SOCIAL CLEAVAGES IN THE AMERICAN SOCIETY AS A FACTOR OF 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
https://doi.org/10.24290/1029-3736-2017-23-4-169-181
Abstract
Current article is dedicated to analysis of social cleavages in the American elections and the ways they influenced on presidential election in 2016. Originally developed by S. Rokkan and S.M. Lipset, social cleavages became a classic theme for contemporary political sociology. However, despite the fact that the theory has been developing primarily by Americans, it has been rarely used to analyze electoral system in the USA. Traditionally it’s been aimed at European and developing countries where electoral fragmentation is seen more clearly. But recent changes in the American society and the political system demonstrate the emergence of social cleavages that had not been inherent before. The article shows how American electoral space transformed since the 1980s and how it became more fragmented under the influence of social, economic and ideological factors. Elections in 2016 became a watershed for social cleavages that accumulated through time and aggravated even more considering internal crises in the Democratic and more so in the Republican parties. Donald Trump’s victory is an impersonation of the American party system crisis and of the mainstream politicians’ inability to find proper explanation of the changing electorate. Author shows that American society today is polarized even more than many European countries while group identification determines vectors of political change.
About the Author
P. S. Kanevskiy
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Kanevskiy Pavel S., PhD in political science, associate professor of the political science and sociology of political processes department, Faculty of sociology
Russian Federation
Kanevskiy Pavel S., PhD in political science, associate professor of the political science and sociology of political processes department, Faculty of sociology
References
1. Andersen R., Heath A. Social identities and political cleavages: The role of political context // University of Oxford Sociology Working Papers. 2002. N 06.
2. Bornschier S. Cleavage politics in old and new democracies // Living Reviews in Democracy. 2009. Vol. 1.
3. Caramani D. The nationalization of politics. The formation of national electorates and party systems in Western Europe. Cambridge, 2004.
4. Cassidy J. Did the media get the democratic debate wrong? // The New Yorker. 15.10.2015. URL: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/did-the-mediaget-the-democratic-debate-wrong
5. Davidson A. Trump and the truth: the unemployment-rate hoax // The New Yorker. 10.09.2016. URL: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumpand-the-truth-the-unemployment-rate-hoax
6. Frizell S. Pollster’s legs wobble after fawning Donald Trump focus group // The Time. 25.08.2015. URL: http://time.com/4009413/donald-trump-focusgroup-frank-luntz/
7. Frum D. The great republican revolt // The Atlantic. 2016. Jan/Feb. URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republicanrevolt/419118/
8. Inglehart R. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, 1990.
9. Inglehart R. Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, 1997.
10. Iyengar S., Sood G., Lelkes Y. Affect, not ideology a social identity perspective on polarization // Public Opinion Quarterly. 2012. N 76 (3).
11. Katz C. Here’s what the electoral college map would look like if only millennials voted // Mic. 25.10.16. URL: https://mic.com/articles/157558/here-swhat-the-electoral-college-map-would-look-like-if-only-millennials-voted#. RHfm0JUFC
12. Klingemann H.-D., Volkens A., Bara J., Budge I., McDonald M.D. Mapping policy preferences II. Estimates for parties, electors and governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD in 1990–2003. Oxford, 2006.
13. Kristof N. A confession of liberal intolerance // The New York Times. 07.05.2016. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confessionof-liberal-intolerance.html
14. Lazarsfeld P., Berelson B, Gaudet H. The people’s choice: how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. N.Y., 1969.
15. Lilla M. The end of identity liberalism // The New York Times. 18.11.2016. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identityliberalism.html?_r=0
16. Lind M. Obama: last of the “new democrats”? // Salon. 30.10.2012. URL: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/obama_last_of_the_new_democrats/
17. Lipset S.M., Rokkan S. Party systems and voter alignments. N.Y.; L., 1967.
18. Mason L. “I disrespectfully agree”: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization // American Journal of Political Science. 2015. N 59 (1).
19. Muste C.P. Reframing polarization: social groups and “culture wars” // PS: Political Science & Politics. 2014. N 47 (02).
20. Oesch D. Explaining workers’ support for right-wing populist parties in Western Europe: evidence from Austria, Belgium, France, Norway, and Switzerland // International Political Science Review. 2008. N 29 (3).
21. Rose R., McAllister I. Voters begin to choose: from closed class to open elections in Britain. L., 1986.
22. Tajfel H., Turner J. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict // The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. 1979. N 33 (47).
Review
For citations:
Kanevskiy P.S. SOCIAL CLEAVAGES IN THE AMERICAN SOCIETY AS A FACTOR OF 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science. 2017;23(4):169-181. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24290/1029-3736-2017-23-4-169-181
Views:
1677
Email this article 