Beyond the left–right cleavage: Exploring American political choice space
| Author | Melvin Hinich,Arnold Vedlitz,Charles Lindsey,Xinsheng Liu |
| Published date | 01 January 2013 |
| Date | 01 January 2013 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0951629812453215 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Beyond the left–right
cleavage: Exploring American
political choice space
Journal of Theoretical Politics
25(1) 75–104
©The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI:10.1177/0951629812453215
jtp.sagepub.com
Melvin Hinich (1939 - 2010)†
Department of Government and Department of Economics, University of Texas, USA
Xinsheng Liu
Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy, Bush School of Government and Public Service,
Texas A&M University, USA
Arnold Vedlitz
Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy, Bush School of Government and Public Service,
Texas A&M University, USA
Charles Lindsey
StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA
Abstract
Following spatial choice theory and MAP methodology, we employ the data drawn from recent
nationwide public opinion surveys to probe the latent political choice space in American politi-
cal competition. Our analyses demonstrate that, in addition to the traditional left–right ideology
continuum, there is a second distinct dimension in American political choice space. More impor-
tantly, the results from our regression analyses suggest that the second dimension seems to be
driven by a cleavage among different reform prospects, ranging from low-politics reformism, to
politics-as-usual approach, to high-politics style of change.
Keywords
American politics; election; reform; spatial choice; voting
Corresponding author:
Arnold Vedlitz, Texas A&M University, 4350 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4350, USA.
Email: avedlitz@bushschool.tamu.edu
76 Journal of Theoretical Politics 25(1)
1. Introduction
Since Anthony Downs’ Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), many theoretical and
empirical studies have advanced our understanding of American political choice space.
While there is little doubt about the existence and prominence of the left–right political
economy dimension, there are debates about whether additional dimensions exist, and if
so, their nature.
Following Enelow and Hinich (1984) we apply a statistical methodology created by
Cahoon and Hinich (1976) (see also Cahoon et al., 1978; Hinich, 2006) to data from a
national survey conducted in 2007 in order to probe the latent political choice space in
American political competition. Our analyses are then replicated with another national
survey conducted in 2004. Our results generally support the recent findings presented in
Hinich et al. (2010) that in addition to the traditional left–right political economy con-
tinuum there is a second ‘reform’ dimension in recent US presidential elections. While
Hinich et al. contend that the second dimension is mainly about how voters see political
competition as ‘outsiders vs. insiders’ (or ‘insurgent vs. establishment’), our data fur-
ther suggest that the nature of the second latent dimension appears to be associated with
different reform prospects – represented by progressive low-politics reformists on one
side, establishment/politics-as-usual proponents in the middle, and radical high-politics
insurgents on the other side. Implications of the low-politics vs. high-politics reform
dimension in American politics are discussed.
2. Spatial choice theory and MAP algorithm
MAP is a well-tested method of grouping evaluations of political actors in attitudinal
space. Its development (Enelow and Hinich, 1984, ch. 9) and use have been widespread
and successful as a tool for identifying the attitudinal proximity of survey respondents
to electoral candidates (see Carkoglu and Hinich, 2006; Hinich and Munger, 1994; and
Hinich et al., 2010). The method has also served as a reference point for other researchers
who have constructed similar tools to perform such matching exercises in their own
work (see, for example, Ansolabehere et al., 2001; Rabinowitz and Macdonald, 1989;
and Poole, 1998).
Following Hinich and Munger (1994), we assume that the political space is a com-
monly held simplification of the complex network of government policies and political
issues. Most citizens pay little attention to politics since they havelittle influence on what
their government does. The vote totals of an election can result in a change of govern-
ment that will produce significant policy changes but usually a change of government has
scant impact on people’s lives.
Political interest groups, on the other hand, have a vested interest in keeping in close
touch with the executive branch as well as committees in the legislature that affect their
issues. For example, a political interest group that has a business base also lobbies the
bureaucracies that regulate the actions of the businesses that belong to the group. In some
cases these interest groups attempt to influence public opinion by running advertisements
in newspapers and on television. The social and economic networks in a democracy thus
help form a link between the ideological positions of parties in the political space and
issues that are relevant for voters.
To continue reading
Request your trial