Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:13:32.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Independence in America, Part II: Towards a Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Jack Dennis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This second article asks what it means to be independent in the contemporary United States. Four different meanings are hypothesized: (1) negative feelings about major political parties and partisanship; (2) positive identification with ideals of independence, especially individualistic autonomy; (3) neutrality or indifference because of no detectable party differences of significance; (4) a self-perceived pattern of variability in partisan behaviour. These four attitudinal dimensions are supported empirically via principal components analysis using both national and Wisconsin data. The four dimensions of independence attitudes show varied patterns of association with general indices of Independence self-classification, relevant political attitudes and behaviours, and various antecedents such as age and education.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 197 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sproat, John G., ‘The Best Men’: Liberal Reformers in the Gilded Age (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 113.Google Scholar

2 Paine, Albert Bigelow, ed., Mark Twain's Notebook (New York: Harper, 1935), pp. 202–3.Google Scholar

3 Bancroft, Frederic, ed., Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, Vol. II (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1913), pp. 55–6.Google Scholar

4 Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform (New York: Vintage, 1960).Google Scholar

5 Thelan, David P., Robert A. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1976).Google Scholar

6 Dennis, Jack, ‘Changing Public Support for the American Party System’, in Crotty, William J., ed., Paths to Political Reform (Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1980), pp. 35–66Google Scholar; and ‘Public Support for the Party System, 1964–1984’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1986.Google Scholar

7 Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney and Petrocik, John R., The Changing American Voter (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F. and McPhee, William N., Voting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954)Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960)Google Scholar; Key, V. O. Jr, The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Agger, Robert E., ‘“Independents” and Party Identifiers: Characteristics and Behavior in 1952’, in Burdick, Eugene and Brodbeck, Arthur J., eds, American Voting Behavior (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1959), pp. 308–29Google Scholar; Burnham, Walter Dean, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: Norton, 1970)Google Scholar; Keith, Bruce E., Magleby, David B., Nelson, Candice J., Orr, Elizabeth, Westlye, Mark C. and Wolfinger, Raymond E., The Partisan Affinities of Independent “Leaners”, British Journal of Political Science, 16 (1986), 155–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Katz, Richard, ‘The Dimensionality of Party Identification: Cross-National Perspectives’, Comparative Politics, 11 (1978–1979), 147–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Campbell, et al. , The American Voter, p. 143.Google Scholar

10 Dennis, Jack, ‘Political Independence in America, Part I: On Being An Independent Partisan Supporter’, British Journal of Political Science, 18 (1988), 77–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Dennis, , ‘Political Independence in America, Part I’.Google Scholar

12 Campbell, et al. , The American Voter, p. 123.Google Scholar

13 Campbell, et al. , The American Voter, p. 123–4.Google Scholar

14 ‘Opinion Roundup: Party Identification’, Public Opinion (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 08/09 1982), p. 29.Google Scholar

15 Miller, Warren E., Miller, Arthur H. and Schneider, Edward J., American National Election Studies Data Sourcebook, 1952–1978 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

16 Dennis, Jack, ‘Support for the Party System by the Mass Public’, American Political Science Review, 60 (1966), 600–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Support for the Institution of Elections by the Mass Public’, American Political Science Review, 64 (1970), 819–35Google Scholar; ‘Trends in Public Support for the American Party System’, British Journal of Political Science, 5 (1975), 187–230Google Scholar; ‘Changing Public Support for the American Party System’, and ‘Public Support for the Party System, 1964–1984’.

17 Burnham, , Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics.Google Scholar

18 Valentine, David C. and Van Wingen, John R., ‘Partisanship, Independence, and the Partisan Identification Question’, American Politics Quarterly, 8 (1980), 165–86, at p. 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Dennis, Jack, ‘Support for the Party System by the Mass Public’Google Scholar, ‘Trends in Public Support for the American Party System’, ‘Changing Public Support for the American Party System’, and ‘Public Support for the Party System, 1964–1984’.

20 Dennis, Jack, ‘Support for the Party System by the Mass Public’.Google Scholar

21 Page, Benjamin I., Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), pp. 62–179.Google Scholar

22 Dennis, Jack, ‘Support for the Party System by the Mass Public’, especially pp. 602–5Google Scholar, and ‘Support for the Elections by the Mass Public’, pp. 824, 830–2.Google Scholar

23 The traditional seven-point party identification scale was collapsed thus: Strong Democrats and Strong Republicans = 1; Weak Democrats and Weak Republicans = 2; Democratic Independents and Republican Independents = 3; Pure Independents = 4.

24 For the rationales underlying construction of the various measures of identification using the Partisan Supporter Typology questions, see Dennis, Jack, ‘Some Properties of Measures of Partisanship’, paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association New York, 09 1981.Google Scholar

25 Dennis, Jack, ‘Political Independence in America, Part I’.Google Scholar

26 Miller, Arthur H. and Wallenberg, Martin P., ‘Measuring Party Identification: Independent or No Partisan Preference’, American Journal of Political Science, 27 (1983), 106–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar