. Given one party’s embrace of authoritarian ideals, it’s no wonder that dysfunctionalism now permeates the current U.S. political system.
As to the book, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics is a wonky, data-driven exercise that struck me as more of an extended political journal article than a book for the general public. It’s dry, limits itself to narrow questions (mainly that of explaining the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections), and doesn’t address the broader implications of authoritarianism in society. The book also fails to tackle any causal factors … in particular that of income inequality, which has long been known to result in the destabilization of democratic institutions. Henry A. Wallace, vice president under Franklin D. Roosevelt, warned of “wealthy men who sincerely believe that their wealth is likely to be safer” if they support “demagogues.” What it does do is attempt to explain the deep polarization of American politics, and points to authoritarianism as the single most significant cause.
What are the characteristics of authoritarians? Authoritarian behavior can roughly be grouped into the following behavioral clusters:
Authoritarian submission - a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
Typical behaviors include:
• Unquestioning belief in their strong-man leader, even when being told easily debunked lies
• More willing to cast aside civil liberties in the name of safety
• Because views are so strongly shaped by what the authority tells them to think they are often self-contradictory, which is why authoritarians show higher than normal levels of hypocrisy
Authoritarian aggression - a general aggressiveness directed against outgroups and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
Typical behaviors include:
• Inclination toward moral, ethnic, and political intolerance
• Tend to favor the use of military force over diplomacy
• Heightened response to fear, often with aggression
Conventionalism - a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms.
Typical behaviors include:
• Tendency to be social conformists and the expectation that others conform to the established social code
• Favor traditional moral standards
• Tend to be more religious
• A tendency to rigid thinking and an unwillingness or inability to process new information that might challenge pre-existing beliefs
Lower need for cognition – individuals are not inclined to effortful cognitive activities.
Typical behaviors include:
• Strong preference for simple explanations to complex, nuanced ones
• Tend to favor black and white interpretations of events
• Are disinclined to critically evaluate information if it is delivered from a source they trust (i.e. an authority)
Those scoring low in authoritarianism are more inclined to favor the abstract, seeing the world in more complex terms. Other characteristics of non-authoritarians include:
• Place more emphasis on personal autonomy
• Have a tolerance for ambiguity
• Strong affinity for fairness
• Aversion to ethnocentrism
• Higher need for cognition
It should go without saying after reading the traits above ... the Republican Party is the party of authoritarians. While authoritarianism and conservatism are closely intertwined in contemporary American politics, it’s important to point out that the two are not inextricably linked. Authoritarianism doesn’t dictate a person’s attitude towards the free market, for example. It’s also possible for left-wing organizations to be authoritarian, such as communism in China under Mao Zedong. With that said, authoritarianism today, which is on the rise throughout the world, is entirely a right-wing phenomenon. So how did this occur?
The authors suggest that one issue was largely (though certainly not entirely) responsible for this sorting … that of race (other issues that split along authoritarian lines include feminism, immigration, gay rights and national defense). Race is a particularly effective issue to organize individuals with authoritarian personalities since they are naturally hostile towards outgroups … ethnic and religious outgroups in particular. It’s thus no accident that immigration has been used by the 45th president to rally his base and that a wall separating the U.S. from our neighbors to the south has played such a central role in his rhetoric.
Authoritarian individuals are inflexible, hypocritical, self-righteous, prejudiced, fearful, aggressive and closed to new information and ideas. Given one party’s embrace of authoritarian ideals, it’s no wonder that dysfunctionalism now permeates the current U.S. political system.
As to the book, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics is a wonky, data-driven exercise that struck me as more of an extended political journal article than a book for the general public. It’s dry, limits itself to narrow questions (mainly that of explaining the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections), and doesn’t address the broader implications of authoritarianism in society. The book also fails to tackle any causal factors … in particular that of income inequality, which has long been known to result in the destabilization of democratic institutions. Henry A. Wallace, vice president under Franklin D. Roosevelt, warned of “wealthy men who sincerely believe that their wealth is likely to be safer” if they support “demagogues.” What it does do is attempt to explain the deep polarization of American politics, and points to authoritarianism as the single most significant cause.
December 12, 2019
A magisterial textbook level analysis of authoritarianism, nonauthoritarianism, and the modern polarized political and social-cultural climate.
The work builds on Adorno, Stenner, and others in assessing the authoritarian personality, threat multipliers, and increased polarization. They do well at introducing the concept of authoritarianism, the history of its study, defining authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism, the authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism as the new matrix for polarization since the 1960s, and then seeing how authoritarianism, nonauthoritarianism, and polarization played out primarily in the 2000s through 9/11, the Iraq War, and the election of Barack Obama.
The book's major contribution to the field is in its understanding of nonauthoritarians as the primary driver of polarization and under threat multipliers: authoritarians tend to maintain the same disposition and attitudes, and when there is greater openness to a group or for civil liberties or the like, it comes from the openness of the nonauthoritarians. Nevertheless, when the threat level multiplies, authoritarians remain where they are, and it is the nonauthoritarians who move toward authoritarianism as the threat level increases. The authors do well in describing how this played out in many cultural issues of the late 20th and early 21st century.
Much work needs to be done in the field; far too many times authoritarians are cast as "the other," and in the work the authors admit that it is hard to get a good handle on what has driven authoritarians to authoritarianism (and, for that matter, nonauthoritarians toward nonauthoritarianism). It would also be good to be able to describe nonauthoritarians in their own right and not just in contrast with authoritarians.
It can be chilling to read this book and recognize it was written a decade ago; it would almost seem to have been the Trump campaign's manual (and if the author only knew how prescient his comment regarding the dynamics of the 2016 election would play out!). A work definitely worth considering if one wants to understand the dynamics at play in polarization and politics, and even social and cultural preferences, in our current age.
The work builds on Adorno, Stenner, and others in assessing the authoritarian personality, threat multipliers, and increased polarization. They do well at introducing the concept of authoritarianism, the history of its study, defining authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism, the authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism as the new matrix for polarization since the 1960s, and then seeing how authoritarianism, nonauthoritarianism, and polarization played out primarily in the 2000s through 9/11, the Iraq War, and the election of Barack Obama.
The book's major contribution to the field is in its understanding of nonauthoritarians as the primary driver of polarization and under threat multipliers: authoritarians tend to maintain the same disposition and attitudes, and when there is greater openness to a group or for civil liberties or the like, it comes from the openness of the nonauthoritarians. Nevertheless, when the threat level multiplies, authoritarians remain where they are, and it is the nonauthoritarians who move toward authoritarianism as the threat level increases. The authors do well in describing how this played out in many cultural issues of the late 20th and early 21st century.
Much work needs to be done in the field; far too many times authoritarians are cast as "the other," and in the work the authors admit that it is hard to get a good handle on what has driven authoritarians to authoritarianism (and, for that matter, nonauthoritarians toward nonauthoritarianism). It would also be good to be able to describe nonauthoritarians in their own right and not just in contrast with authoritarians.
It can be chilling to read this book and recognize it was written a decade ago; it would almost seem to have been the Trump campaign's manual (and if the author only knew how prescient his comment regarding the dynamics of the 2016 election would play out!). A work definitely worth considering if one wants to understand the dynamics at play in polarization and politics, and even social and cultural preferences, in our current age.
August 8, 2017
Overwhelmingly relevant.
June 14, 2020
It's super spot-on.
August 4, 2021
A challenging book on authoritarianism, but well worth the read.
January 3, 2010
Interesting look at how authoritarianism--which they define as a preference for order and a discomfort with change or difference--structures preferences on a variety of political issues (especially gay rights, immigration, and foreign policy). As these issues have become more important in American politics in the last few years, opinions have become more divergent because, the authors argue, opinions are highly linked to authoritarianism. Not only do individuals have different opinions, but they are increasingly unable to comprehend or respect other positions. Exploiting these issues has broken down the traditional party alignments that emerged after the New Deal.
I did have some methodological quibbles here and there, but the underlying premise seems worthy of study and they use a lot of data to illustrate their points. And apparently, based on the questions used to categorize people, I have an extremely high "need for cognition."
I did have some methodological quibbles here and there, but the underlying premise seems worthy of study and they use a lot of data to illustrate their points. And apparently, based on the questions used to categorize people, I have an extremely high "need for cognition."
December 6, 2010
This was fascinating. It's an academic book but they write to a broad audience. They argue that Americans are not "polarized" in the conventional sense of the word. They're just better "sorted" into political parties than they were in the past. That is, most liberals are now Democrats and most conservatives are Republicans, while this was not the case 30-50 years ago. They also argue that this sorting process was sparked by responses to a specific set of issues related to race, culture, and welfare. They also talk about "authoritarianism" as a personality characteristic: the tendency to see the world in black-and-white instead of "shades of grey" and to have a high need to follow leaders who will provide an ordered, structured "worldview." This book completely changed the way I think about political behavior and political attitudes.
May 17, 2011
This was a scholarly work with lots of charts and graphs and talk of reliability and validity. I began to read only the conclusions about midway in the book, and then gave it up as a bad job after three quarters. In my view, the authors repetitiveness was maddening. I felt like I was reading the same discussion a hundred times over. This might have been a superb 50-page journal article, but as a 150-page book, it was hard to love. The information is interesting, though, and if you are interested in what the hell has happened to America, this will answer the question, at least in part. In combination with Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, you should have all the information you need to figure out why we gave up so much for so little in the last 30 years, and in particular since 9/11.
February 13, 2012
Not terribly exciting reading the book is a series of scientific studies done by the authors to try to understand what makes people conservatives and why it causes so much polarization in American politics. But fascinating reading for anyone who is trying to understand why this movement came to be and what the mindset is of the followers of political conservatism.
August 24, 2015
Another I read long ago and should probably re-read. I do remember it being very informative and I am sure it shapes my thinking about American politics to this day.
July 10, 2019
Awesome book. Really helps to explain the Trump phenomenon.
April 16, 2016
I think we can find a clear explanation of a current issue in American democracy in this book.
September 2, 2016
An academic work which provides a significant amount of dry data and statistical analyses. On the upside, it provides clear and readable discussion and conclusions.
November 27, 2018
One of the best books I've read this year.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews