Good thread from @robfordmancs; I concur that social media might accentuate diffs in ideological conformity b/w the more vs less politically engaged, given that elites, activists, pundits, & the engaged in general are more likely on social media. (1/n)
In this vein, we know from work by Groenendyk et al (2020) that priming ideological norms can increase expression of ideologically-constrained opinions. We might very reasonably assume that the social networks of the engaged do a lot of this. (2/n)…
The "context collapse" feature of social media may worsen this, insofar as diff ideological subcultures' esoteric practices & views may become more visible to outsiders than they were in the past, amplifying perceived ideological differences. (3/n)
I would add that this might not only lead to (greater apparent) belief-system divergence b/w the engaged and less-engaged -- it might also lead to divergence in perceptions of what issues are important, what disputes are salient, and so on. (4/n)
Beyond that, it may worsen the tendency for elites & the very-engaged to speak about politics in different languages -- increasing the gulf b/w the former and large parts of the electorate. (5/n)
If the engaged vs less-engaged divide overlaps with other politically-significant divides (e.g., the education divide & cultural diffs aligned with that divide), this may intensify cultural conflict and open up space for those who wish to make populist appeals. (6/n)
BoJo (in the UK) seems to be exploiting this dynamic w/ some populist success; Trump did as well. From another corner, Biden's "old man who doesn't care what people are talking about on Twitter" approach seems to invoke this strategy too, though in a somewhat diff way. (7/7)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Christopher Federico

Christopher Federico Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ChrisPolPsych

12 Jun
I don't agree with all of the arguments here, but it is an interesting read that points to the complexity of public opinion and the extent to which actual behavioral trends may operate separately from political discourse. Some random thoughts: (1/n)…
Social conservatism as a political tendency is first and foremost a kind of identity politics -- it's about who gets recognition, who is in and who is out, and who should be dominant. (2/n)
In the US among White people, it's also bound up with a lot of identity competition that has little to do with religion or sex in philosophical terms, i.e., racial attitudes and racial backlash. (3/n)
Read 17 tweets
29 Apr
A related comment: there's something to the argument that conservatism is more of a temperament than an abstract ideology. But how does temperament get fleshed out in practical terms? (1/n)
The notion of conservatism as cautious, limit-seeking temperament is certainly consistent with at least one stream of research on personality and politics, e.g., (2/n)…
...a characterization that is nevertheless subject to various social and historical contingencies, as Ariel Malka and I show here, e.g., (3/n)…
Read 21 tweets
28 Apr
It is realities of this sort that complicate any simple narrative about political messaging on inequality. I used the (not new) term 'environmental racism' here, but it might be too jargony for mass communications. But then: how do you talk about problems like this? (1/n)
In this vein, the Kalla & English (2021) study was well done and comports with prior studies. I don't dispute it & I think it is relevant for communications about *some* things. But many issues require you to confront race, and you can't message your way out of doing so. (2/n)
Indeed, this is broadly true, given just how interwined economic and racial inequality are in this country. There's certainly a conversation to be had about avoiding jargon or trendy terms when discussing racial inequality and finding the best way to talk about it. (3/n)
Read 4 tweets
21 Apr
What I keep coming back to is that the modern 'conservative' ideological framework -- crystallized under Reagan -- more or less collapsed during GW Bush's second term. (1/n)
By 'ideological framework,' I have in mind the conservative elite consensus behind Reaganism: laissez faire economics, muscular foreign policy, and traditional values. (2/n)
The Great Recession and its aftermath (along with long-term growth in inequality as a function of education, professional status, etc) discredited the small-government ethos, which has struggled to contend with the resulting challenges. (3/n)
Read 13 tweets
2 Apr
Here are some results for the white subsample only. Note that the ideology measure = ideological self-placement, so symbolic rather than operational ideology in these models and the earlier ones. (1/n)
Racial resentment, white respondents only: (2/n)
Stereotype difference (i.e., attributing more neg traits to Black Americans vs White Americans), white respondents only: (3/n)
Read 6 tweets
2 Apr
Been digging into the new 2020 ANES release this week, and I got curious as to what might predict negative attitudes toward increasing ballot access. So, I took a look at the ANES items on early voting, voter ID, and felon disenfranchisement. (1/n)
The following analyses look at the full sample, with dummies for racial group. I was especially interested in the role of racial attitudes, so I ran 4 sets of models -- each using a different racial attitude. (2/n)
Bottom line up front: racial attitudes predict opposition to ballot access, even after controlling for ideology, PID, authoritarianism, and perceptions of whether votes are counted fairly. For example, here's what we see for racial resentment: (3/n)
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!