Understanding the language of politics: A study of elites and masses

Political Science Quarterly

Volumn 111, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 619-637

  Herrera, Richard ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0006812364     PISSN: 00323195     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2152087     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. See V.O. Key, Public Opinion and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), 25; see also Benjamin I. Page and Robert Y. Shapiro, The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992); and John R. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992) for discussions of elite leadership of mass opinion.
2. See V.O. Key, Public Opinion and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), 25; see also Benjamin I. Page and Robert Y. Shapiro, The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992); and John R. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992) for discussions of elite leadership of mass opinion.
3. See V.O. Key, Public Opinion and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), 25; see also Benjamin I. Page and Robert Y. Shapiro, The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992); and John R. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992) for discussions of elite leadership of mass opinion.
4. Herbert McClosky and John Zaller, The American Ethos (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984).
5. Warren E. Miller and Teresa E. Levitin, Leadership and Change: Presidential Elections from 1952 to 1976 (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers, Inc., 1976), 173. See Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, 268-74 for an elaboration on the direction of communication from elite to mass.
6. Warren E. Miller and Teresa E. Levitin, Leadership and Change: Presidential Elections from 1952 to 1976 (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers, Inc., 1976), 173. See Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, 268-74 for an elaboration on the direction of communication from elite to mass.
7. Fred N. Kerlinger, Liberalism and Conservatism: The Nature and Structure of Social Attitudes (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1984), 13.
8. Miller and Levitin, Leadership and Change, 173.
9. McClosky and Zaller, The American Ethos, 189. M. Kent Jennings, "Ideology among Mass Publics and Political Elites," Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (Summer 1993): 440, echoes that sentiment, stating that "communications [from elite to mass] are uneasy and fraught with the possibility of misunderstanding, simplification, and specific demands and appeals."
10. McClosky and Zaller, The American Ethos, 189. M. Kent Jennings, "Ideology among Mass Publics and Political Elites," Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (Summer 1993): 440, echoes that sentiment, stating that "communications [from elite to mass] are uneasy and fraught with the possibility of misunderstanding, simplification, and specific demands and appeals."
11. See Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, 268-74 for an elaboration on the direction of communication from elite to mass.
12. Key, Public Opinion and American Democracy, 557.
13. Ibid., 558.
14. Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes, The American Voter (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960); and Philip E. Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" in David E. Apter, ed., Ideology and Discontent (New York: Free Press, 1964).
15. Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes, The American Voter (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960); and Philip E. Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" in David E. Apter, ed., Ideology and Discontent (New York: Free Press, 1964).
16. Samuel L. Popkin, The Reasoning Voter (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991).
17. Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," 207-214.
18. See ibid.; James W. Prothro and C.W. Grigg, "Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement," Journal of Politics 22 (February 1960): 276-94; Herbert McClosky, Paul J. Hoffmann, and Rosemary O'Hara, "Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers," American Political Science Review 54 (June 1960): 406-27; Herbert McClosky, "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review 58 (1964): 361-82; McClosky and Zaller, The American Ethos; Warren E. Miller, Without Consent (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1988).
19. See ibid.; James W. Prothro and C.W. Grigg, "Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement," Journal of Politics 22 (February 1960): 276-94; Herbert McClosky, Paul J. Hoffmann, and Rosemary O'Hara, "Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers," American Political Science Review 54 (June 1960): 406-27; Herbert McClosky, "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review 58 (1964): 361-82; McClosky and Zaller, The American Ethos; Warren E. Miller, Without Consent (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1988).
20. See ibid.; James W. Prothro and C.W. Grigg, "Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement," Journal of Politics 22 (February 1960): 276-94; Herbert McClosky, Paul J. Hoffmann, and Rosemary O'Hara, "Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers," American Political Science Review 54 (June 1960): 406-27; Herbert McClosky, "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review 58 (1964): 361-82; McClosky and Zaller, The American Ethos; Warren E. Miller, Without Consent (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1988).
21. See ibid.; James W. Prothro and C.W. Grigg, "Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement," Journal of Politics 22 (February 1960): 276-94; Herbert McClosky, Paul J. Hoffmann, and Rosemary O'Hara, "Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers," American Political Science Review 54 (June 1960): 406-27; Herbert McClosky, "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review 58 (1964): 361-82; McClosky and Zaller, The American Ethos; Warren E. Miller, Without Consent (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1988).
22. See ibid.; James W. Prothro and C.W. Grigg, "Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement," Journal of Politics 22 (February 1960): 276-94; Herbert McClosky, Paul J. Hoffmann, and Rosemary O'Hara, "Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers," American Political Science Review 54 (June 1960): 406-27; Herbert McClosky, "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review 58 (1964): 361-82; McClosky and Zaller, The American Ethos; Warren E. Miller, Without Consent (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1988).
23. See ibid.; James W. Prothro and C.W. Grigg, "Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement," Journal of Politics 22 (February 1960): 276-94; Herbert McClosky, Paul J. Hoffmann, and Rosemary O'Hara, "Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers," American Political Science Review 54 (June 1960): 406-27; Herbert McClosky, "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review 58 (1964): 361-82; McClosky and Zaller, The American Ethos; Warren E. Miller, Without Consent (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1988).
24. McClosky and Zaller, The American Ethos, 11.
25. Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," 215.
26. Ibid., 226.
27. Warren E. Miller and M. Kent Jennings, Parties in Transition: A Longitudinal Study of Party Elites and Party Supporters (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1986), 22.
28. The differences in survey administration (that is, National Election Studies [NES] by personal interview; CDS by self-administered questionnaire) pose a potential problem by suggesting mode of data collection as an alternative explanation for any mass-elite, differences found in the analysis That problem however, requires a closer look. If the nonresponses to mail questionnaires are driving observed differences between elite and mass, we would expect that differences between elites and masses would be exaggerated. Those elites who responded to the survey might be more motivated than those who did not. The elite respondents might be considered super-elites and as such be very different from the mass public. To the extent that mass-elite similarities are found, they may underestimate the true level of agreement. In order to broaden the representation of elites, this analysis includes delegates from previous conventions as well as those who attended the 1988 convention. However, separate analyses using only 1988 convention delegates reveal no differences from the data presented here. See Miller, Without Consent; and Jennings, "Ideology among Mass Publics and Political Elites."
29. The differences in survey administration (that is, National Election Studies [NES] by personal interview; CDS by self-administered questionnaire) pose a potential problem by suggesting mode of data collection as an alternative explanation for any mass-elite, differences found in the analysis That problem however, requires a closer look. If the nonresponses to mail questionnaires are driving observed differences between elite and mass, we would expect that differences between elites and masses would be exaggerated. Those elites who responded to the survey might be more motivated than those who did not. The elite respondents might be considered super-elites and as such be very different from the mass public. To the extent that mass-elite similarities are found, they may underestimate the true level of agreement. In order to broaden the representation of elites, this analysis includes delegates from previous conventions as well as those who attended the 1988 convention. However, separate analyses using only 1988 convention delegates reveal no differences from the data presented here. See Miller, Without Consent; and Jennings, "Ideology among Mass Publics and Political Elites."
30. The response rates varied slightly depending on the political party of the delegate, with Republican delegates responding at higher rates. Though these response rates are not extremely high, they are comparable to other mail surveys in which the population is the political elite and to other recent, telephone surveys (for example, the 1988 NES U.S. Senate Study had a response rate of just above 40 percent). See John W. Soule and James W. Clarke, "Issue Conflict and Consensus: A Comparative Study of Democratic and Republican Delegates to the 1968 National Conventions," Journal of Politics 33 (February 1971): 72-76, for a summary of response rates in previous elite studies; and Thomas H. Roback, "Motivation for Activism Among Republican National Convention Delegates: Continuity and Change in 1972-76," Journal of Politics 42 (February 1980): 181-201.
31. The response rates varied slightly depending on the political party of the delegate, with Republican delegates responding at higher rates. Though these response rates are not extremely high, they are comparable to other mail surveys in which the population is the political elite and to other recent, telephone surveys (for example, the 1988 NES U.S. Senate Study had a response rate of just above 40 percent). See John W. Soule and James W. Clarke, "Issue Conflict and Consensus: A Comparative Study of Democratic and Republican Delegates to the 1968 National Conventions," Journal of Politics 33 (February 1971): 72-76, for a summary of response rates in previous elite studies; and Thomas H. Roback, "Motivation for Activism Among Republican National Convention Delegates: Continuity and Change in 1972-76," Journal of Politics 42 (February 1980): 181-201.
32. Direct comparisons to the New York Times poll of delegates to both conventions in 1988 showed no significant differences between the two samples across seven demographic variables for either party. See Michael Oreskes, "Delegates Conservative, Poll Shows," New York Times, 14 August 1988.
33. Intercoder reliabilities for the delegate responses were as follows: 1st mention: 1.00; 2nd mention: 1.00; 3rd mention: .82. These reliabilities indicate 100 percent agreement on the first and second mentions. The level of agreement was retested, yielding again these high estimates of reliability.
34. These categories are the standard NES master code categories.
35. See the appendix for the codes used for each of these categories.
36. Additional breakdowns were made of the general philosophy category.
37. Pamela Johnston Conover and Stanley Feldman, "The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self Identification," American Journal of Political Science 25 (November 1981): 617-45; and Kathleen Knight, "Ideology and Public Opinion," Research in Micropolitics 3 (1990): 59-82
38. Pamela Johnston Conover and Stanley Feldman, "The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self Identification," American Journal of Political Science 25 (November 1981): 617-45; and Kathleen Knight, "Ideology and Public Opinion," Research in Micropolitics 3 (1990): 59-82
39. The term aggregate salience is borrowed from Stanley Kelley Jr., Interpreting Elections (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), 61 and refers to the proportion of a given set of respondents who cite a given description of their understanding of the ideological terms.
40. Some may argue that, though they use the same categories of response, those responses may be inaccurate. That is, "liberal" may be defined as "conservative" and vice-versa. An analysis following that of Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" and Norman R. Luttbeg and Michael M. Gant, "The Failure of Liberal/Conservative Ideology as a Cognitive Structure," Public Opinion Quarterly 49 (Spring 1984): 80-93, showed that the percentage of the mass public responding to the questions who answered them correctly was over 83 percent. See Richard Herrera, "The Understanding of Ideological Labels by Political Elites: A Research Note," Western Political Quarterly 45 (December 1992): 1021-1035. I also conducted the same analysis presented here using only those respondents who answered the questions correctly and found only minor differences within the general philosophy category, where more respondents used references to "change."
41. Some may argue that, though they use the same categories of response, those responses may be inaccurate. That is, "liberal" may be defined as "conservative" and vice-versa. An analysis following that of Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" and Norman R. Luttbeg and Michael M. Gant, "The Failure of Liberal/Conservative Ideology as a Cognitive Structure," Public Opinion Quarterly 49 (Spring 1984): 80-93, showed that the percentage of the mass public responding to the questions who answered them correctly was over 83 percent. See Richard Herrera, "The Understanding of Ideological Labels by Political Elites: A Research Note," Western Political Quarterly 45 (December 1992): 1021-1035. I also conducted the same analysis presented here using only those respondents who answered the questions correctly and found only minor differences within the general philosophy category, where more respondents used references to "change."
42. Some may argue that, though they use the same categories of response, those responses may be inaccurate. That is, "liberal" may be defined as "conservative" and vice-versa. An analysis following that of Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" and Norman R. Luttbeg and Michael M. Gant, "The Failure of Liberal/Conservative Ideology as a Cognitive Structure," Public Opinion Quarterly 49 (Spring 1984): 80-93, showed that the percentage of the mass public responding to the questions who answered them correctly was over 83 percent. See Richard Herrera, "The Understanding of Ideological Labels by Political Elites: A Research Note," Western Political Quarterly 45 (December 1992): 1021-1035. I also conducted the same analysis presented here using only those respondents who answered the questions correctly and found only minor differences within the general philosophy category, where more respondents used references to "change."
43. Conover and Feldman, "The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self Identification"; and Knight, "Ideology and Public Opinion." Though my coding scheme differs slightly from that used by Conover and Feldman, many of the same patterns found in the 1976 data emerge in the 1988 data as well. For example, the "General Philosophy" group (which includes change and socialism/capitalism responses) and "Economic" and "Domestic policy" responses account for the bulk of the responses in 1976 and in 1988. For further discussion and analysis of similarities and differences between Conover and Feldman and the analysis of the citizenry in 1988, see Richard Herrera, "The Conceptualization of Ideological Labels by Elites and Masses," (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1991).
44. Conover and Feldman, "The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self Identification"; and Knight, "Ideology and Public Opinion." Though my coding scheme differs slightly from that used by Conover and Feldman, many of the same patterns found in the 1976 data emerge in the 1988 data as well. For example, the "General Philosophy" group (which includes change and socialism/capitalism responses) and "Economic" and "Domestic policy" responses account for the bulk of the responses in 1976 and in 1988. For further discussion and analysis of similarities and differences between Conover and Feldman and the analysis of the citizenry in 1988, see Richard Herrera, "The Conceptualization of Ideological Labels by Elites and Masses," (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1991).
45. Conover and Feldman, "The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self Identification"; and Knight, "Ideology and Public Opinion." Though my coding scheme differs slightly from that used by Conover and Feldman, many of the same patterns found in the 1976 data emerge in the 1988 data as well. For example, the "General Philosophy" group (which includes change and socialism/capitalism responses) and "Economic" and "Domestic policy" responses account for the bulk of the responses in 1976 and in 1988. For further discussion and analysis of similarities and differences between Conover and Feldman and the analysis of the citizenry in 1988, see Richard Herrera, "The Conceptualization of Ideological Labels by Elites and Masses," (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1991).
46. Edward G. Carmines and James A. Stimson, Issue Evolution, Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989).
47. Morris P. Fiorina, "Information and Rationality in Elections" in John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski, eds., Information and Democratic Process (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990), 338.
48. John A. Ferejohn, "Information and the Electoral Process," 11.