Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics

1. American Polarization Stems from Divergent Worldviews Rooted in Authoritarianism.

This book argues that they are and that the reason is growing polarization of worldviews – what guides people’s view of right and wrong and good and evil.

Beyond elite polarization. While political elites have been polarized for some time, a key argument is that ordinary Americans are also increasingly polarized, not just sorted. This isn't merely about differing policy preferences or ideologies, but a deeper divergence in fundamental worldviews that shape perceptions of right and wrong, good and evil. This makes political disagreements feel more visceral and intractable.

Authoritarianism as the root. These worldview differences are rooted in what the authors describe as authoritarianism. It's a compelling explanation for contemporary American politics because it structures opinions on highly provocative issues. These include:

• Race
• Gay marriage
• Illegal immigration
• Use of force in security problems

Incandescent political hues. Events and strategic political decisions have conspired to make these worldview differences more salient. The left and right have coalesced around opposing worldviews, giving politics more "incandescent hues" than before. This means that even if policy preferences aren't clustering at extreme poles, the underlying emotional intensity and difficulty in understanding opposing viewpoints create a strong sense of polarization.

2. Authoritarianism Reflects a Deep Need for Order, Concreteness, and Reliance on Authority.

Taken together, we suspect that those who score high in authoritarianism have (1) a greater need for order and, conversely, less tolerance for confusion or ambiguity, and (2) a propensity to rely on established authorities to provide that order.

Core motivations. Authoritarianism, as defined here, is fundamentally driven by a need for order and a low tolerance for ambiguity. Individuals high in authoritarianism tend to view the world in concrete, black-and-white terms, seeking clarity and stability. This cognitive style often leads them to rely on established authorities—whether traditional conventions, sacred texts, or strong leaders—to provide that desired order and minimize confusion.

Protecting social norms. This disposition manifests as a strong embrace and protection of existing social norms, which are seen as time-tested mechanisms for maintaining order. Any perceived alteration to these norms is viewed as a threat, potentially leading to unpredictable and undesirable consequences. Consequently, authoritarians often make strong distinctions between in-groups (those who conform) and out-groups (those who challenge norms).

Aggression towards deviants. Because authoritarians perceive the social order as fragile and under attack, they tend to feel negatively about, behave aggressively toward, and be intolerant of those who violate time-honored norms or fail to adhere to established social conventions. This includes:

• Minority groups (e.g., African Americans, gays, Arabs post-9/11)
• Those advocating social change
• Those preferring diplomatic solutions over forceful ones, as force offers a less ambiguous outcome.

3. Nonauthoritarianism is a Distinct Worldview Valuing Ambiguity, Autonomy, and Accuracy.

But it is important to stress that the current divide owes as much to a group about which we understand much less well – the nonauthoritarians – as it does to a group that has received extraordinary attention – the authoritarians.

Beyond a default category. Nonauthoritarianism is not merely the absence of authoritarian traits but a distinct worldview with its own motivations and characteristics. While authoritarians seek certainty and order, nonauthoritarians exhibit a greater tolerance for ambiguity, allowing for more nuanced judgments and complex understandings of the world. This difference in cognitive style is crucial for understanding political conflict.

Key nonauthoritarian traits:

• Fairness as outgroup preference: A notion of fairness that often favors out-groups, recognizing historical context and systemic disadvantages rather than applying universal rules rigidly.
• Accuracy motivation: A commitment to balanced information and comprehensive evaluation of evidence, believing that a lack of such can threaten well-being. They are more accurate in political knowledge.
• Aversion to ethnocentrism: Less likely to evaluate ethnic groups stereotypically, possibly due to a strong motivation to avoid prejudicial thinking or a commitment to abstract evenhandedness.
• Personal autonomy: Valuing individual freedom and self-directed decision-making over strict social conformity, and less anxious about individual behaviors challenging social well-being.

A different kind of anxiety. Nonauthoritarians also experience "motivated social cognition," but their psychological needs differ. They may feel anxiety when social well-being is threatened by institutional failures or a lack of critical thinking, rather than by individual non-conformity. This leads them to prioritize abstract notions of fairness and individual rights, which can appear relativistic or overly complex to authoritarians.

4. Threat's Impact on Authoritarianism Leads to Opinion Convergence, Not Just Polarization.

When those scoring lower in authoritarianism do perceive significant threat, we find that they are not heroic, small “d,” democrats. In fact, under such conditions, their preferences on issues become indistinguishable from those who score high in authoritarianism.

Challenging conventional wisdom. The prevailing scholarly view is that threat activates authoritarianism, causing authoritarians to become less tolerant and more aggressive, while nonauthoritarians become more principled. This book argues the opposite: threat can actually reduce the difference in preferences between authoritarians and nonauthoritarians, leading to opinion convergence.

Asymmetrical threat perception. Authoritarians tend to perceive the world as inherently threatening, making their baseline preferences already lean towards order and security. When a widespread, objective threat emerges (like 9/11), nonauthoritarians also feel significantly threatened. In such moments, their preferences shift towards security and order, mirroring those of authoritarians.

• Convergence: Occurs when threat is perceived symmetrically across the authoritarianism spectrum (e.g., post-9/11 support for civil liberties trade-offs, high approval for President Bush).
• Polarization: Occurs when threat is perceived asymmetrically (e.g., gay rights, where authoritarians feel more threatened by "newer lifestyles" than nonauthoritarians).

The "Prius vs. Hummer" analogy. Imagine a Prius driver (nonauthoritarian, values environment) and a Hummer driver (authoritarian, values safety). In a high-threat situation like an imminent collision, the Prius driver might wish for a Hummer, while the Hummer driver's preference remains unchanged. This illustrates how nonauthoritarians' preferences can shift towards authoritarian-like positions when deeply threatened, leading to a temporary convergence of opinion.

5. Strategic Elite Actions Drove a "Worldview Evolution" in American Politics.

We argue that this set of issues connected by authoritarianism has reshaped American political competition and changed the nature of political debate itself.

From issue to worldview. Building on the concept of "issue evolution" (where a single issue like race reshapes politics), the book introduces "worldview evolution." This is where a cluster of issues, all tethered to the underlying disposition of authoritarianism, collectively redefines political reality and behavior. This process began with strategic decisions by conservative and Republican elites.

Republican strategy. Facing a Democratic-dominated political landscape since the New Deal, Republican elites sought new issues to forge a majority. They discovered that "hot-button" or "easy" issues, often laden with symbolic and emotional significance, could attract authoritarian-minded voters, many of whom were traditionally Democrats. This wasn't a master plan to attract authoritarians, but a pragmatic effort to win elections.

• Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy": Leveraged racial anxieties to peel off white Southern Democrats.
• Ronald Reagan's appeals: Focused on "states' rights" and traditional values.
• George H.W. Bush's "Willie Horton" ad: Painted opponents as soft on crime.

Democratic response and defensiveness. Democratic elites, tied to civil rights, feminist, and later gay rights organizations, often found themselves on the defensive. Their embrace of these groups, while attracting nonauthoritarian voters, inadvertently repelled authoritarian-leaning Democrats. This dynamic contributed to the perception of Democrats as the "Mommy Party" and Republicans as the "Daddy Party," further solidifying the worldview divide.

6. Authoritarianism Structures Preferences on Key "Hot-Button" Issues.

We focus on these specific areas because we suspect the worldview evolution we hypothesize has crystallized recently and these issue domains have received significantly more attention lately.

Beyond traditional divides. Authoritarianism is now a critical factor in shaping public opinion on a range of contemporary issues that, on the surface, may seem unrelated to traditional economic or New Deal cleavages. These issues have gained prominence in the information environment, making authoritarianism more accessible in political decision-making.

Key issue clusters:

• Gay Rights: Authoritarianism strongly predicts opposition to gay adoption, gay marriage, and even employment protections, reflecting concerns about challenges to established social norms. Conversely, nonauthoritarians developed increasingly negative feelings towards Christian fundamentalists as they became identified with anti-gay rights positions.
• War on Terror & Civil Liberties: Authoritarians favor more muscular responses to threats and are more willing to trade civil liberties for security. This includes supporting:
  • Warrantless wiretaps
  • Video surveillance in public places
  • Restricting criticism of the president during wartime
  • Media self-censorship on government methods
• Use of Force vs. Diplomacy: Authoritarians tend to prefer military strength over diplomacy and prioritize national interests over allied cooperation, seeing force as a clearer, less ambiguous solution to threats.

"War on Christmas" as an example. Even seemingly minor cultural issues, like the "War on Christmas" (e.g., stores saying "Happy Holidays"), are structured by authoritarianism. Those high in authoritarianism are significantly more likely to be offended, reflecting their concern for traditional norms and perceived threats to established cultural practices.

7. Partisan Sorting Along Authoritarian Lines Deepens Political Divides.

As Carmines and Stimson (1989) note, the consequence of such an evolution need not be an increase in aggregate support for one party (although it can).

Evolution of party identification. The worldview evolution has led to a significant partisan sorting, where authoritarians increasingly gravitate towards the Republican Party and nonauthoritarians towards the Democratic Party. This is not necessarily a massive shift in overall party support, but a clearer alignment of individuals with the party that best reflects their underlying worldview.

Evidence of sorting:

• Voter Turnout: High-authoritarian Republicans show increased enthusiasm and turnout, while high-authoritarian Democrats (who feel their party no longer represents them) show decreased turnout.
• Presidential Vote Choice: Differences in authoritarianism between Republican and Democratic voters have steadily increased since 1992, with authoritarianism driving defections among Democrats.
• Senatorial Vote Choice: Similar patterns are observed in Senate elections, reinforcing that this is a broad trend, not just specific to presidential candidates.
• Party Identification: Authoritarianism's effect on party identification was negligible in 1992 but dramatically increased by 2004 and 2006, becoming a powerful predictor of partisan affiliation.

Deepening divides. This sorting means that the average Republican and Democrat are becoming more distinct on authoritarian-structured issues. While traditional economic issues still divide the parties, the authoritarian dimension is a relatively new and rapidly deepening cleavage. This makes political conflict feel more intense and irreconcilable, as disagreements touch upon fundamental outlooks rather than just policy details.

8. The "Manliness" of Parties Reflects the Authoritarian-Nonauthoritarian Divide.

These perceptions apparently owe less to policy stances and background characteristics of the candidates and more to the worldview divide we have described.

Gendered political discourse. The authoritarian-nonauthoritarian worldview divide has deeply permeated political discourse, manifesting in starkly gendered characterizations of the parties and their leaders. Republicans are often portrayed as the "Daddy Party"—tough, decisive, and protective—while Democrats are cast as the "Mommy Party"—nurturing, compassionate, and sometimes perceived as weak or effeminate.

Republican "manliness": Figures like George W. Bush were celebrated for their "swagger" and perceived manliness, especially in the context of national security. This image resonated with authoritarians who value strength and clear, forceful responses to threats. Even when Democratic candidates like John Kerry or Al Gore had strong military backgrounds, they were often feminized by conservative commentators, undermining their perceived toughness.

• Examples: Chris Matthews' "Daddy Party" label, Arnold Schwarzenegger's "girlie men" comment, Ann Coulter's branding of John Edwards as a "faggot."
• Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment: His fighter pilot attire and declaration were seen as embodying decisive, masculine leadership.

Democratic "femininity": Democrats' emphasis on diplomacy, social safety nets, and nuanced approaches is often framed as weakness or indecisiveness by the right. This plays into authoritarian preferences for clear, strong action. The consistent feminization of Democratic leaders, regardless of their actual policy stances or personal histories, highlights how deeply ingrained this worldview-based perception has become in American politics.

9. Immigration Politics Illustrates the Constraints of an Authoritarian Party Base.

In that sense, the worldview evolution that has been shaped by issues like race, civil liberties, gender equality, gay rights, and the war on terrorism apparently constrained moderate party elites from pursuing a vote-maximizing strategy.

A cross-cutting issue. Immigration, a complex issue with economic, cultural, and security dimensions, has historically divided both parties internally. However, in the early 21st century, it became a reinforcing cleavage for the authoritarian-nonauthoritarian divide, particularly constraining the Republican Party.

Bush's moderate approach thwarted. President George W. Bush and Karl Rove attempted a "comprehensive immigration reform" to attract Latino voters, offering a path to legal status for undocumented workers. This moderate stance was consistent with their success in Texas. However, the increasingly authoritarian base of the Republican Party, combined with nativist elites, largely rejected this approach.

• House Republicans: Framed immigration almost exclusively as a law enforcement problem, advocating for border fences and crackdowns.
• Mass-level sorting: Public opinion on immigration showed significant partisan sorting after 2004, with Republicans adopting strong anti-immigration stances.
• Authoritarianism's role: Attitudes towards immigration (economic threat, cultural assimilation, "lawbreakers," opposition to citizenship paths) are strongly structured by authoritarianism.

Elite constraint by the base. The Republican base's authoritarian worldview made it difficult for moderate party elites to pursue a vote-maximizing strategy that would appeal to growing Latino populations. This forced candidates like John McCain to shift right on immigration during the primaries, illustrating how deeply the worldview evolution has embedded itself, even at the cost of future electoral prospects in demographically changing states.

10. Intra-Party Conflicts Can Also Be Driven by Authoritarian Worldviews.

We suspect that the divisions that caused journalists to invoke the term polarization had to do with something more deeply felt in individuals than issue preferences or ideological commitments.

Polarization without ideological difference. The 2008 Democratic primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, despite their remarkably similar policy positions and voting records, was described as "polarized" by journalists. This suggests that polarization can occur even without clear ideological or issue-based differences, driven instead by deeper, worldview-based factors.

Authoritarianism in the Democratic primary:

• Obama's "otherness": His unique background (white mother, Kenyan father, middle name Hussein, non-traditional upbringing) and nuanced communication style resonated with nonauthoritarians but likely triggered concerns among more authoritarian-leaning Democrats.
• Clinton's appeal: Her campaign's focus on "toughness," questioning Obama's "American-ness," and subtle appeals to racial and religious anxieties resonated with white working-class Democrats, a demographic with higher authoritarian leanings.
• Empirical evidence: Surveys showed significant differences between Obama and Clinton supporters on:
  • Racial resentment
  • Immigration preferences (Clinton supporters more anti-immigrant)
  • Attitudes towards torture (Clinton supporters more pro-torture)
  • Political tolerance (Obama supporters more tolerant)

Beyond demographics. While journalistic accounts highlighted demographic splits (e.g., older, less-educated whites for Clinton; younger, more-educated whites for Obama), the data suggest authoritarianism was a more powerful underlying predictor. This indicates that deeply felt worldviews, rather than just policy or identity, can drive intense political divisions even within a single party.