A Multidisciplinary Approach to Political Ideology – How and Why

Americans Self-Identify or Identify Others as Liberals or Conservatives

Joel M. Holmstock

December 20, 2014

MLA Capstone Project; University of Pennsylvania

1st reader: Kristine Rabberman, Ph.D. Professor School of Arts & Sciences University of

Pennsylvania

2nd reader: Nancy L. Watterson, Ph.D. Lecturer, MLA Program University of

Pennsylvania

Dedication

To my mother and father who did not live to see me accomplish my dream of attending and graduating from the University of Pennsylvania.

To my maternal and fraternal grandparents, especially my maternal grandfather, William J. Albert. You were my inspiration for my application essay for the MLA program. I only hope I

can be half the man you were.

To my great aunt Augusta Holmstock Kressler and my cousins Carolyn Kressler Greenberg, her husband Stanley Greenberg, and my cousin Sam Kressler – if you all can graduate from Penn,

then why not me?

To the faculty and staff at Kempsville High School, Virginia Beach, Virginia. I was hardly the best student to graduate in the class of ’84, but I did learn quite a bit while I was there. I often reflected back to my days I attended KHS while attending Penn. The things I learned in high

school had a lasting impression on me that helped me 30 years later in graduate school. I would like to thank a few special people at KHS:

My guidance counselor, Jane Moran – I think I exceeded your expectations for post-secondary education.

My 11th grade English teacher, Sarah Seely – to this very day I still want to show you every grammatical and spelling error I find when I read. I wish I had done this in high school for the

extra credit.

My World History teacher, Irma Vinson – I enjoyed your class so much in 11th grade I took social studies electives with you in 12th. You were one of the best teachers I ever had. There were many

times I reflected back on your classes while attending Penn.

To Rabbi Levi Haskelvich at Penn Chabad – Thank you. I am glad I had the opportunity to meet you and your family.

To Jeremy Smith and Michael Jones – Thank you for writing letters of recommendation for me when I applied to Penn.

To my primary reader, Professor Kristine Rabberman – Thank you for all your help in MLA 541 and for being my primary reader. I know this semester was a busy one for you.

To my secondary reader, Professor Nancy Waterston – Thank you for all your suggestions, as they were an immense help, especially in strengthening my Thesis for this Capstone.

To Angel Silver – I am sorry I broke our date that one Friday, and thank you for understanding that I needed to complete my schoolwork. I love you!

i

Table of Contents

Preface – My Journey at Penn Page ii

Introduction Page 1

Thesis Page 9

Literature Review Page 16

Methodology Page 20

Sociological Aspects of Family Values Transmission Page 21

Familial Political Socialization Page 31

Learning Political Socialization Page 32

Group Transmission and Civic Transmission Page 34

Social Media and Media Influence Page 41

Findings – Psychology Page 49

Findings – Education Page 50

Conclusion Page 58

Appendix A) Examples of pictures and humor Page 66

Appendix B) Examples of liberal and conservative banter (Facebook post) Page 78

References Page 90

ii

My Journey at Penn

My MLA journey at Penn actually began in 1992 or ’93. The Philadelphia

Inquirer had a special section on education, which listed most, if not all, the Delaware

Valley post-secondary schools (colleges and trade schools) and the programs and degrees

offered by each. I had no idea what program I should take in graduate school, but when I

saw the MLA program it piqued my interest since it allowed me to take an eclectic mix of

courses and I did not have to take the GMAT or GRE to be accepted. I had wanted to

attend Penn since I was a child when I would walk through the campus with my father on

days he would visit his doctor at the hospital. However, in the early ‘90’s I was burned

out from just completing my undergraduate degree and opted to work instead.

As the years passed I worked an eclectic mix of jobs and in 2011 went to work for

the Internal Revenue Service here in Philadelphia. By coincidence the IRS moved its

office location from Roosevelt Blvd. in North East Philadelphia to 30th and Market St. in

West Philadelphia, just a few blocks from the Penn campus. Since the Penn MLA

program had always remained in the back of my mind, and the proximity of the campus

to work, I felt it was the right time to return to school. Although the MLA will not assist

me with my current job function at the IRS, I believe that study for my own edification

while attending my “dream school” was worth the expense and time it would take me to

get a graduate degree. I enrolled in my first class in September 2012.

Prior to enrolling I noticed that certificate programs were offered in addition to

the degree. I thought I might get a certificate in Jewish Studies. Unfortunately my work

schedule at the time was 4:30 pm to 1:00 am. Many of the courses needed to get the

certificate in Jewish Studies were offered too early in the morning or in the afternoon at

iii

times that conflicted with my work schedule. In any event, I hoped to eventually take

classes in Jewish Studies. I opted to take HIST 430 The Rise and fall of the Third Reich

for my first class at Penn. I thought a history course was a good way to get my feet wet.

Additionally, I always enjoyed history, especially period history that dealt with Nazi

Germany, and this was the only class I could find that was not too early or conflicted with

my work schedule. Ultimately, I found this class informative and it greatly expanded my

knowledge of the subject.

After being out of school for a full twenty years I was nervous about the mid-term

and final exams. Where I ran into trouble was with the term paper. The style of writing I

used for my undergraduate program was not useful in a liberal arts course. Unfortunately

my writing style affected my overall grade and ultimately plagued me in my other

courses. To date, HIST 430 was the only class I had to take a test. All my other classes

required writing assignments. Despite the term paper trouble I successfully passed the

course.

Due to courses I would be required to take I requested a change to my work

schedule so I could work days and attend school at night. Since January 1, 2013 I have

been working 7:30 am to 4:00 pm. For the spring 2013 semester I took PHIL 550 Social-

Political Philosophy of Education and ANTH 539 Cultural Heritage and Cultural Policy.

I enjoyed this philosophy class. This was only the third philosophy course I had taken.

The previous two Philosophy courses I had were requirements and I was taking this one

out of genuine interest. Despite the fact that there was only one graded assignment for the

class, a twenty-page term paper, I stuck with the class. During my second semester I still

had hopes to complete a certificate in Jewish Studies even though the two courses I

iv

selected could not be used towards a Jewish Studies certificate. The topic I chose to write

about for PHIL 550 was Jewish education. After submitting my assignment I fretted over

how I did since this was my only grade for the class. I was concerned that it was not good

enough for graduate level work. Fortunately when the final grade came in I did better

than I expected. Unfortunately the grade gave me a false sense of security about writing

liberal arts term papers. Despite this, I learned a lot from the subject matter I wrote about

and my research answered personal questions I had about the subject.

On the other hand, ANTH 539 Cultural Heritage and Cultural Policy was not a

course that lived up to my expectations. The class was created to help Professor Daniels

complete a project to submit to UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural

Organization). The semester long project involved completing a literature review. At the

time, a literature review was not only a brand new term to me but also a new exercise

since this was something I had never encountered as a student anywhere else. I went

through the entire semester not understanding a thing or understanding why we were

doing the literature review to begin with. Under most circumstances I enjoy anthropology

and if I had the time and resources might even consider an undergraduate degree in the

subject, but would avoid this class. Interesting enough, at some point my name will be

attached to the finished project, as someone who assisted along with the other students,

and submitted to the United Nations. I believe everyone in the class received the same

grade at the end of the semester.

Still holding out hope I could get a certificate in Jewish Studies I enrolled in my

first Jewish Studies class for fall 2013, JWST 438 Song of Songs. The other class I

enrolled in was RELS 610 Religion in Public Life. Unfortunately I soon realized that

v

Song of Songs would be the only Jewish Studies class I would be able to take. To date it

had been the only one offered at a time that did not conflict with my work schedule.

Religion in Public life was an interesting class but also the most difficult for me because

the class pointed out the lack of skills I had in writing academic liberal arts papers. After

I submitted my mid-term writing assignment I received it back without a grade with

instructions to rewrite the paper. Fortunately the professor allowed me the opportunity to

resubmit it without a late penalty. With his suggestion I spoke to Chris Pastore and was

referred to the Weingarten Writing Center. The whole ordeal threw me for a loop. I had a

lot of reading to do for both classes, I had research to do for my final paper for Song of

Songs and I was working full time. Actually sitting down to rewrite the paper made me

extremely nervous. I had hoped to complete it before beginning my final term paper for

this class, but it did not work out that way. I kept procrastinating because I was so

nervous about completing it. When I finally did finish and turn it in I felt sick to my

stomach. I dreaded the grade I would receive. Fortunately I did “ok” on the rewrite.

Unfortunately it was around Thanksgiving and nearly at the end of the semester when I

found out my father had passed away in Florida. Due to his death I ended up taking a

leave of absence without pay from my job and received permission from both professors

to turn my final assignments in late. Again, due to being nervous about my writing skills I

procrastinated in finishing my final papers. I did not turn them in until after the spring

2014 semester started. Fortunately, I passed both classes. However, I could have received

better grades had my writing been better.

Chris Pastore recommended I take MLA 541 in spring 2014 to improve my

writing and I could further use the course to write what would become my MLA

vi

proposal. The other class I took was PHIL 489 Conflict, Ideology and Public Discourse

with Professor Stephen Steinberg. Another philosophy class! The class description very

much interested me and I liked the banter back and forth in the classroom. Almost every

student contributed to the weekly subject so the class was fun from a personality

standpoint. Dr. Steinberg’s class required we write two papers. I did much better than

expected on my mid-term and not as well as expected on my final paper.

On the flip side, MLA 541 was the first online class I took in my academic career.

I found it well planned and liked the fact that each week something was due. This course

kept me busy by having to turn in assignments every week. At first I did not know what I

would like to write about for my Capstone. I had hoped I would be able to use a little bit

of all my classes as references to complete the project. In the end, I think there are bits

and pieces I can pull out of each class (except ANTH 539) that led me to my capstone

topic.

Now in my last semester, I am taking EDUC 698 Politics of School Reform in

addition to MLA Seminar course (MLA 699). At this time I do not know if there is

anything I can pull from Politics of School Reform to use for my capstone.1 I am taking

this class because I believe education is important and I wanted to learn more about the

political and policy decisions that affect education. It is also a possibility that I will

continue my education and get a master’s in education or teaching. It is a subject I am

mulling over in my mind. I do not necessarily want to teach, but I hope to do something

to improve education as my impetus.

1 Postscript: It turns out there was quite a bit I could use for my Capstone project. I am able to use one article assigned as a reference and through that assignment found three others articles that were cited.

1

Introduction

American citizens are often considered liberal or conservative based off voting

behavior since liberals typically vote Democrat and conservatives vote Republican.2 As a

result, Americans typically get labeled into two camps based on voting in a predominant

two party political systems,3 liberalism or conservatism. However, nuances do arise;

people may be liberal or conservative on a particular subject or issue while still remaining

in one of these two camps. Although I do acknowledge there are different forms of

political thought, the American political system remains dominated by a binary system,

i.e. liberalism and conservatism. One may be unable to distinguish a person’s ideological

stance, either liberal or conservative, solely by their view on one issue. Still, with

additional information, such as observing how the individual discusses issues, or applies

labels, or directly indicating their stance, one can get a sense of a person’s general

ideological position. I further acknowledge there are many issues in which liberals and

conservatives vehemently disagree. One need only witness the many times Facebook

posts in which responses on one issue turn into a ”he said/she said” or “he did this/they

did that” blame game discourse that develops into an argument. Issues such as abortion,

global warming, homeland security, and healthcare4 are just a few of the topics that

highlight issues that liberals and conservatives have different views and can sometimes

result in bitter discourse.

2Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. 2010. “StudentNewsDaily.com” 2005 (revised): 1–6. http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Conservative-vs-Liberal.pdf 3 “Throughout most of its history, American politics have been dominated by a two-party system. The modern two-party system consists of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Since the 1930s, the modern American political spectrum and the usage of left–right politics have basically differed from the rest of the world.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States 4 4Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. 2010. “StudentNewsDaily.com” 2005 (revised): 1–6. http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Conservative-vs-Liberal.pdf

2

Indeed, with the rise in popularity of social media web sites, such as Facebook

and Twitter, I have noticed an increase in the number of people, including myself, who

follow political posts that correspond to the individuals’ ideology. For instance, if a

person self-identifies as a liberal he (or she) may follow social issue posts such as those

on global-warming/climate change or a politician for whom he voted. If a person self-

identifies as conservative, he or she may follow posts by conservative talk radio hosts

such as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, as well as politicians he or she feels represent

his interests. In either case, I observed informally that these posts are responded to mostly

by those who identify with the particular ideology being espoused, with little

commentary by those with opposing views; when there are comments made by those with

opposing ideologies they are often attacked immediately by the dominating ideology of

the particular post (see Appendix B for an example). Of course, some of those who

respond with a differing ideology sometimes make vicious attacks themselves when they

do decide to post. Typically, these opposing comments are expressed as anger toward the

dominant view regarding the issue at hand. I do not think I have ever read a well thought

out oppositional view that would make the other side “think” any differently about the

subject. I have asked questions on posts that were contrary to my political values and

ideology regarding issues I read on Facebook groups. My experience included being

attacked by the dominant ideology that the post was intended for. In one instance I was

accused of being a “troll” by one person and cursed by another. Needless to say, the

responses received were vicious and filled with anger. Based on personal experience, as

well as posts of varying views I have read by others, it appears people with oppositional

views on these discussion groups rarely seem to want to understand divergent points of

3

view. I am curious to know why this happens. More specifically, why does someone

choose to follow a particular ideology so vehemently in the first place? Although social

media are one source of information for news, human-interest stories, and political views

by ideologues, there is a story behind the expression of these views; this Capstone is my

attempt to drill down to find out what makes the individual choose or form their ideology

to begin with. How is it acquired?

To begin to explore the process that go into this shaping and formation of views,

this Capstone focuses on ideological differences, specifically those of a dichotomous and

staunchly-held nature: between liberalism and conservatism in the United States. Are

there common factors or variables that aid in the formation of one’s ideological formation

within liberalism and conservatism whereby people identify as politically liberal or

politically conservative? Are contributing factors psychological, sociological, religious,

transmitted by parental influence, or formed through education? This Capstone explores

these questions through a synthesis of secondary scholarly sources drawn from fields of

sociology, psychology, and education. This research can assist researchers in sociology,

political psychology, family psychology, politics, and education in understanding how

American citizens in the United States form their own separate political ideology when

they identify themselves and others as liberal or conservative. The importance of this

question can help scholars in multiple disciplines determine how people form their

ideology and political thought. In the realm of American political discourse, of course,

understanding ideology assists researchers with voting behavior (Chirumbo and Leone

2010). And this may be the most obvious reason to explore such behaviors (though it is

not the only one, as will be explored further below). The ultimate focus of my Capstone,

4

though, is not solely in the context of our elected leaders and politicians, but in the daily

expression of such differences among the average American citizen (i.e. the people who

vote for the politicians). In other words it is “we,” our neighbors, our family and our

friends. The method(s) people use to form their political identity and the processes they

use to develop this identity is of particular interest to me, because a person’s identity

defines each of us: who we imagine ourselves to be. As we form a political identity we

then may label ourselves as either liberal or conservative. In addition, it can be especially

helpful to understand why the “other side” believes or thinks the way they do. As

explored below, the disciplines of education, sociology and psychology may hold the

keys to the question of political identity formation. In the realm of political discourse

such understanding may improve communication among those with opposing ideology

thus allowing one side to understand how the other side thinks and why. Thus, a

multidisciplinary approach to how a person forms her or his individual ideology, either

liberalism or conservatism, helps to both provide a unique lens into the shaping of

political ideological values and offers a foundational perspective that could help improve

everyday communication. One big first step would be for us all to understand how and

why Americans self-identify or identify others as liberals or conservatives—and then,

understanding those formative processes shaping deeply held values—work to better

communicate across those differences. How do Americans form these ideological

political beliefs? That is obviously a big question. Although there are many ideological

political belief systems, I hope to discover through research some preliminary factors,

events, individual mechanisms and group mechanisms that may contribute to or sway a

persons’ ideology between liberalism and conservatism.

5

In the pages that follow I begin by providing a definition of ideology. I then

define liberalism and conservatism, including the distinction between American

liberalism and American conservatism. After discussing the unique values associated

with American liberalism and conservatism and provides examples for each, I offer

insights drawn from a review of relevant literature and describe my methodology. In the

section laying out my research findings the Capstone proceeds through several thematic

sections: Sociological Aspects of Family Transmission, Familial Political Socialization

and Transmission of Values, Political Socialization, Group Transmission or Civic

Transmission, Social Media and Media Effects, Framing Political Issues, and lastly

Generational Effects. Finally, as a result of my experiences reading political issues for

both liberalism and conservatism, I have included examples of the kind that first

motivated my research: Appendix A provides examples of Facebook posts that are used

to generate comments, stir emotions, and rile people. Essentially these examples illustrate

what these opposing ideological dichotomies do to generate comments, either for or

against the espoused view. Appendix B provides one example of a recent political issue,

immigration reform, posted on Congressional Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA)

Facebook page. The comments, responses to comments, and views expressed in this post

are an example of the vehement oppositional views that often result in bitter discourse

between liberals and conservatives.

Where do average Americans obtain their ideological views and how are they

formed? To what degree are such views taught in the home, through education, media,

religion, and influenced through one’s own experiences and view of the world?

Liberalism and conservatism are ideological belief systems often characterized as polar

6

opposites, each of which has their own values. As polar opposites on the left–right

political spectrum, liberals are on the left or left wing and conservatives are on the right

or right wing.5 I have read, listened to and observed people that can be placed on this

spectrum. Liberal and conservative people have conflicting views and this causes

polarization among people with these conflicting ideologies. To be sure, there are

variations and nuances and distinctions among ideologies, and even one person may hold

contradictory views on particular matters. For the purposes of my analysis of how one

forms one’s liberal or conservative beliefs, though, I draw on works such as Alford and

Hibbing’s (2007) Personal, Interpersonal, and Political Temperaments, Borondo et al.’s

(2014) Mapping the Online Communication Patterns of Political Conversations, and

Castano et al.’s (2011) Ideology, Fear of Death, and Death Anxiety - from the fields of

political social science, social science, and political psychology. In making such an

intentionally binary analysis, moreover, I am following in the footsteps of John T. Jost of

New York University, Christopher Ellis of Bucknell University, and Antonio Chirumbolo

of Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.

I have a conservative political ideology and for several years I have been reading

political news articles and listening to talk radio programs that interested me. In addition,

I was reading some opposing viewpoints (i.e. liberal views) to my conservative political

ideology and often read a lot of vicious attacks toward people with my ideology. I was

also receiving opposing commentary, on occasion from a former high school classmate,

Kyle, on my Facebook posts. I could tell from his posts that he held liberal views and as

such his political ideology was the opposite of mine. Kyle had also tried to label me by

5 Ibid.

7

placing me in a couple different political parties. On several occasions I reposted articles

and political views that could be included in at least two different political parties (Tea

Party6 and Libertarian Party7). On two occasions Kyle became incensed when I reposted

an article about the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, and he was extremely sarcastic

regarding a third story I reposted about Jesus and Jerusalem. I do not remember what the

articles were about, but I was in favor of the actions in the articles and Kyle opposed

them. The short version of the story is Kyle ultimately dropped me as his Facebook friend

claiming I was “too angry” and at one point in our discourse he called me a “racist.” The

majority of the time Kyle was opinionated and arrogant when responding to posts, even

in dialogue he displayed these traits. Naturally, this was his personality. His actions of

labeling me as a conservative, though, essentially catalyzed this project; I determined to

explore the factors that contribute to not only shaping but also expressing such opposing

ideological political views.

Is there scholarship and research on how someone could reason and internalize

political views as he did and why I did, I wondered as I reflected on my own life and my

personal experiences from childhood to adulthood? How is it I came to my conservative

ideology and why do others have opposing ideology? As much as I can recall growing up

6 “The Tea Party movement is an American political movement known for its conservative positions and its role in the Republican Party. The movement has been described a mix of libertarian, populist, and conservative activists.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement 7 “The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing political party. Libertarians engage in a variety of projects, working for everyone's liberty on every issue. Their vision was the same as that of America's founders -- a world where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, a world of peace, harmony, opportunity, and abundance.” Source: http://www.lp.org/introduction/americas-third-largest-party

8

my parents never instilled one ideology over another. I had been patriotic8 as far back as I

can remember but this patriotism was not taught in my home, nor by any close relatives

or other associations I had or at least any associations that I can distinctly remember. My

conservative ideology was something that I recall adopting on my own. Along with my

patriotism9 I adopted many values that were in line with my conservative ideological

views, views that I deem to be correct and correct for the way our government should

conduct its policies. Most importantly, it is an ideology that is correct for me. I like being

a conservative.

My parents instilled in me what is “right and wrong.” That is to say, they

introduced values that I chose to adopt but they did not force these values on me. I

internalized these values to fit my life and found they applied to conservatism.

Ultimately, I had adopted many of the same values my parents held. As I reflect further

back, I believe my grandparents held these same conservative values as well. I also feel I

developed my ideology through my education and the study of American history,

American Government and world history in grade school as these subjects ultimately

reinforced my values and views. Additionally, I hold a B.S. in Criminal Justice and

interned with the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Service

(SCDPPPS). These aspects of my education also likely influenced my views as these

courses were based in the social sciences. Finally, one other factor that may have

contributed to my ideology is my Jewish heritage. Having family members of Jewish

8 Patriotic in the standard dictionary is defined as “love of one's country.” However, Stephen Nathanson defines patriotism as involving the following four characteristics: 1) Special affection for one's own country, 2) A sense of personal identification with the country, 3) Special concern for the well-being of the country, and 4) Willingness to sacrifice to promote the country's good. Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/patriotism/ 9 Ibid.

9

faith has led me to an interest in the historical events leading up to World War II, the rise

of Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and the creation of Israel as an independent nation.

Thesis

As a result of Kyle placing labels on me as well as my observations of posts he

made, led me on a path to this Capstone; an attempt to seek possible answers why we

apply liberal and conservative labels to individual United States citizens that have these

conflict inducing political values. One approach to addressing those differences may be

to examine how it is that people acquire their ideology and come to identify others by

these beliefs.

Being angered over a political issue or not liking the policies of a democratically

elected president does not make me an “angry person.” It makes me a concerned, civic

minded, “classical liberal,” and conservative American citizen. Conservatism is easy to

understand and it is easy to generate pictures in my mind’s eye why the United States

government should adopt more conservative policies. In other words, to me, conservatism

comes naturally and seems like common sense. I feel this concept--namely, of the ‘ease’

or ‘fit’ of a particular ideological framework—and how it comes to seem so--is crucial in

an attempt to understand what makes a person liberal or conservative. Our “identities” are

going to be different for everyone: someone who “identifies” him or herself as liberal or

conservative will have been influenced by various factors. At the same time, how we

express our views also takes different forms and manifest through different styles of

interaction. By way of emphasizing this point—and the importance of researching factors

that shape the expression of political views in public settings-- study of online (i.e.

Internet) social network structures that individuals followed showed these structures had

10

influence over their voting choices. The study concluded that political conversation is

restricted by ideology and language. The study also found that existing online

communities built networks of online communities where users would “cluster

themselves in politically homogenous networks” (403) such that opinions (in case of this

capstone political opinions) are formed through social networks; moreover, those around

us, within the context of the social networking site, can have an effect on how we think

about a topic (Borondo et al. 2014). These complex and inter-related factors deserve a

closer look.

Given the current political environment in the United States and the intense

divisions between members of Congress as well as the division between Congress and

President Obama, (and the constituents who voted for them), it may well seem impossible

to develop a meaningful discourse between citizens with opposing ideologies. I put forth

in this paper that ideology is a learned value and the very process by which liberal and

conservative ideologies come to seem second nature, seamless, and taken-for-granted by

American citizens –but they are not necessarily static: a person’s ideological views can

change over time. Moreover, further put forth in this paper that one’s ideological views

can be liberal on some issues and conservative on other issues and thus deserve the

respect due a nuanced point of view. As a result, to the extent that American citizens self

-limit their social networks, through social networks of those we have direct contact with

and including those we interact with on social networking Internet sites, we may be

negatively affecting how we think about a topic. When we are not taking advantage of

alternate points of view or immerse ourselves in networks that restrict, limit or prevent

alternate views, our civic discourse bogs down. To begin to address these issues, this

11

Capstone explores how political opinions are formed in complex ways and lays out why

this process of formation deserve to be appreciated through multiple angles:

psychological, sociological, and educational key among them.

The downfall to such a study as this is that my own ideological views may

influence how I present the material. They can also creep into the studies of the sources I

have used to conduct my research. Throughout this Capstone I strive to be even-handed;

that is, I do not only report the negative associations of the opposing ideology or

highlight only positive aspects of the ideology I subscribe to. I believe I can be fair to

both ideologies. First, I do not play the “blame game,” For fairness is part of my

personality. If someone is at fault (for anything, e.g. a missed deadline at work), I do not

immediately attempt to find the person at fault and admonish him or her. Instead, I would

rather fix the problem than blame the negative result on someone. If you fix the problem,

it’s fixed, and you move on. Nothing gets fixed if you blame someone for the bad result.

The negative discourse between liberals and conservatives is similar in nature. Each

blames the other side for problems or failed policies. This is a waste of time and effort.

Time could be better utilized to find compromises in place of assigning blame for bad

decisions. Secondly, I feel people are entitled to their own opinion. I may not agree with

it, I may believe it is wrong, but I am not admonishing the person because I don’t like it.

This type of interaction shows respect for another individual. I expect the same in return.

It is okay if you do not agree with my ideology, but do not admonish me because my

ideological values are not in line with your ideology. This difference in style of

interaction is where I believe my high school classmate Kyle and I ran into conflict. I

believe I was able to accept that his ideological views were different than mine. I never

12

told him I thought he was wrong for holding opposing ideological views. I honestly did

not like his views and I believe he was wrong on many issues, but I never admonished

him for holding views contrary to my own. I believe he has the right to express his views

regardless of my opinion. Unfortunately, it seems as though he did not wish to accept my

ideological views. A similar approach to venting one’s displeasure or advancing one’s

own views adamantly seems to prevail when I read the vicious comments made by people

who hold contrary ideological views. This is when each side continues to throw insults at

each other – to keep playing the blame game? Appendix B provides an example of such

vehement and vicious discourse that occurs between liberals and conservatives. The

sample presented is from a Facebook post from Congressional Minority Leader Nancy

Pelosi (D-CA) regarding a recent topic about the use of a presidential executive order to

initiate a change to our immigration policy. Immigration is a recent “hot” topic that

liberals and conservatives hold opposing views. Similarly, Appendix A provides

examples of various cartoons and slogans that are used in Facebook posts to either stir

emotions in the ideological target audience or used to inflame the opposing ideological

target audience. These appendices are offered for examples only.

In general, ideologies “can be understood as a system of values, norms and

political preferences linked to a program of action by way of a given social and political

order” (Carvalho 2007, 225). Two of these ideologies are liberalism and conservatism.

Devine (2012) defines American modern liberalism and conservatism, “primarily in

terms of social-policies associated with religious values, each which invert traditional

ideological orientations toward the appropriate size and role of government” (531). Nepal

(2004) defines liberalism as “a political ideology committed to the rights and liberty of

13

the individual” (608), while classical liberalism is supported by Laissez Faire10 economy.

John Locke sees the earth as given to humans for “the support and comfort of their being”

(Nepal 2004, 608). On the other hand, many of those who espouse modern liberalism

seem to believe in the “continuous economic growth and a faith in the ability of scientific

progress for the achievement of an equitable and sustainable future” (Nepal 2004, 609).

Modern liberal values include a belief in government action to achieve equal opportunity

and equality results for the common good.11 The government has the duty to “alleviate

social ills and to protect liberties and individual human rights.”12 In sum, “liberal policies

emphasize the need for government to solve problems.”13 On the other hand,

conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets,

individual liberty, traditional American values14 and a strong national defense.15 The role

of government should provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.16

Conservative policies generally empower the people to solve problems.17 Nepal (2004)

defines conservatism as “a political ideology that is averse to progressive change oriented

10 “Laissez Faire is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from intrusive government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire 11 Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. 2010. “StudentNewsDaily.com” 2005 (revised): 1–6. Source: http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Conservative-vs-Liberal.pdf 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Traditional values: “refers to the standards and values which were embraced by most Americans from its earliest beginnings and throughout the majority of its history. It is believed by many that these values were part of what made America a great and free nation. Traditional, historical American values have in the past, included a faith in God, prayer and the Bible, which has for a large part, been the foundation of other national traditions, such as: honor and respect for the family, diligent work ethics, absolute values of right and wrong, honesty in business practices, wholesomeness in leadership, respect toward authority, moderation rather than excess, marriage as a prerequisite before having sex or bearing children, a family which consists of both a father and mother, taking responsibility to provide for our own — such as one’s spouse, family and children, and so forth.” Dr. Dale A. Robbins (1990). Source: http://www.victorious.org/tradvalu.htm 15 Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. 2010. “StudentNewsDaily.com” 2005 (revised): 1–6. Source: http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Conservative-vs-Liberal.pdf 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid.

14

to the preservation of institutions and values and committed to tradition and authority”

(614). In other words, it is concerned with the “best of the past, hierarchy and the status

quo” (Nepal 2004, 614).

Conservation, frugality and stewardship are core values in Classical Conservatism

(Greenberg 2006). According to Greenberg (2006) the characteristic of constraint has

been abandoned while modern conservatism actively promotes “hyper-consumption”18

(86). Additionally, classic conservatism is vulnerable to challenges of ideological

adaption because it is suspicious of progress (Nepal 2004). Even though conservative

thought is not immune to change, especially dramatic change, there remains aversion to

this process (Greenberg 2006). Within Classical Conservatism it would be necessary to

weigh the pros and cons of any action before instituting a change of any kind, and as a

result the classic conservative acts after weighing the consequences (Greenberg 2006).

Classic conservatives are simply reluctant to change. Today’s American conservative

views grew out of 18th century Enlightenment19 where free trade, minimal government,

competitive markets, and continued growth are essential to the well-being of a liberal

market society (Greenberg 2006). These liberties also entailed self-control and self-

interest (Greenberg 2006). Castano et al. (2011) points out that liberal and conservative

concepts are “multidimensional and can vary in their meaning and can change over time”

18 “Hyperconsumption or hyper-consumption (also known as hyperconsumerism or hyper-consumerism) refers to the consumption of goods for non-functional purposes [1] and the associated significant pressure to consume those goods exerted by the modern, capitalist society, as those goods shape one's identity. Frenchy Lunning defines it curtly as "a consumerism for the sake of consuming.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperconsumerism 19 “The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment) is the era in Western philosophy, intellectual, scientific and cultural life, centered upon the 18th century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority. The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of values. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals, and a strong belief in rationality and science.” Source: https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Age_of_Enlightenment.html

15

(616) (i.e. depending on the given issue at hand such as social vs. fiscal issues). The

conservative movement is by no means static and shows considerable elasticity in motive

and policy (Greenberg 2006). By the same token, I would imagine the liberal movement

is not static either. In other words, what is considered liberal or conservative in today’s

American society may not be considered liberalism or conservatism in the future. In

reviewing the definition of classical liberalism (for instance it is committed to the rights

and liberty of the individual and supported by Laissez Faire economy) now coincides

with modern conservatism (for instance personal responsibility and free markets) are just

a two examples of what used to be known as Classical Liberalism has now shifted to

modern conservatism.

Another way to understand the differences between modern American liberalism

and conservatism is to look at the unique values associated with each. The web site

StudentNewsDaily.com provides a succinct explanation in the differences between

liberalism and conservatism, as well as provide examples of responses to numerous social

issues and policies for each. Devine (2007) concurs with the major distinction between

the two ideologies: liberals prefer a larger, more active government and conservatives

prefer a smaller and less active government. In light of this agreement there are instances

when the roles between liberals and conservatives are reversed. For instance, certain

social policies, such as abortion and gay rights for example, reflect the opposite of this

distinction (Devine 2007). In these instances conservatives are the ones who advocate for

government regulation and liberals are the ones advocating for government restraint

(Devine 2007). This is another instance where the values of liberalism and conservatism

are reversed. The modern conservative is advocating for government control in this

16

example while the modern liberal is advocating for restraint. This is the reverse of the

definition provided above as liberals generally favor government to solve problems and

conservatives prefer the hands off approach.

Up to this point I have defined ideology, conservatism and liberalism. Along with

the definition I have provided examples of the values associated with each ideology. I

would like to provide the meanings to American conservatism and American liberalism.

According to McCright and Dunlap (2011), “American conservatives champion ideals of

individual freedom, private property rights, limited government, and the promotion of

free markets, while American liberals promote collective rights, view market regulation

as crucial for protecting citizens and public goods, seek to increase the quantity of

government’s social service provision, and support government intervention to extend

rights to previously under protected groups” (160). As their words point up, American

conservatism and liberalism follow the same definitions I provided above. I wish to

emphasize that I am expressly distinguishing American conservative and liberal ideology

from conservative and liberal ideology in other countries. For instance, one would expect

conservative and liberal values and beliefs to be much different in countries such as

Russia and China as their values may be completely different than our own.

Literature Review

To answer the research question I will focus on a myriad of studies conducted in

the social sciences including education, sociology and psychology (includes political

psychology and psychology of education), in an attempt to determine how American

citizens form their political ideology, and whether they self-identify with liberalism or

conservatism (Braithwaite 1998, Bryon et.al. 2009, Carney et.al. 2008, and Eidelman et.

17

al. 2012). The bulk of these studies contained in this literature review have been

conducted in the discipline of political psychology (Bryon et.al. 2009, Carney et.al. 2008,

Castano et. al. 2011, and Eidelman et. a. 2012) (based on my observation of available

sources) with far fewer being conducted in the disciplines of sociology and political

science (Ellis 2012 and Alford and Hibbing 2007). In order to answer the research

questions every attempt will be made to seek additional sources in the disciplines of

sociology and education. In addition to these broad scope disciplines there have been

studies conducted in more narrowly focused areas such as political values and attitudes,

personality and individual differences, and American politics (Chirumbolo and Luigi

2010, Braithwaite 1998, and Ellis 2012).

The majority of the studies conducted employ qualitative surveys or

questionnaires whereby the participants, mostly college psychology undergrad students,

are either paid a small fee ($3.00 to $4.00) or receive course credit for their participation.

The surveys typically measure personal beliefs and are designed to measure how one

would react to different social issues in which answers are scored using a points system.

The psychology research has identified many different triggers for an individual’s

decision to either self-identify or be categorized by the researcher(s) on the liberalism-

conservatism continuum scale. The primary triggers for conservatism include a fear of

death (Castano et.al. 2011); “coherence around security dimensions” (Braithwaite 1998,

575), i.e. the need to feel safe (as noted above one of the values of conservatism is a

strong national defense) (Braithwaite 1998); “low-effort thought,” i.e. not having to think

critically about each and every issue (Eidelman et. al. 2012, 808); “perception to social

issues,” i.e. how liberals and conservatives perceive the same social issue at hand, for

18

instance the Affordable Care Act (Chirumbolo and Leone 2010); authoritarianism

(Devine 2012); and conscientiousness, as opposed to liberalism’s characteristics of

openness to new experiences and achievement through merit as opposed to good fortune

(Bryan et. al. 2009). Additional characteristics of liberalism include equality, freedom,

love, being broadminded, imaginative and independent (Braithwaite 1998). Five separate

studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that ideological beliefs in conservatism and

liberalism are equivalent cultural worldviews through the use of Terror Management

Theory (TMT).20 Results of the TMT study concluded liberals become more liberal while

conservatives become more conservative on the left-right liberalism-conservatism

continuum (Castano et al. 2011).

I should point out that there is a major impact and a serious flaw in the majority of

these studies that may skew the findings. Most of these research studies are conducted

using university undergraduate students at a single university whereby the majority of the

students are psychology majors, white with European ancestry and more than half are

women. The sample population appears to be anywhere from thirty to under one hundred

people. However, there have been a few studies with a population well over four hundred

participants (Braithwaite 1998, Chirumbolo an Leone 2010, and Choma et. al. 2012).

Additionally, college students tend to be more liberal in their beliefs than the general U.S.

population so a fair sample of conservative respondents are not being represented, and a

diverse cross section of the population is not included in the sample. Other problems with

20 “In social psychology, terror management theory (TMT) proposes a basic psychological conflict that results from having a desire to live but realizing that death is inevitable. This conflict produces terror, and is believed to be unique to human beings. Moreover, the solution to the conflict is also generally unique to humans: culture.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

19

these types of studies include a lower median age group and no diversity in education

levels.

Studies conducted in the areas of sociology, political values and attitudes, and

American politics have produced different results than the psychological studies,

however, they also suffer from the same flaws in results from the use of university

students in their research. One such qualitative sociological study examined personal,

interpersonal and political temperament and asked participants to self-identify on the

liberalism-conservatism continuum (Alford and Hibbing 2007). The results from this

study showed personality being a better predictor of whether someone will get up and

speak about a political topic rather than shaping political behavior (Alford and Hibbing

2007). In a study over political polarization among the American public about climate

change, McCright and Dunlap (2011), found that liberals were “more likely to report

beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus and express personal concern about global

warming than conservatives” (155), for example.

Miller (1992) used the General Social Survey and National Election Study and

found that from 1974 to 1986 the percentage of young people willing to label themselves

as conservatives increased. This suggested that perceived increases in conservatism

reflected a shift in attitudes and a change in the social desirability of being labeled a

conservative. In other words, Miller (1992) discovered that if young people self-identify

as conservative it was due to desirability of having the label since these same young

people may not adopt the attitudes associated with conservatism.

A study in American politics captured the results from a group rather than single

individuals (Ellis 2012). The methodology employed included development of basic

20

models to understand whether election outcomes are reflective of the public's ideological

preferences. The results showed that “operational and symbolic21 ideologies exhibit

different patterns of dynamic movement” (Ellis 2012, 344). In other words, the public's

operational ideology is more strongly responsive to policy change, more closely

predictive of election outcomes, and more likely to be reflected in the ideological

direction of policy change itself, than is its symbolic ideology.

Considering the flaws in the research methods whereby the subjects did not reflect

a well-rounded sample population, the results of the various studies listed above do

support the underlying hypothesis proposed by the researchers in their respective studies.

Further studies should be conducted using a broader sample of the public and consider

factors such as age, education, sex, race, religion, and economic status. I believe that

taking these factors into consideration would serve to greatly enhance the final results to

obtain a better picture of how people form their own liberal or conservative ideologies.

Methodology

My research analyzed scholarly secondary sources including journal articles,

academic papers and other documents that offer commentary, surveys or reports relating

to how Americans obtain their political and ideological beliefs and why they self-identify

or identify others as liberal or conservative in their political thought.

One way experts have approached this problem is through survey questions about

whether someone considers himself or herself liberal or conservative; however, Robinson

and Fleishman (1988) point out that gathering these data are relatively recent, beginning

21 Symbolic ideology is “the ideological label with which one most closely identifies” and operational ideology is “the sum of one’s views on specific matters of public policy” (Ellis 2011, p. 328)

21

in 1972. Some of the available survey data have found that America has generally moved

in a liberal direction since World War II (Smith 1990). Smith (1990) points out the trends

in equal rights and individualism showed the most consistent movement for liberals,

while the topic of crime occupied the conservative movement, and trends in economic

regulation and government power showed mixed change. Responses that account for this

change include the shift in social change as a response to events of the period, or part of a

steady change to the cycle of reform. In short, this period has been marked by a trend in

liberal advance by a two-to-one margin over conservative trends (Smith 1990). As

political, sociological and psychological data, theories and information are readily

available on topics of political ideology, liberalism and conservatism have been

conducted in numerous published works, including survey methods and survey data, my

capstone does not retrace those steps; conducting a survey as part of my methodology

would be superfluous. Rather, this capstone uses the results obtained from the research

literature.22

Sociological Aspects of Family Values Transmission

Beyond the typical sort of definitions used above, often associated with political

science approaches to partisan ideologies, I feel it important to explore other dimensions.

Central to the study of people’s choices in their beliefs are insights that come from

sociological studies. First, there are many things that make a “person.” We are all

individuals and we are all different. We are not just different in looks; such as physical

22 There will invariably be certain factors that will be left out and will be up to the next researcher to study. It is simply impossible to ascertain all the relative sources and data and apply it to a multidisciplinary approach such as mine. Additionally, there are topics such as heredity and biology that are not included in my study and will be worth studying by an expert in the field of physical or life sciences.

22

stature, sex, and hair and eye color; but also different in our identity. How do we identify

ourselves? What is our identity? To answer this question, Marcia (1980) defines identity

as “a self structure – an internal, self constructed, dynamic organization of drives,

abilities, beliefs, and individual history” (109). It can also be called a sense, an attitude or

a resolution. Identity is by no means static and aspects are added or thrown out over time

(Marcia 1980). We should view it as a base ingredient in our recipe for someone who self

identifies or identifies someone else on the left-right liberal and conservative scale.

The identity process begins at birth and lasts until old age (Marcia1980).

Essentially the “identity” process lasts our entire lives. What makes identity important at

adolescence23 and late adolescence is that it is the “first time physical development,

cognitive skills, and social expectations coincide allowing young persons to sort and

synthesize their childhood identifications in order to construct a pathway toward their

adulthood” (Marcia 1980, 110). In sum, identity formation plays a vital role in the

internal growth of an individual and allows him or her to sort and comprehend subjects or

issues and eventually sort and comprehend abstract subjects and issues. Marcia (1980)

goes on to say that identity formation involves “commitment to a sexual orientation, and

ideological stance, and a vocational direction” (110). This process is not linear and occurs

gradually (Marcia 1980). These decisions have identity forming implications, and the

bases on which these decisions are made begin to form one’s core structure (Marcia

1980). On the other hand there are ways to avoid this decision making process (Marcia 23 Adolescence is a crucial period in someone’s life and is marked by a transition in approach to cognitive tasks. These include the following cognitive skill sets: from concrete to formal operations, approach to moral issues from law and order reasoning to human values, and from expectation by others to approach to psychosocial concerns (Marcia 1980).

23

1980). For instance, an adolescent can let previously incorporated and parentally based

values determine one’s actions; let external pressures push an adolescent in a particular

direction; or the adolescent can bog down in indecision (Marcia 1980). Somewhere

during the process of identity formation a person develops an “ideological stance,” and

the individual takes a particular position or view on “something.” But the question that

still remains is how is this stance formed, emulated or learned? To answer this question it

is helpful to turn to the lens offered by James E. Marcia, M. Kent Jennings, and Aaron M.

McCright who offer insights from psychology and sociology who specialize in

Developmental Psychology, Political Science, and Sociology

Of particular interest to the study of ideological formation comes from those who

study childhood socialization, specifically studies that reveal that judgments, such as the

goodness of human nature, are formed early in life and often before cognitive

development24 and information acquisition make evaluated objects understandable

(Jennings and Niemi 1968).25 Loyalty and attachment attitudes to government and

country have shown similar results (Jennings and Niemi 1968). Therefore, the school,

mass media and peer groups do not have a lot of time to influence these attitudes

(Jennings and Niemi 1968). The logical assumption is that the family contributes to these

initial feelings either directly (i.e. through words and deeds) or indirectly (i.e.

24 “Cognitive development is a field of study in neuroscience and psychology focusing on a child's development in terms of information processing, conceptual resources, perceptual skill, language learning, and other aspects of brain development and cognitive psychology compared to an adult's point of view.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_development 25 M. Kent Jennings is Professor Emeritus of Political Science, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts and Research Scientist Emeritus, Center for Political Studies, Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. Currently he is with the Department of Political Science University of California, Santa Barbara. Richard G. Niemi is Don Alonzo Watson Professor of Political Science, Associate Department Chair and Director of Undergraduate Studies at the University of Rochester.

24

unconsciously) (Jennings and Niemi 1968). In other words, parents transmit a particular

position or point of view to their children towards life (Jennings and Niemi 1968).

Children in turn carry this point of view with them until they can develop their own

critical capabilities (Jennings and Niemi 1968). This process of formation makes sense.

Even if it is not the actual parent but a constant caregiver who provides an environment to

nurture positive behavior, such figures play a large role to socialize the child to interact

with others. This simply seems to be the behavior of rearing a child where the behavior

the child learns and carries through life can be any behavior.

So far in exploring the evolution of one’s identity we have been dealing with

young pre-school children. It is equally important to understand political authority in the

development of adolescents and how they perceive political authority. We also need to

understand that liberalism and conservatism are linked to politics. Of the many sources

available, Niemi and Sobieszek (who are professor’s of political science and sociology

and psychology, respectfully) provide one particularly compelling analysis into this topic.

They argue “political socialization studies involve learning at the pre-adult age and

political ideas begin to form in early childhood” (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977, 209) From

this work, I draw particular attention to the four terms they offer that summarize the main

research into children’s views of political authority: politicization, personalization,

idealization, and institutionalization (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). This capstone will take

a closer look at each concept in turn, for understanding these stages of formation, I argue,

can go a long way toward explaining some of the roots (factors?) that may contribute to

people taking entrenched stances when expressing their political views publicly.

25

Jennings and Niemi (1968) observed the transmission of “certain” (169) values

from parent to child in late adolescence and found aspects of family structure that affect

this transmission. Furthermore, these values are expressed through opinions on specific

issues (Jennings and Niemi 1968). A child’s early experiences in the family may prepare

him or her to handle authority situations, however, the family foundation has a diverse

value structure and parental values are variable (Jennings and Niemi 1968). At least in

Jennings and Niemi’s view, therefore, parental values are a weak guide to what the values

of a child will be (Jennings and Niemi 1968). Jennings and Niemi (1968) found that “the

transmission of political values from parent to child vary according to the nature of the

value” (180); however “there could be variations in the degree to which values are

successfully transmitted according to certain properties of family structure” (180). In

other words, some families may place more or less priority on certain values, for instance

regulating time to complete homework, could vary among families.

Politicization begins when children learn early on that there are authority figures

above their family and school figures (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). Children become

“aware of the external force demanding some support, obedience, and (usually) respect”

(212) by the time they turn seven or eight years old (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). An

example might be if a child observes her or his parent interact with a police officer after

being stopped for speeding. At this stage in life the child’s awareness is not fully formed

and somewhat “sketchy” (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977, 212). However, the experience

does assist in the development of other political ideas (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). Now

we can extrapolate that when a child learns there is authority above the parent and above

the family (politicization), the child is now at an age where he can begin to reason certain

26

concepts of authority. I think this childhood view at this stage is relatively small. A child

can only reason what aspects she or he knows from seeing one on one interaction

between a few actors (such as parent and teacher, parent and doctor, neighbor and police

officer and so forth). Politization is the primer stage for personalization. At each

successive stage the adolescent eventually builds up the cognitive development to

internalize political views and values. Each stage builds upon the preceding.

The second view of political authority is personalization. Personalization means

“children become aware of political authorities through individuals (e.g. the president and

police officers)” (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977, 212). In Niemi and Sobieszek’s (1977)

studies with children, more abstract concepts associated with government, such as

Congress and the Supreme Court were less understood, but as the child progressed in

school their understanding increased. To apply this concept to my earlier example (of the

parent stopped by the police officer for speeding), we would now see a different

dimension affecting the young individual’s mindset In the personalization stage, the child

would be able to understand a single figurehead but be unable to fully comprehend all

encompassing bodies where there are many cogs that turn the wheel. Essentially a child

can understand and physically see the patrol officer on his or her beat but not

comprehend the command structure of the local police department or understand that the

police officer has a boss to report to and that this boss has yet another supervisor to report

to, and so forth. Cast differently, even if a child understands that his or her parents just

voted for their congressional representative in the last election, that child may not be able

to fathom the role the representative has in government.

27

Idealization, the third view of political authority, seems particularly apt for my

study of how political views get formed because it speaks to how values and emotions

may become connected to political views—aspects that can become huge stumbling

blocks to respectful conversations or interactions among adults. For the children that

Niemi and Sobieszek studied, “political authority seemed trustworthy, benevolent, and

helpful” (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977, 212). Children view, for example, the president and

police officers almost always as trustworthy, all knowing, and incapable of making

mistakes (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). Niemi and Sobieszek use the phrase “the

benevolent leader” to describe these childhood sentiments about such figures. These

researcher’s findings do seem reasonable; it seems natural for children to see authority

figures, or any adult for that matter, as “all knowing.” If children have been reared with

such ideals about authority figures, then it would follow that such children would have a

worldview that validated or perpetuated seeking help from those who are in designated

helping roles such as police officers, nurses, doctors, and fire-fighters. It may be that the

idealization view of political authority could come to seem “natural” in the event that

their parents or caregivers were not there to help them.26 As the “benevolent leader”

moniker suggests children see authority figures as helpful, so reasoning the child would

come to trust governmental authority seems a natural outcome.

Personalization and idealization may give children an awareness of political

figures but, at least according to Niemi and Sobieszek, not understand partisan labels they

may attach to themselves (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). What such findings suggest is that

the adolescent knows something exists, for example Congress; he or she may know the 26 I do recognize children who observe such authority figures in negative situations could develop a negative idea shaping their ethos, mindset, and worldview.

28

name of the position, for instance Speaker of the House, but is unable to cite the role of

the person who occupies this position. Additionally, adolescents may hear the terms

Republican Party and Democratic Party but cannot clearly understand the differences

between each political party and their respective principles. Children may hear their

parents say “I voted Democratic” or “I voted Republican,” and they may repeat it to

others by telling their friends “We are Democrats” or “We are Republicans,” but they

cannot clearly identify or distinguish the differences between either of the parties.

Lastly, the fourth view of childhood authority that Niemi and Sobieszek cover—

and one that is particularly fitting for my analysis of political ideological formation and

how this comes to be expressed in everyday interactions—is institutionalization. This is

the development of children’s viewpoints. As the authors explain, at this stage children

“learned to associate with depersonalized objects such as the government and Congress”

(212) and even attributed the same qualities that were assigned to the president and police

officers (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). In their study, children in late elementary grades

began to emphasize institutions rather than just individuals, and became aware that

people are essentially not perfect (i.e. recognize there are individual deficiencies and

inequities in the law) (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). During institutionalization, moreover,

children also begin to differentiate between an individual’s role in a position and the

person who holds the position (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). For instance, even if the

current president is viewed in a bad light, the office of president is still held in high

regard (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). By way of applying this insight to a political event in

my lifetime, the events surrounding Watergate and the resignation of President Nixon

serve prime examples for this disconnect between a particular figure and the office held.

29

While many adults can become cynical over such dis-junctures, in Niemi and Sobieszek’s

findings children remained more trusting and less cynical than adults (1977). Jennings

and Niemi (1968) found Children develop moderately to high positive views of the

American government regardless of parental feelings.27 While Niemi and Sobieszek

(1977) found, ultimately, that very young children hold high rates of approval and

admiration for authority figures, they do state negative views can develop early, even by

the fourth or fifth grade in response to a given political leader. Contrary to this, studies

comparing racial groups indicate that black people are less trusting of authority figures

than white people, and black people felt less able to influence political authority figures

(especially since 1967 when riots erupted in major American cities) (Niemi and

Sobieszek 1977). In short, young people in minority groups revealed both positive and

“highly” (213) negative views that do not fall neatly under a simple characterization of

views28 (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). I mention the difference between black and white

people to highlight that there is a difference within and among groups. In sum, the four

views on political authority (politicization, personalization, idealization, and

institutionalization) are necessary in the development of identity and while all may not

lead to development of political authority, but they do assist in developing views of

authority in general. In light of this it is important to research other potential familial

triggers for political authority. One such trigger may be cynicism.

27 Please note that this refers to positive views of the American government and does not refer to views on individual’s or policy issues. 28 Niemi was cited in more recent, pieces (2002 and 2007) on minority ethnic community voting, race and political behavior. Cf.: sources: Purdam, Kingsley, Edward Fieldhouse, Virinder Kalra, and Andrew Russell. "Voter engagement among black and minority ethnic communities." London: Electoral Commission (2002); and Saggar, Shamit, R. J. Dalton, and H. D. Klingemann. "Race and political behavior." The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior (2007): 504-17.

30

To be sure, Niemi and Sobieszek’s research is dated; however this followed the

work of Jennings and Niemi (1968) by nearly a decade and does provide a study on

familial political cynicism transmission. Political cynicism, or a generalized political

cynical view, as mentioned above, is not often passed from parent to child (Jennings and

Niemi 1968). However, “a general cynical belief system can undermine the family

connection as these influences are still in effect as the adolescent approaches adulthood”

(Jennings and Niemi 1968, 178-179). Expressing cynicism is natural. At some point

people are cynical about “something” in their life. Unfortunately, there are those people

who are cynical more often than not, regardless of the issue. So political cynicism would

be a trait found in this type of individual. “Children are more likely to use their parents as

role models when the authority structure is neither excessive nor rigid and where strong

(not overprotective) supportive functions and positive affects are present” (Jennings and

Niemi 1968, 181). I believe good parenting practices, such as this, serves as a good

model. This only makes sense and I believe only aids in raising a well-adjusted

individual.

Niemi and Sobieszek (1977) point to a survey conducted in 197329 and a 197430

study that contradicts to some extent their previous work. For instance, they found that

children do not uniformly idealize political authority, while those nearing adulthood react

to political events like adults do (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). For example, if something

in the political system is failing, this could be reflected in the views of children, and if

adults view political leaders in a positive light then children will follow suit (Niemi and

29 Tolley’s (1973) survey coined the term “the fallible leader” and was used to describe President Nixon’s handling of the Vietnam War. 30 Hartwig and Tidmarch (1974) conducted a study about attitude changes during the Watergate period.

31

Sobieszek 1977). In addition, very young children may have exaggerated views of how

good authority may be, but there is nothing preventing them from having negative views

either (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). Niemi and Sobieszek (1977) state some studies show

that children cannot name political figures and do not “uniformly idolize” (215) them as a

result.31

Familial Political Socialization

Most studies of families on political socialization found positive correlations

between parents and children’s attitudes, but beyond partisanship and voting these

comparisons were weak (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). Previous political socialization

studies have focused on family transmission and essentially found strong evidence that

voting behavior is more influential on adolescents than actual transmission of an

ideology. A parent who votes is more likely to have a child who will vote. These studies

also discovered that mothers were just as important as fathers in transmission of political

views (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). For instance, one study by Jennings & Niemi (1974:

Ch. 6)32 revealed “greater agreement between mothers and daughters than between

fathers and sons” (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977, 318). Unfortunately, Niemi and

Sobieszek’s (1977) study did not reveal any information on agreement between mothers

and sons or between fathers and daughters.33 Thus concludes this introduction to

31 Unfortunately, Niemi and Sobieszek (1977) did not provide the age range for children that cannot name political figures. 32 Niemi, R G, and B I Sobieszek. 1977. “Political Socialization.” Annual Review of Sociology 3 (1): 209–33. 33Roest et al. found more parent- to-child value transmission between same sex as opposed to cross sex, and adolescent boys and girls identify more with their same sex parent. They did find fathers influence sons and daughters on work as duty while mothers influence their sons on work as duty. Source: Roest, Annette, Judith Semon Dubas, and Jan RM Gerris. "Value transmissions between parents and children: Gender and developmental phase as transmission belts." Journal of Adolescence 33, no. 1 (2010): 21-31.

32

children’s views of political authority. As previously stated adolescents do not poses the

cognitive capability to understand the nuances of our political system. As a result we

need to move to a latter stage of adolescence where political authority sets the stage for

learning political socialization.

Learning Political Socialization

Another crucial aspect in an attempt to understand why someone becomes liberal

or conservative is political socialization. This can also be thought about in two ways:

narrowly (e.g. high school civics classes) or broadly (i.e. all political learning) (Niemi

and Sobieszek 1977). Political socialization studies have previously demonstrated that

political ideas begin to form in childhood (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). However, recent

studies34 emphasize socialization that covers the life span (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977).

Studies completed in the 1960’s indicate the family as a source for political attitudes and

behavior35 (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). This was most prevalent in political party

affiliation (partisanship) and voting behavior (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). Studies have

also revealed that generally, youths are not much different from their parents regarding

political ideas even with low rates of agreement between parents and children (Niemi and

Sobieszek 1977). This might be due to the family being more important than is suggested

by correlations on individual items (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). For instance, voting

behavior has a greater effect on youth partisanship than parents’ partisan feelings (Niemi

and Sobieszek 1977). If a child sees his parent’s vote, where a citizen can participate in

34 Please note Richard G. Niemi and Barbara I. Sobiszek published this article in 1977 in the Annual Review of Sociology. 35 The reader should note that the civil rights movement, uprisings in major cities, and protests against the Vietnam War marked the political atmosphere of the 1960s.

33

government (i.e. civic engagement), that behavior serves as an excellent example for

future political behavior.

As children entering adolescence bring views of authority obtained from family

experiences (e.g. if a child sees his parents stopped for speeding) and parental views on

authority, these are then reinforced in school (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). Over time,

children begin to understand political institutions and obtain defined attitudes on specific

political issues (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). As with most things we learn, we have to

learn the basics of math such as adding and subtracting before we can learn to solve

algebraic equations or learn to spell before we can read Shakespeare. It’s necessary to

learn the fundamentals before the advanced material. Similar points about contributing

factors are made by other scholars. Jennings and Niemi (1968) states development of

authoritarian or distrustful attitudes in children occur due to variables such as

“disciplinary and protection practices” (170) and not from authoritarian or politically

distrustful parents. Jennings and Niemi’s points apply to this analysis in that the amount

of discipline a child receives, and over protective parents has a bigger effect on the

development of authoritarian attitudes in children. As I stated above, authoritarianism is

one of the values of classic conservatism.

The family transmits its own values in a few areas of political socialization, but

for the most part it is only one of the factors for political socialization. Family influence

does promote early attachment to our country and government. In other words, the

primary effect of family promotes uniformity in attitudes rather than instill specific

attitudes (Jennings and Niemi 1968). “The exception to this is that family promotes

34

partisanship” (Jennings and Niemi 1968, 170). These findings are in some ways similar

to those raised above: about political socialization: when Niemi and Sobieszek (1977)

found positive correlations between parents and children’s attitudes were weak except for

partisanship and voting. Jennings and Niemi’s 1968) study shows that the family’s

influence is restricted in scope therefore differentiation in adolescent political

socialization takes place outside the relationship between parent and child.

Group Transmission and Civic Transmission

Studies have shown that individuals who were active in school organizations are

more involved as adults in civic activities even after taking into account other priorities

such as marriage, children and advanced education (McAdams and Brandt 2009). Prior

studies also concluded that attitude change is possible, and most certainly likely, as a

result of civic engagement experiences in young adulthood (McAdams and Brandt 2009).

In other words, life experiences and transitions can lead to attitudinal changes (McAdams

and Brandt 2009). McAdams and Brandt (2009) offer such an example, in their study of

Teach for America (TFA) participant civic engagement habits.

McAdams and Brandt (2009) reported that former activists, such as those who

participated in the civil rights’ movement, to be more left/liberal in political orientation as

well as more active in contemporary social movements compared to non-activist peers.

From the many studies conducted, McAdams and Brandt (2009) concluded that social

movement participation is a reliable instrument for producing and continuation in activist

politics and civic life for citizens. I offer this study to highlight the ideological position

(in this case liberal) a person may have when they choose to participate in social

35

movements. However, these studies were based on 1960s era activists, therefore

comparing activist participation from that era to activist participation in other periods

may not yield valid comparable results (McAdams and Brandt 2009). This critique is

important to keep in mind as Niemi and Hepburn (1995) point out that attempting to

develop a theoretical explanation for the circumstances that play a role in political

development. Activist participation may not be required or situations in history may not

occur with the frequency that they did in the 1960’s. One must keep in mind if events are

significant for one or two individuals or if events are significant for every citizen (e.g.

September 11, 2001 attacks) (Niemi and Hepburn 1995).

There are some issues to mention about these researchers’ views. For example,

McAdams and Brandt (2009) reported that individuals are more likely to be active in

civic participation if their political orientation is more liberal. That is, the more liberal the

subject the more likely they will participate civically. While there research may have

merit, it might be difficult to define a liberal subject from a conservative subject. There

are definitive stances that liberals and conservatives may take on the same issue, for

instance global warming.36 There are also instances that arise that are more strongly

supported by one side over the other. For instance, the firearms and gun control debates

that inevitably happen after an incident that draws national attention such as the Sandy

Hook Elementary School shooting that took place in December 2012. Democrats in

Congress were calling for “gun control”37 in an effort to curb mass shootings, especially

36 For a list of values liberals and conservative take on different issues see: Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. 2010. “StudentNewsDaily.com” 2005 (revised): 1–6. http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Conservative-vs-Liberal.pdf 37 Ibid.

36

in schools. On the other hand, Republicans were fighting against gun control and I heard

one talk radio host suggest that school hire armed guards, specifically unemployed

former military service personnel. Although, McAdams and Brandt (2009) studied TFA,

they specifically note that their results are similar for “any service,” including non-

educational service. This study shows that civic participation, first learned in the school

years, leads to further civic engagement. These studies have shown that civic engagement

is a reliable instrument for continuation in activist politics. This is one possible area in

which one may be socialized into a particular ideology.

The literature points to political socialization taking place outside the family. I

have discussed this above when McAdams and Brandt (2009) discussed their findings of

TFA participants, and it makes sense since not all political matters have the same effect

on individuals equally. For instance, an increase in taxes will have less of an effect on the

rich than the middle class. “Acceptance or rejection of parental values by children will

only be affected if politics is important to the parents” (Jennings and Niemi 1968, 183).

In effect, if the parent is engaged in political issues the child can ultimately choose to

accept or reject parental values. However, I would think that the child would need to have

a significant amount of cognitive development in order to synthesize the issue at hand. In

this instance I think we are talking about children in their late adolescence. Niemi and

Hepburn (1995) argue studies on political socialization should focus on the age ranges

between fourteen and twenty-five, as this is when there is a rapid change to adult like

learning capacities and attitudes. Political concepts are either too complicated or

uninteresting to preadolescence children, however young people in late adolescence

obtain adult like capacities to reason, understand long-range implications of a course of

37

action for various situations, and able to reason specific choices from general principles

(Niemi and Hepburn 1995). In light of this, there are instances in which children are

entrenched in adult activities that may leave a lasting impression (e.g. ethnic conflicts-

civil rights, neighborhood gang wars, and civil war) (Niemi and Hepburn 1995).

Transmission of political values then may be largely external and can be based or

spurred by unplanned disturbances (e.g. September 11, 2001 attacks) or even civil

disturbances (e.g. civil rights movement and war protests) (Jennings and Niemi 1968).

They can also be premeditated, for instance, radical changes in school organization and

curriculum (e.g. forced bussing) and enforced social and racial interactions (again the

civil rights movement and equal rights for women) (Jennings and Niemi 1968). Lastly,

factors may be so spread out that no change between parent-student generations occurs

(Jennings and Niemi 1968). I alluded to this above.

Possible reasons for parents’ lack of political values transmission to students may

be related to characteristics and relationships within the family, i.e. “student perceptions

of parental attitudes, environmental homogeneity within highly politicized family

backgrounds compared to un-politicized family backgrounds, and impact of various

distinctive socializing agents on children from politically rich backgrounds compared to

politically barren backgrounds” (Jennings and Niemi 1968, 183). Life cycle effects (i.e.

growing up and changes in interest), the role of other socializing agents (such as peers)

and attitude changes are more likely to have a greater effect on transmission of political

values than familial transmission of these values (Jennings and Niemi 1968). These other

socializing agents occur both during and after childhood, and are further enhanced by

38

rapid changes in socio-technical advances in our modern society (Jennings and Niemi

1968). This includes content and form from mass media that family and school has little

to no control over (Jennings and Niemi 1968).38 A more recent study by Niemi and

Hepburn (1995), although still predating widespread use of the Internet, does mention

that political education in schools is “increasingly linked to television viewing—both

formally and informally” (9).39 Television may be formally viewed in schools as parts of

a curriculum on current affairs or informally through television broadcasts that are

observed on regularly outside of school (Niemi and Hepburn 1995). In either case,

television changed the content and context of civic education in schools since much of

political socialization research was done (Niemi and Hepburn 1995). External events and

factors that parents and schools have no control over can include radio, television,

Internet blogs, peers, and even part time job contacts (to name a few) where the student is

not within the purview of parental influences. What is particularly interesting from

Jennings and Niemi’s (1968) study, in light of this Capstone’s line of reasoning, is that

study samples of parents, their children and adult populations indicate there is a high

degree of similar party loyalty between children and parents. Such similarity suggests

successful transmission of American political party preference from one generation to the

next. Granted, transmission of political party affiliation is not the same as transmission of

liberal or conservative ideology, though often liberalism tends to be associated with the

38 Despite the dated study from Jennings and Niemi (1968) they specifically mention “socio-technical changes occurring in modern societies” (183) and “the transformation in the content and form of the mass media and communication channels” (183). Although I do not believe they had foresight to see the development of the Internet they correctly theorized that mass media and communication would improve due to changes in technology. We can extrapolate this to include our modern Internet and social networking web sites, as this is our current technology for communication. 39 There are no page numbers listed for this article. Page 9 is the ninth page where this quote can be found in Niemi and Hepburn’s (1995) article titled, “The rebirth of political socialization,” from EBSCO Mega Filedatabase.

39

Democratic Party and conservatism with the Republican Party. Even if a child becomes a

registered Democrat or registered Republican this affiliation does not mean that he or she

is ideologically predisposed to the ideology of the party to which he or she has chosen to

belong. That child simply may have followed her or his parents’ lead and registered for

the same party. Jennings’ study also brings up several factors may have lessened the

party affiliation of the younger generation, even if only temporarily. These include lack

of experience in the active electorate when compared to parental experience resulting in a

lack of feeling for a political party, forces pushing students towards independence due to

a withdraw of parental guidance, and efforts by schools and teachers (Jennings and Niemi

1968). Beyond a lack of experience, many young adults are no longer influenced or at

least influenced less by parents to the extent that they may be either semi- or fully

independent of the parents. [N.B.: Jennings and Niemi’s (1968) mention of schools and

teachers do not necessarily refer to public school. Their work most likely refers to college

education, a topic that I will cover latter.]

In the sections above, I have discussed individuals and one on one interaction as it

relates to socialization. However, people are further distinguished by characteristics such

as physical, location, social, religious, and memberships (this list is not exhaustive) that

can serve as political reference groups for individuals (Jennings and Niemi 1968).

Membership in these various groups may be effectively neutral in character, however,

this membership is important because these groups can have an effect on mass behavior

(Jennings and Niemi 1968). Group evaluations can change when the group and political

process come together at a crossroad when claims or demands are made upon portions of

these groups (e.g. civil rights movement and public school teacher strikes) (Jennings and

40

Niemi 1968). It’s possible for social groupings to have greater importance for the masses

than an abstract element in an idea (Jennings and Niemi 1968).40 Religious beliefs and

church affiliation follow the same lines of reason as political party preferences (Jennings

and Niemi 1968). Regarding church and religious activities, a child will often go to the

same church throughout childhood (behavior is repeated), often with other family

members (multiple role models and formal membership involvement), and change of

preference within the environment are usually minimal (may change with dating patterns)

(Jennings and Niemi 1968). Jennings and Niemi (1968) also state religious affiliation is

usually characterized by a passionate and deep commitment. I can see why these other

group affiliations could have a strong effect on political beliefs. For instance,

employment unions may gather the collective together to lobby for a particular law that

will have a positive effect on the union and ultimately the union members. It seems likely

that in a group people feel stronger and they are with other like-minded individuals rather

than if alone.41 Groupthink can be a strong force—positive or negative.

In closing out their discussion of the effects of familial political transmission of

values Jennings and Niemi (1968) emphasize that life cycle effects, the role of other

socializing agents, and attitude changes are more likely to have a greater effect on

transmission of political values than familial transmission of these values. These other

socializing agents occur both during and after childhood, and are further enhanced by

rapid changes in socio-technical advances in our modern society (modern examples

40 “Political similarity promotes political engagement. The sharing of views among like-minded people can reinforce one’s position, promote recognition of common problems, and spur collective action”: Source: Quintelier, Ellen, Dietlind Stolle, and Allison Harell. 2014. “University of Utah Politics in Peer Groups: Exploring the Causal Relationship between Network Diversity and Political Participation” 65 (4): 869 doi:10.177/106591291. 41 Ibid.

41

include texting with a cell phone, internet news and other forms of social media)

(Jennings and Niemi 1968). These forms include content and form from media that

family and school have little to no control (Jennings and Niemi 1968). Given the

ubiquitous presence of social media in our lives, I turn now to take a closer look at the

role these media can—and do—play in political socialization.

Let’s begin, though, with a brief recap of some earlier studies on forms of media

and their effects on communicating political messages. A 1973 report of the President’s

Science Advisory Council found that major changes in (available for the time period)

youth communication channels strengthened the role peer groups play in political attitude

formation (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). The communication channels available at the

time consisted of underground newspapers, student television and radio stations (Niemi

and Sobieszek 1977). Essentially, mass media catered to youth culture (Niemi and

Sobieszek 1977). Today we have Facebook, Twitter and twenty-four hour cable news

channels. These outlets or venues have shown in various studies of communication to

have an effect on political socialization. The section below presents some of the research

that supports how and why mass media are important as a source for political information

(Niemi and Sobieszek 1977) and even replaces the parental source for political learning.

Social Media and Media Influence

Among research studies on the sociological significance of using social media,

one particularly interesting work comes from Borondo et al. (2014).42 These researchers

42 Francisco Javier Benito Borondo (J. Borondo), Scholar, ETSI Agronomists, Polytechnic University of Madrid; Jose Alfredo Morales Guzman (A.J. Morales), Scholar, Polytecnic University of Madrid; Rosa Maria Benito Zafrilla ,Full Professor ,Polytechnic University of Madrid; and Juan Carlos Losada Gonzalez,

42

in physics and applied mechanics conducted a study during the Spanish national elections

and pointed out the significant aspects found during the study. This research can be easily

applied to American politics since Facebook and Twitter (Twitter was specifically used in

the Borondo et al. study) is used worldwide and frequently employed in the United States

for the same purposes for which this study applies.

Borondo et al. (2014) hypothesized that social network structures that individuals

followed had influence over their voting choices. The study concluded that political

conversation is restricted by ideology and language, while Garrett (2009) states there is

evidence that political beliefs influence an individuals’ decision about what news stories

she or he will read. A study by Garrett (2009) revealed that news story exposure is

promoted by the desire to obtain opinion-reinforcing information; exposure was “only

marginally less likely” (265) for opinion-challenging information (Garrett 2009, 265).

The Borondo et al. study also found that existing online communities built networks of

online communities where users would “cluster themselves in politically homogenous

networks” (Borondo et al. 2014, 403).43 In other words, opinions (in this case political

opinions) that are formed through social networks and those around us, within the context

of the social networking site, can have an effect on how we think about a topic.

Social contacts have a big impact on voting decisions, as individuals tend to use

media outlets that correspond to their ideological belief system (Garrett 2009); thus, these

Teacher, ESTI Agrnomos, Polytechnic University of Madrid. 43 A consequence of this could be that the Internet is promoting fragmented and polarized citizens (Garrett 2009).

43

social contacts may in fact have a powerful influence on an individual.44 Indeed, Borondo

et al. (2014) point to a study done more than sixty years ago that revealed how social

contacts have a greater effect on individuals than that of either mass media or politicians.

Friends, family members and coworkers encompass a social environment with similar

behavior that has an effect on political participation (Borondo et al. 2014). The term

“contagion by cohesion” is the theory that explains the effect that a social network has on

political preference (Borondo et al. 2014). In this view, the familiarity with in the social

grouping has a social influence effect (Borondo et al. 2014). Other terms to describe this

are political influence, political assimilation and socialization (Borondo et al. 2014). A

similar theory, called “contagion by equivalence”, happens when people base their

behavior that they observe from others who occupy a similar position as they do.

Borondo et al (2014) make a valid argument for a web of social contacts, albeit on-line

social networking contacts, that purposely seek like minded individuals (contagion by

cohesion). Contagion by equivalence was not discussed in detail an example of this might

be if a wealthy person voted for a particular representative because that representative

would help the wealthy retain more of their wealth, and that of his neighbors. Another

term called, “selective exposure,” is not limited to traditional sources of political

information and can extend to other sources (Garrett 2009).

According to Borondo et al, current evidence finds that voting behavior can

influence online political social network mobilization (Borondo et al. 2014). Similarly,

Carvalho (2007) states the strength of ideology (since ideology affects voting behavior)

44 I mentioned this point in my Introduction. Garrett (2009) states an example would be conservative (Republicans) listening to conservative talk radio, watching FOX News, and using conservative Internet sites.

44

depends on its communication whereby the media allows or disallows other social actors

to espouse ideological ideas. Garrett (2009) pointed out his concern over this control

when he stated, “new information and communication technologies (ICTs) that promote

political segmentation, not just choice based on political content, might yet emerge”

(280). An example might occur if an online news service attempts to ascribe to the

political preferences of the user while excluding dissimilar views may result in opinion-

reinforcing information that will dominate over interest in other views (Garrett 2009).

Milan (2008),45 in her study of radio practitioners, found there is a “relational aspect that

is central to the emergence and maintenance of a collective identity” (27). In other words,

people have some form of relation or connection with other’s in the same group. On the

other hand, Entman (1989) tells us “political thought is ‘data driven’ by external

information and ‘conceptually driven’ by internal schemas”46 (350). That reliance on

external factors is how these people then group themselves by political ideology

(Borondo et al. 2014). They perceive they have some form of common connection with

others in the community or group.

In the case of the study conducted by Borondo et al. (2014), political information

in Spain that went through Twitter was divided by political ideology when users flocked

to single political party stories and subsequent communication was with those who had

the same political views. In other words, people would enmesh themselves in networks

that had similar ideology as their own (Borondo et al. 2014). As this study reveals, the

45 Stefania Milan’s (2008) study of public radio was “inspired and informed” (26) by social movement literature and by works related to identity formation. 46 Entman (1998) defines schemas as cognitive structures that organize thinking. “A person’s system of schemas stores substantive beliefs, attitudes, values, and preferences along with rules for linking different ideas.” Schema’s then “direct attention to relevant information, guide its interpretation and evaluation, provide inferences when information is missing or ambiguous, and facilitate retention” (349).

45

media can then be an important conduit for bringing new ideological political views to

light (Carvalho 2007). However, people often are not taking advantage of opportunities to

learn about opposing views (Borondo et al. 2014). Internet users can easily customize

their news choices and news environment due to the diversity of online news courses

available, and in this context individuals can readily obtain opinion reinforcement and

avoid challenges to their opinions (Garrett 2009). According to Borondo et al. (2014)

social network communities would equate to a group of close friends, and in much the

same fashion people would group themselves by ideology within a politicized context

including online communities.

One would think social media would permit more voices to be heard; however,

political communication in the Borondo et al. (2014) study demonstrated political parties

and elite media were driving such communication. The result found was that the flow of

political information during the campaigns under study were polarized by political

ideology as Twitter users gathered around single political party accounts while only

maintaining communication with those of the same political stance (Borondo et al 2014).

In other words, “social networks in which individuals were enmeshed are ideologically

homogeneous” (Borondo et al. 2014, 410). Garrett (2009) explains, “that people’s desire

for opinion reinforcement is stronger than their aversion to opinion challenges” (266).

Despite the results discovered by Borondo et al. (2014), one must keep in mind that

social media users do not represent our whole society since there are other methods to

obtain information (e.g. television, radio or personal acquaintances), and Garrett’s (2009)

study is not representative of the U.S. population. However, an individuals control over

his or her news exposure to information is more apt to support the news consumers’

46

beliefs “without a comparable drop with other perspectives” (Garrett 2009, 266). Of

course, there is still a segment of the population that gets their information from sources

other than the Internet, including radio, television and print media as well as their social

contacts.

Carvalho (2007) stated that such media likewise serve a key part of relaying

“relations of definition” (224) between science, the public and politics. In other words,

the media play a key part in the “production and transformation of meanings” (Carvalho

2007, 224). In other words, how are the media “framing” (i.e. presenting) the issue for

their audiences? One useful way to explore this issue comes from Lakoff (2010), who

provides an explanation on how we frame the environment around us in unconscious

structures called “frames” or “schemas” (71). “Frames include semantic roles, relations

between roles, and relations to other frames” (71). Milan (2008) defines a frame as “an

interpretive schema that simplifies and condenses the world by selectively punctuating

and encoding objects, situations, events, experiences and sequences of action” (28). In

this fashion, Milan (2008) finds that “frames can be interpreted as the psychological

components of collective action” (28).

Framing an issue for public consumption can be applied to almost any

newsworthy topic, so imagine how an issue can be framed if attempting to rally those

who hold either a liberal or conservative political ideology. I interpret the media’s use of

framing to appeal to feelings and emotions; those appeals, in social science movement

research, are acknowledged to have a role in collective identity formation (Milan 2008).

Some appeals may indeed be framed overtly and explicitly. Take for instance,

47

psychology of collective emotional experience in the formation of a collective identity47

(Milan 2008). Although I do recognize emotions are individual, at the same time they can

be a relational experience, and this relational aspect is key to the building and

maintenance of a collective identity (Milan 2008). As Milan describes this process,

“Shared and interactive emotions are then constructed and negotiated through a

continuous process of relations that bind actors together” (Milan 2008, 27). Consider, for

example, how Jennings (2014) stated, “environmental sources such as mass media can

make direct appeals for the child’s loyalty which conflict with parental attachments”

(179). Jennings and Niemi’s (1968) argument would likely apply to adults as well as

children, maybe more so because adults may have the means to change their environment

more often than children. In other words, adults have the means to change their physical

environment, whether it is the work place, abode, or even a social function. Adults also

typically have the cognitive ability to make these decisions for themselves while

adolescents are not free to make choices for themselves. Adults are better equipped to

change their environment. In much the same way, adults can choose the media they

prefer while at the same time regulate to a certain extent the media to which adolescents

are exposed.

McCright and Dunlap (2011) point out people often selectively rely on

information from one-sided experts whom they trust. Whether a person is liberal or

conservative is an important part of the political schema that many in the public apply to

political information, and a person’s ideological disposition affects his or her responses to

specific media reports (Entman 1989). This insight may shed light on why people flock to 47 “Collective identity refers to a network of active relationships between actors who interact, communicate, influence each other, negotiate and make decisions” (Milan 2008, 27)

48

the same media sources including social media sources for information; they simply trust

the “expert” who is disseminating the information. In the McCright and Dunlap (2011)

study the information the researchers were referring to revolve around the global

warming/climate change debate. In essence, liberal and conservative citizens obtain their

information and form opinions from different sources that include subject matter experts

or commentators, organizations, and media outlets (McCright and Dunlap 2011). Citizens

are exposed to different opinions when these commentators provide their own beliefs and

attitudes on controversial issues. As McCright and Dunlap (2011) phrase this influence,

“the information-processing and elite cues perspectives hold that people’s political

orientations influence the association between their learning capacity and perceived

understanding of an issue and their expressed beliefs and attitudes about that issue” (161).

In other words, when information for controversial issues, such as global warming, is

vague or unclear, it could potentially result in split opinions among the general public.

The political orientations of individual citizens may lead them to perceive political issues

differently, since they take signals from favorite ideological and partisan experts that in

turn reinforce their pre-existing political beliefs on the issue at hand (McCright and

Dunlap 2011). Simply put, citizens are not seeking alternative opinions on an issue and

are relying on a source or sources that reinforces their political orientation. McCright and

Dunlap (2011) suggest that attaining additional information and paying attention to one’s

favorite news outlet and other experts may increase how much citizens think they

understand about the issue at hand. In other words, paying attention to the differences in

the content of a person’s preferred method of gathering information, may lead to

understanding the issue at hand in a different light. Put simply, people rely on media

49

outlets that conform to their political views and do not seek alternate views before

making a decision about the issue or topic at hand. Garrett (2009) suggests the

reinforcement of ones opinion has an important role in shaping individuals’ opinions than

a challenge to ones opinion. Online news story exposure results show that “opinion-

reinforcing information promotes news story exposure while opinion challenging

information makes exposure marginally less likely” (Garrett 2009, 265). There is no

evidence that people ignore news stories with information with which they may disagree,

however, it seem an unfortunate side effect: one may have so much to choose from on the

internet that opinions that one may disagree with may be excluded (Garrett 2009).

Findings – Psychology

Psychological views suggest changes in attitudes and behavior can be related to life cycle

changes (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). This change includes psychological adaptions to

the aging process similar to models of childhood cognitive development (Niemi and

Sobieszek 1977). Social psychologists point out that attitudes are likely to change from

social influence and persuasion (McAdams and Brandt 2009). Niemi and Sobieszek

(1977), for example, report that adult attitudes do in fact change, but the rate and

direction of this change is still being debated. For their part, Chirumbolo and Leone

(2010) state four traits are linked to ideological orientation.48 These traits are: Honesty-

Humility, Agreeableness, Openness, and Conscientiousness. The Honesty-Humility trait

is “negatively associated to right wing ideological orientation, indicating that higher

scores in Honesty-Humility are connected with a more leftist self-description” 48 Chirumbolo and Leone (2010) used the HEXACO Personality Inventory to measure the six major dimensions of personality: Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness (versus Anger), Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. Source: http://hexaco.org

50

(Chirumbolo and Leone 2010, 45). Similar effects were found for Agreeableness and

Openness. In contrast, being “Conscientious was positively connected with right-wing

ideological orientation” (45-46) thus suggesting that more conscientious individuals are

more inclined to describe themselves as conservatives or right-wingers (Chirumbolo and

Leone 2010). In addition to these four traits, Chirumbolo and Leone (2010) stated that

Extroversion and Emotionality were unrelated to political orientation. Chirumbolo and

Leone (2010) also state, “ideological orientation is a better proximal determinant of

voting compared with personality traits” (46).

Findings – Education

Past studies made claims that the family affected adolescent political

socialization, however one report, which departs from this traditional view, has found

that public school in the United States is important and effective for political socialization

(Jennings and Niemi 1968). The report emphasizes it as a partial, not primary, factor.

Keep in mind that parent and student values are not constant and deviation away from the

parent by the student happen for many reasons, such as: 1) students adopting values from

other “agents” (170) 49 that conflict with their parents’ values, 2) parents not providing

cues or guidance to the student that creates a psychological void only to be filled by

something else in the student’s environment,50 3) unstable values in a belief system

causing low transmission rates, and 4) life-cycle51 effects. For instance, a child reaches

49 “Agents” could be anybody and anything such as peers, radio, social media, and clubs. 50 I believe when parents do not provide “cues or guidance” the student/child is left to their own devices. For instance they may not be punished for breaking a rule. Essentially this allows the child to develop bad habits. 51 The Biological life cycle: “In biology, a life cycle is a series of changes in form that an organism undergoes, returning to the starting state. ‘The concept is closely related to those of the life history, development and ontogeny, but differs from them in stressing renewal.’ Transitions of form may involve

51

the current age of his parents and his political behavior turns out to be similar to his

parents (Jennings and Niemi 1968). An example of this would be a young man not

agreeing with the President’s decision to go to war while the parents do agree. When the

young man eventually reaches his parents’ age he looks back at the reasons the country

went to war, reevaluates his opinion and decides the President was right. As the young

man grows older he gains experiences in life, establishes a web of connections with

others that provide different views and opinions, and learns to reevaluate his past

opinions based on new information.

As may be expected, schooling has been found to act as a large socialization agent

that develops trust in the political system (i.e. in general terms) (Jennings and Niemi

1968). After all, there is plenty of civic training in schools, including rituals and in the

curriculum that are not countered by critically examining America’s shortcomings or the

good in other political forms (Jennings and Niemi 1968). The Pledge of Allegiance is an

example of a civil ceremony52 as it is a ceremony practiced in schools. This practice is

then combined with moral and legal issues but in such a “balanced” way that the study of

American government may avoid, or at the least postpones, controversial issues and

possible conflict in the realities of political life (Jennings and Niemi 1968). Speaking

only based on my experience early on in public grade school; we did not learn any

negative aspects of the founding of our country. This orientation may well have had to do

growth, asexual reproduction, and/or sexual reproduction.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_life_cycle

52 Moore, R. Laurence. Touchdown Jesus. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003, page 27. In the context of the book the Pledge of Allegiance resembles a civic religious ceremony.

52

with the following: first the view that children are still developing their cognitive skills so

over loading the child with too much information would not be synthesized by the

student; secondly, that children need to learn the “basics” of a subject before it can be

explored in more detail; and thirdly, a view that children have “the benevolent leader”

view, a point raised by Niemi and Sobieszek (1977) and outlined above, in which

children inherently see the good in people and they are less cynical than adults.

Two different elements of family politicization as it relates to cynicism seem

worth a closer look. These include the conversations between husband and wife a

(Jennings and Niemi 1968) bout politics and the frequency of student and parent

conversations about politics (Jennings and Niemi 1968). I can imagine that if the student

overhears or is sitting in on the conversation between a husband and wife it will have

some type of effect on him depending on the subject matter. Any conversation between

the parent and student should stand out since the conversation is with and directed at the

student. Student cynicism is slightly related to both measures, while party identification is

evidently affected by conversations with the parent, but not the student and parent

political conversations (Jennings and Niemi 1968).

In Jennings and Niemi’s study (1968), college students “suggested that perceived

ideological differences between parent and child were higher when there was emotional

estrangement, parental discipline was perceived as too high or too low, and when the

parent was believed to be interested in politics” (181). Related findings of power

relationships between parent and child suggest these factors may have an effect on the

transmission of political orientations as well (Jennings and Niemi 1968). In these

53

researchers’ view, it is effectively untrue that the looser connection the student feels to

his parent the more susceptible he or she would be to adopting the political values of the

parent, regardless of either formal or informal learning (Jennings and Niemi 1968). This

holds true whether closeness to the mother or father is considered and is not affected by

the student’s sex (Jennings and Niemi 1968). It would appear that a parent being strict

with a child results in the child moving away from the same attitudes as the parent.53

I discussed previously the role school plays in adolescents; here, however, I wish

to emphasize that by high school, students develop the cognitive skills to understand

political ideas (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). Ben-Porath (2013) indicates civic virtues54

have a cognitive dimension that relies on a broader knowledge of the political community

that children are expected to learn in school, and how this cognitive dimension is the first

one schools are expected to contribute. Aspects of this political community learning

entail history, the form of governance, and study of norms (Ben-Porath 2013). As a

result, the high school years are “crucial for the development of political attitudes”

(Niemi and Sobieszek 1977, 221). (Please keep in mind that I am referring to political

attitudes and not ideological values). Niemi and Sobieszek (1977) reported civics classes

had a steady influence on certain political attitudes and significantly impacted other

attitudes, but not under all conditions. More recently, Ben-Porath (2013) states a course

in civics will increase civic knowledge, and taking a government course raised political

knowledge in a student, but the overall effect on civic practices, skills and dispositions is

53 Unfortunately, a major drawback to these studies is they are not well representative of other groups (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). 54 Ben-Porath (2013) defines civic virtues as “inclinations, dispositions, traits and attitudes that are stable over time, and tend to be expressed in sustained, democratically desirable forms of political and social activity” (113).

54

questionable. Civics classes did have a “meaningful impact” (221) on black student

samples but hardly any impact on the national sample evaluated (Niemi and Sobieszek

1977).

Studies of school class environment discovered that it did have an effect on

children’s attitudes (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). For instance, how the student perceives

fairness of school personnel was tied to political and personal trust (Niemi and Sobieszek

1977). Political attitudes between high school seniors and their friends were sometimes

higher than between their parents (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). Here Niemi and

Sobieszek (1977) are pointing to several socializing agents, that can occur in high school,

and are clearly outside the family realm that will have an impact on a students’ political

socialization. The capacity to reflect, according to Ben-Porath (2013), is another

cognitive dimension component that allows for the ability to consider decisions and

actions based on preferences and available knowledge. I think it should be obvious that

these impacts will be different for every student, there is not one all encompassing effect

that will politically socialize all students the same way. However, schools are expected

(by the community) to teach students to think, act and feel as contributing members of a

(political) community (Ben-Porath 2013). Many studies, as well as my personal

experience in high school, have found that open-ended classroom discussion about

political issues has a positive effect on acquisition of political knowledge in addition to

having an effect on civic practices (Ben-Porath 2013). Ultimately, it will be up to the

student in how she or he deals with and internalize these effects individually, although

Niemi and Sobieszek (1977) claim high school peer groups may also be influential.

55

Based on my experiences and observations peer groups exert a tremendous amount of

influence on a high school student so this seems reasonable to me.55

By the time young people reach college and are entering adulthood many are

developmentally ready to start applying what they have previously learned about politics

(Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). One caveat: this also applies to college age non-student

individuals who are not in school. These post high school graduates are most likely now

settling into the community while college students are still somewhat isolated from

community participation (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). In addition, some college students

live away from home, and therefore are not under direct parental influence (Niemi and

Sobieszek 1977). There are aspects of college, such as political science courses and

different ways of teaching about politics that have little effect to no effect in increasing

political interest in students and have little effect in the amount of student learning

(Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). This is not to say that the cumulative effects of 32 or more

courses can have an important effect on student attitudes, but one teacher or one course

has little effect. Hanson et al. (2012) found that student “self-selection” (357) into a

particular major had an effect on student attitudes as well as the student adopting the

views of a particular discipline, i.e. “socialization” (357). Hanson et al. (2012) also found

that a student with more liberal views is more likely to attend a selective, private

institution and major in the social sciences, which is the opposite of my personal social

science course experience in a state university.

Hanson et al. (2012) did report there is evidence of socialization whereby the

students adopt the political views of their peers. Interestingly, small liberal arts colleges 55 Ibid. The population studied was primarily white urban children (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977).

56

have a number of unique features that foster a climate for liberal emersion including,

small size, high levels of student-faculty and student-peer contact, a focus on majors,

attract liberal faculty (for humanities, social sciences, and fine arts), and attract students

with more liberal views (Hanson et al. 2012). The small size of a liberal arts campus in

conjunction with increased contact with more liberal faculty and peers is the likely cause

(Hanson et al. 2012). In the final analysis, colleges have more of an influence on

political attitudes in young people than do high schools (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). In

the case of Hanson et al.’s (2012) study, the effect of the small liberal arts school was

more liberal graduates at the end of their post secondary education due to the intensive

interaction with like-minded faculty and peers. In evaluating the findings by Hanson et al.

(2012), one should bear in mind that the study sample is not representative of all four-

year colleges and universities, nor should one conclude that small liberal arts institutions

are factories for producing more liberal citizens.

Up to this point I have reviewed research on familial socialization, political

socialization, identity theory, effects of grade school through high school, and college. I

would like to turn now to those who do not attend college after high school and enter the

work force. James E. Marcia provides particularly useful insight into this area.

When applying identity theory to those who go to work after high school, opposed

to those who go to college, are more likely to be in the Identity Achievement status

(Marcia 1980). Marcia (1980) speculates that this may happen due to “encouragement of

a ‘psychosocial moratorium’ provided by college” (120). Marcia (1980) reported on an

extensive identity development study done in 1971 for the college years. Research took

57

place at both a polytechnic institute and a liberal arts college. The following discoveries

were made: In occupation, there was an increase in Identity Achievement status and

decrease in Moratorium status at the liberal arts school. In religion, there was a decrease

in Foreclosures and an increase in Identity Diffusions at the polytechnic school. (There

was no increase in identity within the religious area at either institution during the four

years). In politics, there was an increase in Identity Achievement and a decrease in

Foreclosures at the polytechnic school. In sum, attending college facilitated identity

growth in the occupational area, and its effects on ideology were mixed and did not

facilitate Foreclosures (Marcia 1980). As this research underscores, educational

achievement and attainment greatly enhance civic participation, and college educated

citizens tend to vote at higher rates than those who are high school graduates (Ben-Porath

2013 and Hanson et al. 2012). Whether a citizen attends college, obtains a professional

degree or merely graduates high school, civic values are and should continue to be an

important part of American education.

Ultimately, it is these political virtues that allow us, educated Americans, to

engage in political and public discourse in our democracy, and the decisions made

through this discourse must be subject to “free and open discussion with citizens willing

to engage in these discussions” (Ben-Porath, 2013, 112). This can only be accomplished

if a citizen obtains political knowledge, trust and the ability to communicate effectively,

and should be followed by tolerance and respect (an open mind), and solidarity

(collective action) (Ben-Porath, 2013). Building on the researchers’ findings above, I feel

strongly that civic education should be a priority for eleventh and twelfth grade high

school students while they are at the age when they can cognitively discern the various

58

nuanced concepts of the American political system, and further encouraged to engage in

our system. Once a student enters post-secondary school, he or she is free to pursue this

participation further, regardless of ideological position.

Conclusion

Carvalho (2007) states “ideologies always involve a vision of an ideal world with

which lived existence is confronted. [Individuals] ignore legitimate action for the

preservation, reform, and reconstruction of a given order” (225). This claim, I believe,

rings true, particularly when reflecting on my experiences and synthesis of research.

Arguably, it is through my ideology, and my classmate Kyle’s ideology, that we each

seek to live the “good life.” It just so happens that our individual visions for the good life

are polar opposites. Through my research I thought I would be able to gain insight into

how one acquires one’s liberal or conservative ideology. I did, but only to a certain

extent. In the process, I also learned something extremely valuable, especially from

Castano et al. (2011) when the researchers explain how, “liberal and conservative

concepts can vary their meaning and change over time” (616). Greenberg (2006) seconds

this insight by stating “ideology is rarely static over time”(89). For instance, classical

liberalism that grew out of 18th Century Enlightenment is now our modern conservatism

(Greenberg 2006). This dynamism gives credence to the fact that ideology and the values

associated with those ideologies can change. In my case, I can be called a “classical

liberal,” a conservative, or a “right-winger.” I can be called a classical liberal as the

values associated with 18th Century Enlightenment, resonate with me. I see a lot of

simple, honest value in these particular beliefs. Here in the year 2014, the early 21st

Century, classic liberalisms values resemble, for the most part, modern conservatism.

59

It appears that much of the conservative ideology I adhere to and the liberal

ideology that my former high school classmate, Kyle, adheres to are at the extreme ends

of the left–right liberal–conservative scale. Still, arguably, a persons’ ideology seems to

run along a sliding scale based on the particular issue at hand. As Lakoff (2010) tells us, a

large portion of the public has liberal and conservative beliefs, and Hanson et al. (2012)

states that many people are a mixture of these two ideologies. Lakoff (2010) also tells us

that we apply these beliefs in different ways to different issues; therefore, Americans can

be liberal on some issues and conservative on others. For example, in my own case I have

liberal views on certain issues, such as abortion rights, and therefore my belief on this

one subject does not conform to the far right conservative view. At the same time, I do

not believe my opinion on abortion rights moves me to the far left of the scale, if just

measuring for this lone example. I would place somewhere in the middle of the scale for

this example. The liberal view on abortion is that it is a woman’s right to choose what she

does with her body, and a fetus is not a human life therefore separate human rights do not

apply.56 On the other hand, conservatives contend that human life begins at conception

and abortion is murder.57 My stance is in the middle. I believe abortion should remain

legal to protect the health and safety of the woman who is going to have an abortion.

Abortions will still be performed if made illegal so I think it is better to keep it legal and

protect the safety of the woman. This one example, of my own nuanced yet well-reasoned

views on an issue, hits at the complexities of trying to tease out beliefs; to the extent that

people may not be willing to allow for such nuances much less read about or listen to

such distinctions (and the reasons behind them) on social media or other forums, it is not

56 Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. 2010. “StudentNewsDaily.com” 2005 (revised): 1–6. 57 Ibid.

60

surprising why such differences of opinion often lead to bitter and contentious discourse

between liberals and conservatives. Although I take a liberal view on the subject my

reasons for doing so are different than the commonly explained reasons given for the

liberal view on abortion. However, I am conservative on one issue in the abortion and

Affordable Care Act (ACA) debate. Although I am in favor of keeping abortion legal to

protect women’s health I do not think my tax dollars should pay for women to have

abortions under the ACA. Women should have to pay by way of some other means. I can

confidently say that not paying for abortions through the ACA is in line with the

conservative view. Ben-Porath’s (2013) suggests open forums in civics, history and

government classes to discuss such issues. In sum, the answers to the question whether

someone can be liberal on one issue and conservative on another is “yes” because my

views, although not one hundred percent of my views, on this issue and many other

issues are still in line with modern conservative values. I do not think this one issue

moves me towards the liberal end of the continuum, although I would consider my views

on this issue somewhere in the middle between the two polar views.

Common factors that aid in formation of ideological belief are difficult to answer.

From the many examples I provided above, Kyle and I share many commonalities: we

both had roughly the same amount of education (we are both college educated), we are in

the same age group, we are both Caucasian, and we are both males. On the surface we

look similar. I am sure if you look deeper you will find a completely different picture.

There are so many variables to this that I can only make suggestions as to what is

different. Factors such as religion, neighborhoods we were raised in, home environment

(not a reference to parental values but other factors in the home), personal interests, and

61

especially our social contacts with our separate webs of connections and spheres of

influence that we were exposed to and continue to expose ourselves to. One dimension I

initially considered might be a contributing factor to interactional styles what that of

personalities. Significantly, Alford and Hibbing (2007) points out that in his research

personality is not an indicator for determining ideology per se, but that personality does

indicate if someone will get up and speak about a subject.

One would think that socialization by the family would be a primary trigger but

from the research it appears that this is not the case. According to Jennings and Niemi

(1968) the family foundation does have diverse value structures and parental values are

variable therefore making parental values a weak guide to what child values will be.

Jennings and Niemi (1968) go on to say the family promotes uniformity in attitudes and

does not instill specific attitudes with the exception that family promotes partisanship.

The family does instill political socialization and values into the child but these seem

primarily to assist the child in coping with the world they will need to navigate, as they

get older. Values such as courtesy, table manners obeying rules and ethics will all assist a

child cope. Many childhood views such as the “benevolent leader” view and views on

authority (including political authority) seem more like coping mechanisms than actual

transmission of ideology. By this I mean that a child cannot understand more nuanced

complexities of authority so the “benevolent leader” is used to simplify the early stages of

interaction. These mechanisms ultimately help the child form his or her identity.

However, the literature does say that strict parenting could lead to rebellion even giving

the impression that a child may rebel by adopting the ideology opposite of one’s parents

62

so as not to be like them. Essentially, the family is one factor in political socialization of

children not the source for all political socialization.

I had postulated that school, too, might play a contributing factor, too, in the

formation of political ideology. The literature does not indicate that school alone

determines one’s views. Granted, children essentially have to learn the basics before they

can learn more complex nuances of politics. As a child progresses in age and through the

grades he or she will develop cognitively and eventually learns more complex aspects of

our government; thus, by high school that child will develop a better understanding of the

world and participate civically, such as voting. For their part, researchers Niemi and

Sobieszek (1977) tell us when the child starts school the family has already had a greater

influence on value formation and attitudes on authority. Niemi and Sobieszek (1977) go

on to say the role of the school in political socialization is actually limited, and any

socialization done is not directed at theoretical perspectives. Therefore, schools typically

have little influence in changing values, and the school actually reinforces some of these

views already instilled in the child (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). The literature does point

to college education as having an effect under certain conditions. For instance, one

college course will not have a tremendous impact on a student, but over the course of 32

or more courses, depending on college major could have an impact (NiemiandSobieszek

1977). Another aspect of college from the literature, if a student attends a small liberal

arts college compared to a large university as the small liberal arts colleges tend to attract

the most liberal professors and by extension attract liberal minded students (Hanson et al.

2012). As a result, small liberal arts colleges provide the student with networks of social

connections and spheres of influence where most of the student body and faculty are

63

ideologically similar (Hanson et al. 2012). The exception to this rule is found in religious

colleges and military colleges. But the question that is not answered in the literature is

how the student came to be liberal minded before he or she arrives at the college.

One other aspect that I anticipated as being an important factor is the social

contacts the student is exposed to during high school and then in college. Essentially the

effects of group behavior can have a powerful influence on an individual. The literature

did indicate that this has a greater influence on individuals than directly from politicians.

Niemi and Sobieszek (1977) point to several socializing agents that can occur in high

school, and are clearly outside the family realm that will have an impact on a students’

political socialization. In other words, it may not be the education the child receives in

school but the social contacts she or he is exposed to while at school and not under direct

parental supervision that affects the shaping of mindset. This also includes contact with

other forms of media including radio, television and Internet social media. Jennings and

Niemi (1968) stated life cycle effects, role of other socializing agents and attitudes are

more likely to have a greater effect on transmission of values. Additionally, advances in

modern technology, e.g. Internet social media, enhance change in values (Jennings and

Niemi 1968). Furthermore, Borondo et al. (2014) points out that familiarity and

socialization of social groupings, including those in online social media communities has

influence on political preference. Although not directly stated, I believe that Carvalho

(2007) hinted that media has a key part in framing issues, and Lakoff (2010) provides an

explanation how we frame the environment around us. In other words, how we frame an

issue or present the issue for public consumption, whether through Internet social media

or through radio and television, will play a part in how the individual perceives the

64

framed message. Earlier this year various posts on Facebook were framing the inequality

in pay for women. All of a sudden social media posts were framing this issue as a “war

on women” and the culprits were the Republicans. Regardless of this particular issue, it

was framed as something important that needed to be addressed right away. The media

framing this issue as important was for liberal consumption, while conservative media

refuted and scoffed at this issue as ridiculous and framed the issue as a means to detract

the public from more important matters. At least that is how I interpreted how this issue

was framed.

As I look back on my life I have changed my ideology. But this change has

moved me more towards the right end of the spectrum with the exception of individual

issues where my values, opinions and beliefs are more centered or to the left of center on

the spectrum. I believe the personal change occurred due to a change in personal interests

as a result of listening to talk radio. I began listening to different opinions on topics and

found that I agreed with many of them. The topics of conversation caused me to stop and

think about different issues and form my own opinions about the subjects being

discussed. In essence it was at this point in my life that I realized my classic liberal

beliefs were aligned with modern conservatism. It was the University of Pennsylvania

that helped me actually describe it.

To be sure, there is documentation in the literature that, as people age, ideology

can change. Niemi and Sobieszek (1977) stated change in political attitude could even

take place as an adult. They did not document what exactly caused this change. The

literature, however, does point towards one’s aging rather than simply one’s environment

as a key factor that leads to changes in opinions, values and activities. For instance, if I

65

retire and move to an apartment in South Carolina my environment will change but that

will not lead to a change in my political opinions. I can only surmise that it may be due to

having a different outlook on issues after one encounter’s more experience in life that

leads to opinion changes as we age. Niemi and Sobieszek (1977) stated generational

effects are different than life cycle effects and have a lasting impact on a group. The

example provided was of the Great Depression generation. The literature did not say that

change would occur; only that it can occur.

In closing, I would like to say that my disagreement with my former high school

classmate was ideologically motivated on his part. From my view I found that I simply

did not like the man as a person. I disliked his attitude towards his ideological positions

more than his actual views of the issues. I did not like his sarcastic remarks and know-it-

all attitude. As I mentioned earlier, Kyle dropped me from his Facebook friends list. His

excuse for doing so was because he said I was “too angry.” That could not be further

from the truth. I am passionate about my beliefs, and I get angered over policies and

positions some people who hold liberal views express on issues because I feel these

policies and positions can hurt our country and will ultimately have negative

consequences. To reiterate, being angered over an issue or not liking the policies of a

democratically elected president does not make me an “angry person.” It makes me a

concerned, civic minded, classical liberal, conservative American citizen.

66

Appendix A

This is liberal humor poking fun at conservatives. Source is from Facebook.

Specific post is unknown.

Source: Facebook

67

Liberal dislike of Republican voters during or immediately after the 2014 mid-

term election cycle when the Republican Party gained control of the U.S. Senate and

increased their numbers in a already controlled U.S. House of Representatives. I found

this picture on a right wing conservative political post by a woman who believes that

Republicans are somehow “anti-women.” She was one of the people who posted a

response to a particular article that was circulated. There had been previous posts on

Facebook and news stories that there is a “war on women,” and this war was being

framed as being fueled and caused by Republicans.

Source: Facebook

68

This is conservative humor poking fun at liberals. This was found on a

conservative Facebook page and was posted to appeal to conservatives.

Source: Facebook

69

This is conservative humor poking fun at liberals and how they think. This was

found on a conservative Facebook post for conservative consumption.

Source: Facebook

70

Caption with a link to an article about a long-lasting infection that dulls the brain: Liberalism may not be a mental disorder after all. Sounds like it just might be a viral brain infection. Science has identified the "Idiot Virus". - Joe http://dailym.ai/1uTzkmJ Source: https://www.facebook.com/My2CentsDeal/photos/a.533054213377251.139779.522068054475867/979474952068506/?type=1&theater

71

Source Facebook posted on November 9, 2014.

https://www.facebook.com/ConservativeCartoonsDaily?ref=br_tf

72

Source: Facebook, “Far Right of Left” community and reposted on November 10, 2014.

https://www.facebook.com/FarRightOfLeft

Original post May 6, 2014: https://www.facebook.com/OfficialRightWingNews/photos/a.401034789956656.90394.389658314427637/731003830293082/?type=1&theater

73

Source Facebook post on November 9, 2014. https://www.facebook.com/ConservativeCartoonsDaily?ref=br_tf

Posted on Facebook page Left Action on November 6, 2014. https://www.facebook.com/LeftAction/photos/a.163594537018870.33966.139398939438430/858356334209350/?type=1&theater

74

Posted September 2, 2014 with the caption: “Just a reminder, when it comes to the deficit, the Republicans talk a big game, but...are really, really, really bad at doing anything about it. Keep this handy the next time one of them tries to preach to you about fiscal discipline....” Source: https://www.facebook.com/LeftAction/photos/pb.139398939438430.-2207520000.1415742637./822522677792716/?type=3&theater

75

Source: https://www.facebook.com/475089325837690/photos/a.475091829170773.115691.475089325837690/709119499101337/?type=1&theater

76

Source: https://www.facebook.com/475089325837690/photos/a.475091829170773.115691.475089325837690/699455486734405/?type=1&theater

77

Source: https://www.facebook.com/475089325837690/photos/a.475091829170773.115691.475089325837690/695493223797298/?type=1&theater

78

Appendix B

Nancy Pelosi 42 mins · It’s been more than 500 days since the Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. If Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans refuse to bring this bill to the floor for a vote, the President must take # ImmigrationAction – and there is precedent for him to do so.

• Karen The republican asshattery on this thread gave me a delicious laugh with my

79

morning coffee . Proving once again that you cant fix stupid Like · Reply · 62 · 34 mins �� ��

Tom And the liberals who revel in their ignorance of history and law amuse me as well. Like · 3 · 14 mins �� ��

Stephanie Karen you are really quite the moron. Typical leftist low information emotionally crippled female Like · 2 · 13 mins �� ��

Frankie woo...be nice folks no name calling please? Like · 2 · 10 mins �� ��

Eddie well if she is she is not alone pres obama will do an exectutive action tonight that will solve part of the problem. it would have been no need for this if that coward boner would have put it up to a vote in the house so we can law all the blame on boner and the misspelling is intentional Like · 5 · 7 mins �� ��

Leonard Karen you are so right. When people read history and look at the facts they will find that it has been liberals, which means fair minded, have done more for this country throughout history then any other party. Like · 5 · 7 mins �� ��

Karen No worries Frannie. Tom Is obviously a constitutional law expert with a PHd in american and international history. And Stephanie , well, she is from Texas ...nuff said. Like · 3 · 5 mins · Edited �� ��

Mark But you can teach it how to drink coffee Like · 3 mins �� ��

Karen Bahahahaha, Mark Stepowoy. Like · 1 min �� �� Damien I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put

down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.

• -Ronald Reagan Like · Reply · 11 · 40 mins �� �� • Damiele Reagan and Bush worked closely with Congress to

implement the comprehensive legislation that Congress had passed (in the case of Reagan) or would pass shortly thereafter (in the case of Bush), Obama is bypassing Congress entirely. He is unconstitutiona...See More Like · Reply · 8 · 33 mins · Edited �� ��

11 Replies · 1 min • Allen Reagan and Bush were trying to implement the law that congress

passed, Obama is creating a law that congress won't pass - very different actions. Like · Reply · 7 · 23 mins �� ��

• Johnson Funny, how many bills from the House has the Senate refused to take action on? Like · Reply · 21 · 40 mins �� ��

7 Replies · 2 mins • John If Republicans are against it, then we know it must be good for the

country. Like · Reply · 14 · 37 mins �� �� • Brian Thank God! The GOP incompetence is unacceptable. Like · Reply ·

6 · 34 mins �� �� • Jeff Nancy, you lost credibility with the American people. One word,

GruberGate. Like · Reply · 13 · 37 mins �� �� 9 Replies · 6 mins

80

• N.K. Reagan didn't act dictatorial on amnesty. You are incompetent and should resign. Like · Reply · 5 · 33 mins �� ��

2 Replies · 16 mins • Rino ask nancy how much money she made off of illegal workers. Del

Monte is a pretty good sized company. She ever pick a tomato? Like · Reply · 5 · 34 mins �� ��

• Damiele Obama is going against the will of Congress, which considered and rejected the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act on several occasions, including when both houses of Congress were controlled by DEMOCRATS. Reagan and Bush made administrative corrections designed to carry out congressional intent. Like · Reply · 5 · 35 mins �� ��

• Scott Strap On Nancy - whjere do you stand on congressional term limits? Thought so Like · Reply · 5 · 35 mins �� ��

• Scott Once again - all Nasty Nancy has to contribute.. is finger pointing.. THANKS NAN.. for the responsible governance... you evil witch... Like · Reply · 5 · 36 mins �� ��

• Vincent Sorry liberals, this is not true. Here is the reality.

http://www.caintv.com/sorry-liberals-reagan-and-bush Sorry, liberals: Reagan and Bush 41 did not defy Congress with executive amnesty Nice try. Every time President Obama does something, or... CAINTV.COM Like · Reply · 5 · 37 mins �� ��

Rebekah I'm in shock that Herman Cains own TV network said this. I'm sure it's an unbiased account of events. <<insert sarcasm > > Like · 15 mins �� ��

Vincent Apparently you just want to discredit the source instead of looking at his facts. Keep your head in the sand, and keep up those Clinton tactics. Like · 1 · 8 mins �� ��

Rebekah I would like an unbiased news source. You can't.....so come back when can or you can keep your head in the sand. Enjoy your tea. Like · 4 mins �� ��

Vincent Everything in what I posted in true. The words are more important than the man saying them. Are you really that closed minded? Like · 1 · 3 mins �� ��

View more replies . • Julie Lies. Like · Reply · 5 · 38 mins �� �� • Sandra so then WE THE PEOPLE will have to take action to uphold the

laws of our land. So sad that somebody who "taught constitutional law" is so willing to throw it in the shredder. Like · Reply · 10 · 41 mins �� ��

14 Replies · 2 mins • Reed Reagan is untouchable. Do not attack a person after he is deceased.

GROW UP. Like · Reply · 4 · 39 mins �� ��

81

Mimi I have never attacked him. I attack his record, and his supporters. Like · 25 mins �� ��

Tina How is posting what someone did "attacking"? Like · 2 · 25 mins �� ��

Danny I do not give a pass on anyone, dead or alive, when they are wrong. Like · 1 · 12 mins · Edited �� ��

• John I support anything that pisses off Republicans. Like · Reply · 8 · 38

mins �� �� N.K. Because that's the reaction of a fool. Like · 4 · 35

mins �� �� Jaqueline Spoken like a true democrat, circa, 1863. Like · 1 · 34

mins �� �� • James There is a very large difference in the scope of the action the President is

considering. Also back during Reagan's term we went with Amnesty with a guarantee that the border would ALSO be secured. Maybe we should learn from past mistakes for a change and secure the border first! Like · Reply · 12 · 39 mins �� ��

Sandee securing the border is in that bipartisan bill that the senate passed. Like · 1 · 17 mins �� ��

Geoffrey You think so? What is the difference? Be careful not to make as big a fool of yourself as the Republican leadership has made of YOU by getting you to believe that silly crap. As for that stupidity about guaranteeing a secure border - has anyone told you the price for that guarantee? Of course not. Now go find out how long that border is and how much just running a piece of string across the northern and southern borders would be. Care enough for your country to THINK. Cheap remarks without thought simply prove how easily your kind are tricked into opinions for which you have not one thought. Like · 3 · 17 mins �� ��

Pia Geoffrey In agreement. Like · 14 mins �� �� Eileen There are more people than ever being deported now and

more patrols on the border than ever. It is as secure as it is going to get. Reform is the only way to go now. Bring them out of the shadows, prevent abuses. Level the playing field. It is a win win for the country. Like · 2 · 14 mins �� ��

Truman Then why wasn't the border secured back then? Like · 3 mins �� ��

Steve He followed law dimwit Like · Reply · 8 · 41 mins �� ��

Robin Sandra didn't read the above, too many big words. Like · 1 · 33 mins �� ��

... • Ezkiel There are so many fools on here they sling mud and actually have

zero facts on Reagan. One came close but failed to mention Reagan's Executive

82

order came after his law was passed as a fix... Like · Reply · 3 · 29 mins �� �� • Amy He followed the law..you and your criminal buddies wouldn't know

the Constitution if it smacked you upside the head...be sure and let all these illegals know where you live so you can support them!!!!America has a legal path!!!! Like · Reply · 7 · 33 mins �� ��

• Christopher (chuckle) I'm really loving the squinch-faced, spitty-chinned freakout by the Right Wing on this.... Like · Reply · 7 · 39 mins �� ��

Todd tee hee hee..it's really funny isn't it...snicker...never mind Obama is giving you and me the middle finger...if it pisses of the Republicans then it's: Mission Accomplished! Hillary/Warren 2016! Like · 1 · 35 mins �� ��

Christopher @Remmy. Thank you for (however clumsily) confirming my thesis...!! Like · 33 mins �� ��

Stgeve Nancy pelosi are you really that dumb? Like · Reply · 7 · 40 mins �� ��

• Mary ARE YOU KIDDING!!! Reagan signed into law something that was voted on by Congress... Surely you know that??? STOP LYING!!! Like · Reply · 8 · 40 mins �� ��

Joshua http://www.archives.gov/fede.../executive-orders/reagan.html

You should Google more! Reagan Executive Orders Disposition

Tables Disposition of Executive orders signed by President Ronald Reagan: ARCHIVES.GOV Like · 2 · 35 mins �� ��

• Bren Nancy....0nce again, it looks like you have forgotten to take your

anti psychotic's for the day. Please just step away and let somebody with some common sense sit in your chair. It's time Nancy......it's SO PAST the time to let it go and get some help for yourself. Like · Reply · 2 · 21 mins �� ��

• Andrew It's funny how Republicans don't blame Reagan for anything that happened between 1981 and 1989. I guess they blame Nancy Reagan's Astrologer for the mess that Reagan left behind. Like · Reply · 2 · 27 mins �� ��

Joseph Perfect let's make the same mistake again...liberal logic. Reagan's order was a mess on immigration Like · 13 mins �� ��

• Glen All past Republicans used executive action to do things that made

sense! Not to legalize 11 million people when the nation can't even employ its own!

• Please stop trying to justify all actions of this corrupt admin with "well Republicans did it". That's no better than a child saying they did something bad because a sibling did it. It's no more than an admission of guilt! Like · Reply · 2 · 27 mins �� ��

• Fred Obviously, losing one's home, farm, business and/or having your life savings wiped out thanx to two illegal & immoral $TRILLION dollar wars and the in-suing Great republicon RECESSION... FAILED to impress American's....See More Like · Reply · 2 · 31 mins �� ��

83

• Charles Just do it Mr PRESIDENT. Like · Reply · 2 · 31 mins �� �� Franny hope you caN PAY MORE FOR IT cHARLES. Like · 27

mins �� �� • B. Thanks for this Congresswoman Pelosi! Some folks can't handle the

truth. They would rather continue hating PRESIDENT Obama. Thanks Steve Like · Reply · 2 · 29 mins · Edited �� ��

Steve Pelosi is not a Senator.... Do you vote? God, I hope not. Like · 1 · 32 mins �� ��

B. Oh my bad CONGRESSWOMAN Pelosi. She is not from my state. So I didn't vote for her, No. Thanks for catching that for me though. Good looking out. Stop using the Lord's name in vain. Like · 30 mins �� ��

Gene You should discover the truth before commenting on it Like

· 27 mins �� �� Franny i KNOW sTEVE, NO WONDER MY PHONE BILL IS

ALWAYS SCREWED UP. Like · 27 mins �� �� B. Still can't handle it. Like · 24 mins �� �� Walter LOL another leftist idiot Like · 14 mins �� �� B. Name calling..how clever of you Like · 6 mins �� �� • Thomas Reagan set precedent. No one talked "shredding" or

"constitution" then. What is different now? Like · Reply · 2 · 33 mins �� �� Gene Reagen did no such thing, you should read up on the subject

before commenting. Like · 1 · 28 mins �� �� Steve Reagan signed a bill sent to him by congress..... Like · 23

mins · Edited �� �� • Joey I love you Nancy!!!!!! Like · Reply · 6 · 38 mins �� �� • Nancy All illegals need to be sent to your state. Our borders are not

secure. Until they are we will have more problems. Like · Reply · 8 · 39 mins �� ��

6 Replies · 5 mins • Brandon Pelosi is a dirty liar! You and your husband are thieves. Like ·

Reply · 5 · 38 mins �� �� • Rachel Bc God knows we have jobs just coming out of our ears. Like ·

Reply · 5 · 40 mins �� �� • Henry We're sorry righties. Our great, awesome, smart, BLACK president

has the right to take executive action. So get over it!!!! Like · Reply · 4 · 23 mins �� ��

3 Replies · 12 mins • Jim http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../obamas-flip-flop-on.../

84

Obama’s flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration President Obama used to say that executive action on... WASHINGTONPOST.COM Like · Reply · 1 · 6 mins �� ��

• Norman I was a life long democrat until Obama made a republican out of me. As for nancy,one can not fix stupid. Like · Reply · 1 · 8 mins �� ��

• Joseph Reagan did so with Congressional approval. Like · Reply · 1 · 9 mins �� ��

• Chad Nancy Pelosi is a joke with the American people. As far as amnesty for 5 million illegal immigrants...I think the American people spoke 2 weeks ago during elections. Like · Reply · 1 · 16 mins �� ��

• N.K.://benswann.com/22-times-obama-said-it-was-not-possible.../

22 Times Obama Said It Was Not Possible To Create Immigration Law Without... BENSWANN.COM|BY RACHEL BLEVINS Like · Reply · 1 · 16 mins �� ��

• Ginny Borders need to be secured. Legal immigrants who went through the right channels are so insulted right now. Unconstitutionally revising existing laws is not how previous presidents acted. Like · Reply · 1 · 17 mins · Edited �� ��

• Andrew Obama needs to mention Ronald Reagan's 1986 Amnesty at least a 100 times in his speech tomorrow. Like · Reply · 1 · 19 mins �� ��

• Cindy I suppose he won't consider it important to pass an executive order providing adequate healthcare and jobs for Veterans. -- immigrants yes, our veterans no. Like · Reply · 1 · 20 mins �� ��

• Sandra The senate already passed a bipartisan bill on immigration. The house won't bring it up for a vote . Boehner in charge. So dont say there has been no discussion on this. Just do it Mr. President. He waited long enough. Like · Reply · 1 · 21 mins �� ��

Joseph Making the same mistake another president did is nuts. Reagan's plan was a failure Like · 15 mins �� ��

Thom St. Reagan can/could do no wrong. President Obama can do no right. Guess that proves ignorance is still governing this once great nation that the GOP is running into the ground! Like · Reply · 1 · 21 mins �� ��

• Brad Not exactly there crazy woman. Like · Reply · 1 · 21 mins �� �� • Lance You are very delusional! Like · Reply · 1 · 24 mins �� ��

85

• Chris Jane, you need to research this. Reagan didn't do what she is spinning. Like · Reply · 1 · 24 mins �� ��

• 50 of 166 View more comments

Example of a Facebook feed from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA)

Facebook page showing the name-calling and behavior between liberals and

conservatives on a recent news topic amnesty for illegal aliens. This was posted pre-

presidential speech on President Obama’s plan to deal with illegal immigration.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/NancyPelosi?fref=nf

https://www.facebook.com/NancyPelosi/photos/a.449330659383.230422.86574174383/10153013303869384/?type=1&theater

Occupy Democrats

10 hours ago · Edited Republican Nicole Wallace defended Pres. Obama's immigration executive order on tonight's Rachel Maddow Show. Kudos to her for speaking up. Image by Occupy Democrats.

86

• Write a comment... • Micah Good for her. We need more centrist Reps. Get rid of the wing

nuts, please. They are killing your party! Like · Reply · 263 · 10 hours ago �� ��

Hide 13 Replies Patty What is killing the two parties is a third party we have never

had and do not ever want! Like · 6 · 10 hours ago �� ��

87

Michael Speak for yourself. The Reps are done. We need a third party to put them under, so there is a new viable choice with some power to bring in votes! Like · 2 · 9 hours ago �� ��

Jim Children that keep speaking of a 3rd Party. Go drink your milk. Your bottle's getting cold. Like · 2 · 9 hours ago · Edited �� ��

Michael Child? 62 and sick of a system that doesn't work. We have destroyed the 'middle class'. Who has a plan to bring it back? Like · 3 · 9 hours ago �� ��

Michael Now there is a picture of a progressive thinker if I have ever seen one! Jim, you need to expand your choices!

Like · 1 · 9 hours ago �� �� Jim Mikey, Mikey, Mikey, why the hate? LOL You're a child.

You're a whining ass child. Mikey, don't ask rhetorical questions; give answers. Like · 9 hours ago �� ��

Jim A third party? Bwaahahahaha!!! I'm laughing at you, Mikey. Give answers...if you can, little boi. Like · 1 · 9 hours ago �� ��

Jim Oh! And, Mikey, if you're 62-years old, grow up. You're profile pictures speak volumes about your immature mind. Here's little Mikey's picture!!!! LOL

Like · 1 · 9 hours ago �� �� Jim Can I warm your milk and binkie for you, little mikey?

LMFAO!!!! Like · 1 · 9 hours ago �� ��

88

Taylor Jim that's not fair, that looks like a grandchild that Michael is proud of. Like · 2 · 8 hours ago �� ��

Felicia Wow. This thread is exactly what is wrong with this country. Smh. Like · 2 · 7 hours ago �� ��

Ron Jim you need to grow up your embarrassing yourself Like · 4 · 6 hours ago �� ��

Jon I say KEEP the wing nuts - they're ruining your party! Like · 4 · 5 hours ago �� ��

• Patricia i love her, she is a realist....very smart woman.....you rock

nicole Like · Reply · 153 · 10 hours ago �� �� • Cookie Obviously a reasonable Republican. You dont see many of

them. Like · Reply · 49 · 10 hours ago �� �� Tim Please sign and share this. There is a reason our Republic is

under complete corporate control...#MoneyTalks2Much http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/us-govt-form-the-us-human

Sign the petition: U.S.... I just signed a petition to The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and... PETITIONS.MOVEON.ORG Like · 7 hours ago �� ��

• Eliabeth She is a true Republican, not one of those rabid, right-wing, nut

jobs that we have to deal with every day. This is nice to see. Like · Reply · 36 · 9 hours ago �� ��

• Jose Wow! An actual voice of reason from the right? Like · Reply · 32 · 10 hours ago �� ��

Tim We need more leaders in D.C., no more corporate sell outs. People should be the only special interest group! #MoneyTalks2Much

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/us-govt-form-the-us-human Sign the petition: U.S.... I just signed a petition to The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and... PETITIONS.MOVEON.ORG Like · 7 hours ago �� ��

• Kevin Funny how some people are saying the immigrants are "breaking

the law." • So laws are inherently always correct? Sorry, no they are not.

89

• Constitution said blacks were were only 3/5 of a man... So even the "great" constitution had HUGE flaws. That's why ...See More Like · Reply · 29 · 7 hours ago �� ��

Bill

Like · 1 · 3 hours ago �� �� Peter Bullshit Bill, and you know it. Like · 1 · 2 hours

ago �� �� View more replies

This example is from a liberal Facebook page demonstrating some bickering

between opposing views for how President Obama wants to deal with illegal immigration

after a speech he made on Thursday November 19, 2014.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/photos/a.517901514969574.1073741825.346937065399354/739770619449328/?type=1&theater

90

References

Alford, John R., and John R. Hibbing. "Personal, interpersonal, and political temperaments." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 614, no. 1 (2007): 196-212.

Ben-Porath, Sigal. "Deferring virtue: The new management of students and the civic role of schools." Theory and Research in Education 11, no. 2 (2013): 111-128.

Borondo, J., A. J. Morales, R. M. Benito, and J. C. Losada. "Mapping the online communication patterns of political conversations." Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 414 (2014): 403-413.

Braithwaite, Valerie. "The value orientations underlying liberalism-conservatism." Personality and Individual Differences 25, no. 3 (1998): 575-589.

Bryan, Christopher J., Carol S. Dweck, Lee Ross, Aaron C. Kay, and Natalia O. Mislavsky. "Political mindset: Effects of schema priming on liberal-conservative political positions." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, no. 4 (2009): 890-895.

Carvalho, Anabela. "Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change." Public understanding of science 16, no. 2 (2007): 223-243.

Carney, Dana R., John T. Jost, Samuel D. Gosling, and Jeff Potter. "The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind." Political Psychology 29, no. 6 (2008): 807-840.

Castano, Emanuele, Bernhard Leidner, Alain Bonacossa, John Nikkah, Rachel Perrulli, Bettina Spencer, and Nicholas Humphrey. "Ideology, fear of death, and death anxiety." Political Psychology 32, no. 4 (2011): 601-621.

Chirumbolo, Antonio, and Luigi Leone. "Personality and politics: The role of the HEXACO model of personality in predicting ideology and voting." Personality and Individual Differences 49, no. 1 (2010): 43-48.

Choma, Becky L., Carolyn L. Hafer, Jane Dywan, Sidney J. Segalowitz, and Michael A. Busseri. "Political liberalism and political conservatism: Functionally independent?." Personality and Individual Differences 53, no. 4 (2012): 431-436.

Devine, Christopher J. "Social Issues, Authoritarianism, and Ideological Conceptualization: How Policy Dimensions and Psychological Factors Influence Ideological Labeling." Political Psychology 33, no. 4 (2012): 531-552.

91

Eidelman, Scott, Christian S. Crandall, Jeffrey A. Goodman, and John C. Blanchar. "Low-effort thought promotes political conservatism." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38, no. 6 (2012): 808-820.

Ellis, Christopher. "Public Ideology and Political Dynamics in the United States." American Politics Research 40, no. 2 (2012): 327-354.

Entman, Robert M. "How the media affect what people think: An information processing approach." The journal of Politics 51, no. 02 (1989): 347-370.

Garrett, R. Kelly. "Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users1." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14, no. 2 (2009): 265-285.

Greenberg, Nadivah. "Shop right: American conservatisms, consumption, and the environment." Global Environmental Politics 6, no. 2 (2006): 85-111.

Hanson, Jana M., Dustin D. Weeden, Ernest T. Pascarella, and Charles Blaich. "Do liberal arts colleges make students more liberal? Some initial evidence." Higher Education 64, no. 3 (2012): 355-369.

Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard G. Niemi. "The transmission of political values from parent to child." The American Political Science Review (1968): 169-184.

Lakoff, George. "Why it matters how we frame the environment." Environmental Communication 4, no. 1 (2010): 70-81.

Marcia, James E. "Identity in adolescence." Handbook of adolescent psychology 9

(1980): 159-187. McAdam, Doug, and Cynthia Brandt. "Assessing the effects of voluntary youth service:

The case of Teach For America." Social Forces 88, no. 2 (2009): 945-969. McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. "The politicization of climate change and

polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010." The Sociological Quarterly 52, no. 2 (2011): 155-194.

Milan, Stefania. "What makes you happy? Insights into feelings and muses of community

radio practitioners." Westminster Papers in Communication and culture 5, no. 1 (2008): 25-43.

Miller, Alan S. "Are self-proclaimed conservatives really conservative? Trends in attitudes and self-identification among the young." Social Forces 71, no. 1 (1992): 195-210.

Nepal, Padam. "Ecopolitics and ideology: Relocating green themes in modern ideological thinking." The Indian Journal of Political Science 65, no. 4 (2004).

92

Niemi, Richard G., and Mary A. Hepburn. "The rebirth of political socialization." Perspectives on Political Science 24, no. 1 (1995): 7-16.

Niemi, Richard G., and Barbara I. Sobieszek. "Political socialization." Annual Review of Sociology (1977): 209-233.

Robinson, John P., and John A. Fleishman. "A report: Ideological identification: Trends and interpretations of the liberal-conservative balance." Public Opinion Quarterly (1988): 134-145.

Smith, Tom W. "Liberal and conservative trends in the United States since World War II." Public Opinion Quarterly 54, no. 4 (1990): 479-507.