🚨 Does elite ideological polarization lead to mass ideological polarization?
My latest article in European Journal of Political Research provides **limited** evidence that it is the case.
Let's break it down. 🧵
Two mechanisms suggest that mass polarization should follow:
1️⃣ Follow-the-party effect: Partisans are blind(-ish) followers who align their views with their party.
2️⃣ Backlash effect: Partisans of opposing parties backlash by shifting further in the opposite direction.
I test these by examining the UK Labour Party’s sudden leftward shift under Jeremy Corbyn, using data from the British Election Study Internet Panel.
Key observations:
🔹Experts confirm Labour shifted significantly to the left.
🔹Citizens widely perceived this shift.
So, how did in- and out-partisans respond?
Comparing their LR self-placement before and after the leadership change, I found:
🔹Labour partisans did not follow the party.
🔹Conservative partisans did not backlash.
If anything, there was moderation among both groups.
Could the expected effects simply be lagged?
Nope! There is no evidence of a lagged effect either. Over the long run, neither a follow-the-party effect nor a backlash effect occurred, even though they perceived the Labour Party as having shifted to the left.
While this shows that parties have limited leeway in shaping the preferences of their bases, it does not mean they have no influence.
Ideologically out-of-touch Labour partisans adjusted their positions to align more closely (i.e., ideological sorting).
So, are citizens destined to polarize if parties polarize?
Not necessarily. Parties’ ability to shape their base’s preferences seems more limited than assumed. This challenges the American view of partisans as loyal— even blind—followers, instead suggesting critical partisanship.
