New Pew Political Typology explains current Republican ascendancy

Great Debates
1

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press just released the fourth version (since 1987) of its Political Typology of the American people: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=943 (It was last updated in 1999.) Like the previous versions, it was based on surveys of 2,000 randomly selected persons. “Each of the typologies developed by the Pew Research Center has been designed to provide a more complete and detailed description of the political landscape, classifying people on the basis of a broad range of value orientations rather than simply on the basis of party identification or self-reported ideology.”

Some of these findings cast new light on the reasons for the current Republican hegemony in the White House and Congress.

Nine groupings are identified, three strongly Republican, three strongly Democrat, two independent or centrist, plus the non-participant Bystanders:
ENTERPRISERS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 81% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 1% Democrat (98% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: As in 1994 and 1999, this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act.
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 82% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 0% Democrat (97% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: While supportive of an assertive foreign policy, this group is somewhat more religious than are Enterprisers. In policy terms, they break from the Enterprisers in their cynical views of business, modest support for environmental and other regulation, and strong anti-immigrant sentiment.
PRO-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 58% Republican, 40% Independent/No Preference, 2% Democrat (86% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Pro-Government Conservatives stand out for their strong religious faith and conservative views on many moral issues. They also express broad support for a social safety net, which sets them apart from other GOP groups. Pro-Government Conservatives are skeptical about the effectiveness of the marketplace, favoring government regulation to protect the public interest and government assistance for the needy. They supported George W. Bush by roughly five-to-one.
UPBEATS
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 39% Republican, 5% Democrat (73% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Upbeats express positive views about the economy, government and society. Satisfied with their own financial situation and the direction the nation is heading, these voters support George W. Bush’s leadership in economic matters more than on moral or foreign policy issues. Combining highly favorable views of government with equally positive views of business and the marketplace, Upbeats believe that success is in people’s own hands, and that businesses make a positive contribution to society. This group also has a very favorable view of immigrants.
DISAFFECTEDS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 68% Independent/No Preference, 30% Republican, 2% Democrat (60% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Disaffecteds are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with both their own economic situation and the overall state of the nation. Under heavy financial pressure personally, this group is deeply concerned about immigration and environmental policies, particularly to the extent that they affect jobs. Alienated from politics, Disaffecteds have little interest in keeping up with news about politics and government, and few participated in the last election.
LIBERALS
17% OF GENERAL POPULATION
19% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999. Liberal Democrats now comprise the largest share of Democrats. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration.
CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS
14% OF ADULT POPULATION
15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 89% Democrat, 11% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican,(98% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Religious orientation and conservative views set this group apart from other Democratic-leaning groups on many social and political issues. Conservative Democrats’ views are moderate with respect to key policy issues such as foreign policy, regulation of the environment and the role of government in providing a social safety net. Their neutrality on assistance to the poor is linked, at least in part, to their belief in personal responsibility.
DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS
10% OF GENERAL POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 84% Democrat; 16% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican (99% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Least financially secure of all the groups, these voters are very anti-business, and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy. Minorities account for a significant proportion of this group; nearly a third (32%) are black, roughly the same proportion as among Conservative Democrats. Levels of disapproval of George W. Bush job performance (91%) and candidate choice in 2004 (82% for Kerry) are comparable to those among Liberals.
BYSTANDERS
10% OF ADULT POPULATION
0% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 22% Republican, 22% Democrat
BASIC DESCRIPTION: These Americans choose not to participate in or pay attention to politics, or are not eligible to do so (non-citizens).
Key findings include:

  • National security is now the key distinguishing issue between the two parties. Republicans and Republican-leaning voters favor an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy; Democrats favor diplomacy and are more likely to believe that the “war on terror” just breeds more hatred and more terrorism.

  • The Republicans are divided sharply on economic issues. Two of their three core constituencies (Social Conservatives and Pro-Government Conservatives) are skeptical of business and favor stronger government regulation of it. The Pro-Government Conservatives (but not the Social Conservatives) actually think government should do something to help the poor.

  • The Democrats are divided on moral values. The largest of their constituencies (Liberals) is highly secular but the next largest (Conservative Democrats) is very religious and socially conservative.
    Note that the three core Democrat-leaning groups (Liberals, Conservative Democrats and Disadvantaged Democrats) account for 44% of registered voters. The Republican-leaning groups (Enterprisers, Social Conservatives, Pro-Government Conservatives) total only 33%. Yet the Republicans have been winning – because, at present, the two centrist or independent groups (Upbeats and Disaffecteds) are mostly voting Republican:

Issues for debate:

  1. Is there any prospect the Republican coalition will break up over the different economic interests and values of its core constituencies?

  2. Is there any prospect the Democratic coalition will break up over the different moral and cultural values of its core constituencies?

  3. What, if anything, can the Democrats do to win the votes of the Upbeats and the Disaffecteds?

  4. What, if anything, can anybody do to win the votes of the Bystanders?

2

I’m always skeptical about these things, especially when I can’t find myself in any of them. Something like a cross between “Enterpriser” and “Conservative Democrat” fits me best, but those seem to contradict.

These will only happen if/when the Dems continue to shrink in influence. If by 2009 the Pubs have bulletproof majorities in both houses and also hold the presidency, then we might see a shift. But if the dems can win an election, that will close ranks on both sides.

Offer plans, proposals, goals and visons. Unless “disaffected” is synonomous with “clinically depressed,” both of these groups want to hear about the better future ahead. The Democratic party as it stands now are a bunch of Droopy Dogs. I can’t think about a single issue on which the dems are the party of optimism.

Nothing. Accept the fact that some people choose to opt out. Insisting that we need everybody voting makes you look like a busybody.

3

Like the Political Compass, this Typology comes with a quiz by which you can place yourself. Go here: http://typology.people-press.org/

I do note that there is no type which corresponds to the views of a consistent Libertarian, or Socialist, or Green. Presumably there just isn’t enough popular support for any of these ideologies to make the cut, even in a nine-group classification. The Enterprisers would appear to be close to the Libertarians – but the Enterprisers support the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War, and I would expect Libertarians to be skeptical of both, if not downright hostile. Socialists and Greens would, presumably, be minor subsets of the Liberal type. Pat Buchanan’s America First Party (anti-immigration, anti-war, anti-Washington, anti-Hollywood, anti-Wall Street) has characteristics that might place it in the Dissaffected camp, but it’s hard to be sure.

BTW, the 1999 version (“Typology 3.0”) included ten groupings. Nine corresponded to those in the current version; the tenth was the “New Democrats”:
NEW DEMOCRATS:
9% OF GENERAL POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 75% Democrat; 21% Independent, Lean Democrat
COMMENTS: Strong faith in President Clinton’s platform on a range of social and political issues. They are the most satisfied of any group with the president and the state of the union. New Democrats also include the second largest group of African-Americans.
DEFINING VALUES: Favorable view of government. Pro-business, yet think government regulation is necessary. Concerned about environmental issues and think government should take strong measures in this area. Accepting of gays. Somewhat less sympathetic toward the poor, black Americans and immigrants than Liberal Democrats.
WHO THEY ARE: Many are reasonably well educated and fall into the middle-income bracket. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) are women and 21% are black. Numerous are self-described union supporters.
Regarding these, the 2005 study says:

4

As an ordinary citizen, I can accept that. But from the POV of any political party or movement, a significant number of people who don’t vote represents an untapped target market (or else a potential threat), so the question is certainly relevant to the discussion.

5

Other issues for debate: Why is it that Pew apparently completely discounts the existence of moderates and insists on pigeonholing people into incorrect categories based on slanted questions?

What can Democrats do to see voters as people rather than caricatures?

If I’m a Liberal, half the people on this board are effing Trotskyites. :dubious:

6

Well, sonofagun. I came up as “disaffected”, but when I changed the one question I was most undecided on, I switched to “upbeat.”

I expect someone to start pandering to me forthwith.

Well it’s relevant, sure. But my point is that given finite resources, you have to pick your targets. Someone who is truly indifferent is going to take a lot more courting to win, is less likely to stay won, and if you did nothing at all, would at least not be voting for the other guy. It’s a bad investment IMO.

7

Because it works. They’ve been using and revising this typology since 1987. They’ve worked out a system which does effectively sort everyone they survey; when answers don’t seem to fit a previous version of the typology, they eliminate an old category or creat a new one. And the typology does not “discount the existence of moderates.” It does not discount the existence of any statistically significant ideological grouping. The Upbeats and the Disaffecteds could be classed as “moderates”; so, arguably, could the Conservative Democrats and the Pro-Government Republicans. If none of those match your definition of a moderate, it must be that moderates, so defined, are (like Greens, Libertarians and Socialists) too rare in America at present to warrant their own category in a nine- or ten-group typology.

What do the Democrats have to do with this? The Pew Research Center is not an organ of the Democratic Party. And the typology groupings are not “caricatures.”

:confused: If you say so . . . how is that relevant to the validity of the typology?

Try taking the quiz and see where it places you. If it designates you a “Liberal,” I’d be pretty sure you are one, even if you object to the term.

8

Well, I can see how some groups could be under-represented enough that they wouldn’t warrant a whole grouping in a 9 or 10 category typology, but … the numbers add up to 100 percent! Leaving no room for “other”.

Ironically enough, I don’t agree with all of the description of them, either, but I certain fit closer into “New Democrat” than any of the current categories. They pegged me as a “Liberal”, and I fit with most of the views of the Liberal category, the strongest exception being foreign policy. But then again, Conservatives don’t share my foreign policy views either (my view is aggressive intervention in human crisis situations irrespective of any shady “political costs” for America, and not opposed to intervention to oust dictators, but not for it, either.)

As to the OP, I don’t think the current coalitions will break up in a spectacular fashion (there might be drifts here and there), except at the instigation of a third party: as long as each has roughly %50 of the populace both will be willing to not risk their share of the pie by taking firm policy stances.

But I see a threat of a “populist” party taking share from both parties. Last election there were several (at least 9, perhaps more?) amendments up for vote here in Florida. In each case, it was obvious to me the way the vote would go, regardless of my personal views on it, and I was proven right by a large majority in each case except one (and I was proven right by a small majority there.)

Basically the measures were anti-lawyer, pro-conservative family values, pro-civil libertarian, anti-big-government. Now granted, sometimes one of these values trumps the other, but if a party can arise which balances these stances in the proper way, I don’t see how they can lose (unless they commit political suicide like Ross Perot).

Unfortunately, while I myself would share some of their views, I would most likely disagree with them most vehemently in the area of foreign policy which, while the American populace is divided in the foreign policy we should take, any populist likely to win an election would also be likely to be big time non-interventionist, which I am not.

9

Well, it catagorized me as an “Enterpriser”. Geez, I really didn’t like that show at all… :slight_smile:

I thought for sure question #13 would give me away as a “Disaffected”.

10

It says I’m a “Liberal”!

I wonder if I can cite this post to that guy in the BBQ Pit who keeps calling me a neo-conservative? :smiley:

Re 1 & 2: I don’t think either party is going to break up. Like it or not, we’ve a two-party system and both of our parties are too entrenched to ever get usurped or split, IMHO.

3: I’ll say again that I think the best way for the Dems to chip away at Republican voters is to take a Federalist tack on moral issues, especially abortion…

4: Making citizenship easier to attain/automatic would get some of them more involved in politics. :wink:

11

The term “Federalist” has several meanings . . . I assume you mean “let each state make its own decision”? That wouldn’t be a practical option WRT abortion. Some states might make it illegal for a pregnant woman to leave the state to have an abortion elsewhere . . . and just imagine what it would take to enforce that. :eek:

12

I’m an ‘enterpriser’. But it’s curious that there’s really no ‘Libertarian’ category, and after seeing the questions, it’s easy to see why. They present a false dichotomy over and over again, that has at its base the automatic assumption that government is the only mechanism for righting various social ills. For example, look at these supposedly opposing questions:

Poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return

and

Poor people have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them live decently

The hidden assumption? That the lives of poor people are defined by the benefits they get from the government. If you disagree that government should be providing benefits, you are forced to ‘agree’ with the statement that the poor have it easy.

The government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper into debt

and

The government today can’t afford to do much more to help the needy

The hidden assumption? That the only valid reason for not handing out government benefits to the needy is if we can’t afford to do so.

The best way to ensure peace is through military strength

and

Good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace

The hidden assumption? That military strength and good diplomacy are mutually exclusive. No room there for ‘muscular diplomacy’, which really defines what many of us believe.

This country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment

and

This country has gone too far in its efforts to protect the environment

The hidden assumption? That the only way to protect the environment is for ‘the country’ to ‘do what it takes’. No room there for the belief that the market is the best tool for protecting the environment.

Homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society

and

Homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society

The hidden assumption? That the choice is between encouraging and discouraging homosexuality. The belief that, “I don’t care one way or the other, but no one should get special treatment” is not represented. Also, the debate over gay marriage is not necessarily a debate about encouraging or discouraging homosexuality, but of protecting an existing institution.

Books that contain dangerous ideas should be banned from public school libraries

and

Public school libraries should be allowed to carry any books they want

The hidden assumption? That either you’re for ‘banning books that contain dangerous ideas’, or you’ll let your school library have anything. How about Hustler magazine? If I don’t want that in my kid’s elementary school, am I a book banner? Am I against books with ‘dangerous ideas’? Or do I just think little Timmy might be a little too young for open beaver shots?

Using overwhelming military force is the best way to defeat terrorism around the world

and

*Relying too much on military force to defeat terrorism creates hatred that leads to more terrorism *

The hidden assumption? That those who support the war on terror support the use of ‘overwhelming’ military force as ‘the best way’. The real question is, “How much force is too much?” and “Under what circumstances is it necessary to use force, EVEN IF that breeds hatred?”

The growing number of newcomers from other countries threaten traditional American customs and values

and

The growing number of newcomers from other countries strengthens American society

The hidden assumption? That the immigration question is merely about head count. In fact, most people care more about who the immigrants are, how they immigrated, and whether or not the country is a melting pot or creates little cultural enclaves.

The concept that you can want business to be regulated but you think the market does a good job of regulation is alien to this poll. The notion that you can want a clean environment but think that market incentives are the best way to achieve that are alien to this poll. The belief that diplomacy works best when it is backed with force is alien to this poll.

This is especially important because this poll seeks not to just spot wide trends and general tendencies, but to pigeonhole the population into very small groups. If you want that kind of precision, you need precise questions. This fails the test.

Garbage in, garbage out.

13

Yeah, Sam, the questions made the Political Compass questions seem like the modicum of objectivity! I too found especially the questions about censorship and corporate power to be ones with no good answers (I agree with your analysis about censorship, and re: corporate power:

“Business corporations make too much profit / Most corporations make a fair and reasonable amount of profit.” This question says nothing about shareholder rights. Corporate profit is irrelevant to morality and somewhat irrelevant to the state of the economy. More relevant is how much profit the stockholders see: having a better corporate governance system (along with, of course, fair and non-warping taxes,) will help the economy by spreading the wealth to those who created it through capitalism rather than those who took golden showers through a feudalistic buddy system.

"Government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest / Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good. " These are not mutually exclusive: you can at the same time believe that some regulations are necessary, but that most current regulation does more harm than good. That’s not my belief (I’m more agnostic on some specifics) but it’s still a hole a mile wide.

That said, it was strange how close the typology pegged me be “reading between the lines”. In other words, once it knew I was a “liberal”, it then guessed other things about my life accurately that I hadn’t even told it. So perhaps, even given bad questions, it does have some demographic accuracy. Then again, it might only be accurate in an overly broad, astrological sense.

14

N.B.: The questions on the “Where do you fit?” quiz are not the questions used to generate the typology. For those, see http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=951, http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=952, and http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=953. For a general discussion of the methodology, see http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=950.

15

I’m wondering what their rationale is for not including a libertarian (small-L) category. Are there too few of us to count?

So now I’m a “Liberal.” Damn, if I’d only applied myself I could’ve achieved “Enterpriser.”

16

Long answer: Being a consistent libertarian, even small-l, means being opposed in principle to:

  • any state prohibition of personal actions (drug use, drug dealing, prostitution) that cannot inarguably be classified as one person doing malicious harm to another
  • involuntary taxes
  • tax-supported public services in general
  • any state regulation of commerce
  • any government support, subsidies, or bailouts of businesses
  • any large government military establishment

Americans who are consistently opposed to all of these might not be “too few to count” but I’m sure they are to few to warrant their own category in a typology of this kind. See post #3.

Short answer: DUH!

17

I highly doubt that a state that made abortion illegal would take the unnecessary and frankly ridiculous further step to make leaving the state to have an abortion in another state illegal. That pretty much defeats the point of leaving it up to the states, doesn’t it?

Personally, I think leaving it up to the states to decide is a great idea. But I digress from the purpose of this thread. Carry on.

18

The Republican majority is overblown. In the state legislatures , Republicans outnumber Democrats in state houses 2714-2667 and in state senates 972-946. So it isn’t like the Pubbies have a stranglehold on American politics.

Is there any prospect the Republican coalition will break up over the different economic interests and values of its core constituencies? Perhaps. I think the Clintonian streak of prosperity made it possible for voters to align themselves according to social issues. It’s a bit easier to vote on social issues when your income is secure. If Bush keeps trying to chisel away at Social Security, then the Pro-Government Conservatives may start to defect. The Upbeats could start to bolt if they become disenchanted with the nation’s economic outlook. Others are probably lost causes.

Is there any prospect the Democratic coalition will break up over the different moral and cultural values of its core constituencies? I don’t see it as imminent. Those voters that vote on moral and cultural values already break for the Republicans anyway.

What, if anything, can the Democrats do to win the votes of the Upbeats and the Disaffecteds? Not much in my opinion. Ditto for the bystanders.

In the end, Father Time is the Democrats’ ally. The pendulum falls to the left only when done rising to the right. Bush now has plenty of rope with which to hang himself, and he seems intent on doing just that.

19

Sam Stone nailed it as far as the test questions go. I was thinking the exact same thing for many of the questions. The test writer obviously had a huge pro-government bias. This is probably the reason there is no libertarian category.

However, I was an “Enterpriser”, and I was surprised at how closely their description fits my beliefs. Usually these sorts of categories are worthless, but this one was very good. Maybe it was just luck, though.

One thing is for sure: They should just let us Enterprisers run the whole country. We’re the patriotic, gun owning, stock trading small business owners who seem to be running the country anyway. Plus, we follow news about government and politics closer than any other group. Yep. Votes should be limited to our group only. :wink:

20

Hang on a sec—if one of the listed categories fits your beliefs quite closely, then why do you feel that the creators of the categories had a “bias” against your beliefs? What difference does it make that the category happens to be called “Enterpriser” rather than “Libertarian” if you, as a libertarian, are adequately represented by it?

And as BrainGlutton noted, there wouldn’t be much point in constructing a category that doesn’t represent a significant sector of American political opinion. There’s no category called “Socialist” or “Anarchist” in that list either, after all. These have to be pretty broad-brush descriptions, representing at least a tenth or so of the voting population. I really don’t think there are enough genuine libertarians in the US to make the cut, any more than there are enough socialists.