The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized by Daniel J. Hopkins

Author:Daniel J. Hopkins [Hopkins, Daniel J.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Campaigns & Elections, Political Science, Political Process, American Government, Politics, General
ISBN: 9780226530376
Google: HckltAEACAAJ
Goodreads: 35960694
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Published: 2018-05-30T00:00:00+00:00

A Conceptual Model of State and National Positioning

In chapter 2, we considered spatial models of politics to develop definitions of nationalization. The core claim was that we can identify the first face of nationalization based on the political issues that divide people at the different levels of government. Politics are nationalized when the dimensions of political conflict are similar across the levels of government—when the issues that animate national politics, whether they are health care or labor unions, also animate state and local politics. And when very different issues divide people in state or local politics, such a polity is not considered nationalized.

Still, even in a state or locality that is nationalized by that definition, subnational politics might remain distinctive from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (Gimpel 1996). Consider a state where the parties and voters are divided on the same issues that divide them nationally, but also one where the backing for the two national parties is decidedly uneven. Whether you call such a place “Utah” or “Massachusetts,” the critical question then becomes the capacity of the disadvantaged subnational party to become competitive by giving voters a reason to prefer it. One possibility is to compete along another dimension, for instance by trying to be the party of local service, experience, or incumbency. Another is for the state party to remain competitive on ideology by adopting a more moderate stance than its national copartisans.

Figure 7.1 depicts this question graphically. The left panel shows the ideological placement of the parties and voters nationally. Following Downs (1957), it shows a centrist distribution of voters, although it departs from Downs in showing two parties that maintain distinctive positions. Here, we assume that the parties are not single-minded seekers of votes but instead balance competing imperatives to win and to implement a specific platform. Let’s also assume that there are shocks from election to election—scandals, recessions, and so on—that advantage one party or the other, giving parties further from the median voter some chance of winning. In this first hypothetical scenario, the two national parties are equally far from the median voter, making this scenario a competitive one.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.