The Meaning of Party Images
| Published date | 01 September 1988 |
| Author | Arthur Sanders |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591298804100311 |
| Date | 01 September 1988 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
THE
MEANING
OF
PARTY
IMAGES
ARTHUR
SANDERS
Hamilton
College
ARTY
Identification
is
a
concept
which
political
scientists
have
stud-
ied
in
great
detail
over
the
past
several
decades.
But
one
aspect
of
-*L
party
identification
which
has
not
received
much
attention
has
been
the
meaning
of
party
images
to
people.
When
individuals
think
of
the
Democratic
or
Republican
parties,
what
images
come
into
their
minds?
How
do
these
images
form?
And
what
relationship,
if
any,
do
these
im-
ages
have
with
the
issue
positions
which
people
have?
Two
previous
studies
looked
briefly
at
this
issue.
Trilling
(1976),
in
his
book,
Party
Image
and
Electoral
Behavior,
traces
the
meaning
of
party
from
1952
to
1972.
He
classifies
people
as
to
whether
or
not
they
see
parties
in
terms
of
people
in
the
party,
as
managers
of
government,
broad
philosophy,
or
domestic
or
foreign
policy
positions.
He
found
that
there
was
only
a
limited
effect
of
&dquo;short
term
political
issues&dquo;
on
the
images
that
people
held.
This,
he
argues,
reflects
&dquo;the
failure
of
political
parties
to
polarize
the
electorate
around
these
issues&dquo;
(p.
88).
Thus,
is-
sues
such
as
race
or
Vietnam
may
have
short-term
impact
on
the
images
of
parties,
but
they
have
not
penetrated
more
deeply.
(Chapter
4
of
the
book
discusses
the
meaning
of
party
images.)
Similarly,
Wattenberg
(1986),
in
The
Decline
of American
Political
Parties,
1952-1984,
discusses
changes
in
the
images
of
the
parties
between
the
1950s
and
the
1980s.
His
conclusion
is
that
the
major
change
has
been
a
decline
in
any
kind of
image
for either
party.
He
writes: &dquo;In
sum,
nei-
ther
party
now
has
a
very
firmly
entrenched
positive
or
negative
public
image
on
such
issues
[as
economic/welfare
policy]
compared
to
two
de-
cades
ago&dquo;
(p.
69).
Craig
(1985,
1987),
however,
has
challenged
these
conclusions.
He
argues
that
the
decline
of
party
is
better
attributed
to
a
negative
view
of
the
two
parties
rather
than
the
growing
neutrality
cited
by
Wattenberg.
The
purpose
of
this
paper
is
to
take
this
discussion
further.
The
con-
tent
of
people’s
opinions
about
politics
is
an
important,
but
overlooked
area
of
study.
As
shown
below,
the
images
that
people
have
of
the
par-
ties
affects
the
ability
of
the
parties
to
structure
political
conflict.
A
change
or
decline
in
such
images
has,
therefore,
strong
implications
for
the
way
we
interpret
the
trends
in
partisanship.
And
the
evidence
offered
below
supports
Wattenberg’s
interpretation
of
party
decline.
In
order
to
under-
stand
fully
the
decline
of
partisanship
and
what
it
implies,
we
need
to
Received:
January
14,
1987
First
Revision
Received:
June
29,
1987
Second
Revision
Received:
November
6,
1987
Accepted
for
Publication:
November
10,
1987
584
understand
how
people
come
to
images
of
the
parties,
and
how
those
images
relate
to
their
opinions
on
policy.
DATA
AND
METHODS
The
data
for
this
study
come
from
the
Center
for
Political
Studies’
National
Election
Series,
relying
on
each
of
the
Presidential
Election
sur-
veys
from
1960
through
1984.’
In
each
of
these
surveys,
respondents
were
asked
if
there
was
anything
in
particular
they
liked
or
disliked
about
each
of
the
parties.
Multiple
responses
were
allowed.
I
will
employ
a
different
coding
procedure
than
the
previous
studies
of
this
issue.
In
particular,
I
am
concerned
here
with
the
general
issue
area
of
the
responses
offered.
The
master
codes
used
by
the
CPS,
there-
fore,
were
recoded
into
seven
different
categories.2
1.
General
philosophical
responses.
These
were
responses
which
in-
dicated
an
image
of
the
party
based
on
some
broad
philosophical
prin-
ciple
by
which
most,
or
all,
issues
could
be
judged.
The
most
common
of
these
were
responses
of
the
liberal/conservative
variety,
but
there
were
a
few
other
principles
such
as
states
rights.
2
Economic
responses.
These
responses
included
specific
policy
is-
sues
such
as
unemployment
or
taxes,
references
to
economically
based
groups
such
as
the
poor
or
the
wealthy,
or
general
economic
philosophy
images
such
as
references
to
capitalism
or
socialism.
Thus,
this
category
delineated
images
of
the
parties
which
were
grounded
in
an
economic
view
of
politics.
3.
Social
issue
responses.
These
included
references
to
issues
of
race,
lifestyle,
crime,
drugs
and
the
like.
Clearly,
the
category
encompassed
a
wide
variety
of
issues
(or
groups
related
to
such
issues
such
as
blacks
or
racists
or
criminals).
On
the
other
hand,
a
number
of
people
have
ar-
gued
that
a
distinction
has
grown
between
economic
and
social
issues,
and
that
those
who
are
liberal
on
one
set
of
issues
are
often
conservative
on
the
other.
(See,
for
example,
Ladd
1978.)
This
category
attempted
to
encompass
the
social
half
of
that
dichotomy.
4.
Foreign
policy
responses.
Again,
both
references
to
specific
issues
such
as
Vietnam
or
the
Middle
East,
and
general
principles
such
as
inter-
nationalism,
were
included.
5.
Government
management
responses.
These
were
responses
that
reflected
an
interest
in
how
government
operates.
Thus,
responses
in-
cluded
issues
such
as
trusting
the
party
to
do
the
right
thing,
government
efficiency
and
honesty.
References
to
Watergate
were
included
in
this
category.
6.
Miscellaneous
responses.
Most
of
this
category
was
responses
con-
cerning
specific
people
in
the
parties,
but
there
were
a
few
other
unclas-
1
The
data
for
this
paper
was
made
available
by
the
Interuniversity
Consortium
for
Politi-
cal
and
Social
Research.
Neither
they,
nor
the
original
collectors
of
the
data
bear
any
responsibility
for
the
interpretations
found
here.
2
For
a
full
listing
of
the
coding
categories,
please
contact
the
author.
To continue reading
Request your trial