AMERİKAN SİYASETİNDE İDEOLOJİ VE PARTİZANLIK: ELEŞTİREL BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Literatürde, değişen partizanlık kavramına ve ideolojinin Amerikan siyasetindeki rolüne odaklanan farklı çalışmalara rastlamak mümkündür. İdeoloji hem ampirik hem de teorik olarak çalışılmıştır. Bazı bilim adamları, partizanlıkta önemli bir artış olduğunu iddia ederken, diğerleri kutuplaşmadaki değişimin ve partizanlığın abartıldığını iddia ediyor. Bu çalışma, 1950'lerden bu yana Amerikan siyasetinde ideoloji ve partizanlık kavramlarının tarihsel gelişimini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bunu yaparken, ideoloji ve partizanlığın ABD bağlamındaki gelişimine odaklanılarak, bu alanda çalışan başlıca siyaset bilimcileri bazı teorik ve ampirik çalışmaları ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca, mevcut çalışmaların kısa bir eleştirel incelemesi yapılarak, gelecekteki araştırmalar için birtakım öneriler geliştirilmiştir. Sözkonusu kavramlar, alandaki birçok bilim adamı tarafından hem teorik hem de ampirik olarak tartışılmıştır. Kitlesel kutuplaşma konusundaki görüş farklılıklarına rağmen, genel olarak, siyasi seçkinler arasında partizanlığın arttığı iddiası üzerine büyük ölçüde bilim adamlarının hemfikir oldukları görülmektedir. Siyasal seçkinler ve Amerikan halkı arasında, ideoloji ve partizanlığın 1950'lerden bu yana, tarihsel gelişim içinde, önemli bir gelişme yaşadığı ve gelecekte de Amerikan siyasetinin belirleyici unsurları arasında olmaya devam edecekleri söylenebilir.

IDEOLOGY AND PARTISANSHIP IN AMERICAN POLITICS: A CRITICAL REVIEW

In the literature, there have been different views and studiesfocusing on the changing notion of partisanship and the role of ideologyin American politics. Scholars of American politics have been studyingthe concept of ideologies both empirically and theoretically. While somescholars argue that there has been a significant increase inpartisanship, others claim the change in the polarization andpartisanship has been exaggerated.This study aims to explore the historical evolution of the conceptsof ideology and partisanship since the 1950s in American politics. Indoing so, in the first place, the main theoretical and empirical studies ofthe major scholars in the field will be discussed by focusing on thehistorical development of ideology and partisanship within the contextof US. Second, a brief critical review of the existing studies will beprovided, along with suggestions for future research.The concepts have been debated both theoretically and empiricallyby many scholars in the field. Despite the variations in the analysis ofmass polarization, the overall agreement is reached on elite levelanalyses in which scholars largely agreed upon the argument thatpartisanship has increased among the political elites. Among thepolitical elites and/or the American public, we find that ideology andpartisanship have experienced a substantial evolution since the 1950sand they continue to be the major defining elements of Americanpolitics in the future.

PDF

___

Abramowitz, Alan I. “Issue Evolution Reconsidered: Racial Attitudes and Partisanship in the U.S. Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 38, no. 1, 1994, pp. 1–24. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/2111333.
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. “Is Polarization a Myth?” The Journal of Politics, vol. 70, no. 2, 2008, pp. 542–55. JSTOR, doi:10.1017/s0022381608080493.
Achen, Christopher H. “Social Psychology, Demographic Variables, and Linear Regression: Breaking the Iron Triangle in Voting Research.” Political Behavior, vol. 14, no. 3, Sept. 1992, pp. 195– 211. Crossref, doi:10.1007/BF00991978.
Bond, Jon R., and Richard Fleisher. “The Polls: Partisanship and Presidential Performance Evaluations.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 3, Sept. 2001, pp. 529–40. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.0360-4918.2001.00186.x.
Campbell, Angus. The American Voter. Wiley, 1960. Carmines, Edward G.Stimson, James A.Issue Evolution: Race And The Transformation Of American Politics. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1989. Print.
Carmines, Edward G., Harold W. Stanley. “Ideological Realignment in the Contemporary South: Where Have all the Conservatives Gone?” In The Disappearing South? Studies in Regional Change and Continuity, eds. Robert P. Steed, Laurence W. Moreland, and Tod A. Baker. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1990
Carsey, Thomas M., and Geoffrey C. Layman. “Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 50, no. 2, 2006, pp. 464–77.
Converse, Philip E. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964).” Critical Review; Astoria, vol. 18, no. 1–3, Winter 2006, pp. 1–74. ProQuest, doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.cc.uic.edu/10.1080/08913810608443650. DiMaggio, Paul, et al. “Have American’s Social Attitudes Become More Polarized?” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 102, no. 3, 1996, pp. 690–755.
Downs, Anthony. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 65, no. 2, 1957, pp. 135–50.
Enelow, James M., and Melvin J. Hinich. “A General Probabilistic Spatial Theory of Elections.” Public Choice (1986-1998); Leiden, vol. 61, no. 2, May 1989, p. 101.
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., Pope, Jeremy, Culture War?: The Myth Of A Polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2005. Print.
Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 11, no. 1, 2008, pp. 563–88. Annual Reviews, doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836.
Gerring, John. “Ideology: A Definitional Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 4, Dec. 1997, pp. 957–94. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/106591299705000412.
Gimpel, Jim. “Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. By Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. 272p. $35.00.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 1, no. 3, Sept. 2003, pp. 606–07.
Cambridge Core, doi:10.1017/S1537592703510428. Hinich, Melvin J.Munger, Michael C.Ideology And The Theory Of Political Choice. Ann Arbor: University Of Michigan Press, 1994. Print.
Huddy, Leonie, et al. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review, vol. 109, no. 1, Feb. 2015, pp. 1–17. Cambridge Core, doi:10.1017/S0003055414000604.
Hunter, James Davison. Culture Wars: The Struggle To Define America. New York: Basic Books, 1991. Print.
Jacobson, GC. Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection. 2000. Killian, Mitchell, and Clyde Wilcox. “Do Abortion Attitudes Lead to Party Switching?” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 4, 2008, pp. 561–73.
Kirkpatrick, Evron M. “‘Toward A More Responsible Two-Party System’: Political Science, Policy Science, or Pseudo-Science?” The American Political Science Review, vol. 65, no. 4, 1971, pp. 965–90. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/1953493.
Layman, Geoffrey C., et al. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 9, no. 1, 2006, pp. 83–110. Annual Reviews, doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138.
Lloyd, Randall D. “Separating Partisanship from Party in Judicial Research: Reapportionment in the U.S. District Courts.” American Political Science Review, vol. 89, no. 2, June 1995, pp. 413– 20. Cambridge Core, doi:10.2307/2082434.
Longaker, Richard P. “E. E. Schattschneıder. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Pp. Viii, 147. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 338, no. 1, Nov. 1961, pp. 146–47. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/000271626133800117.
Markus, Gregory B., and Philip E. Converse. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review, vol. 73, no. 4, Dec. 1979, pp. 1055–70. Cambridge Core, doi:10.2307/1953989.
Mason, Lilliana. “‘I Disrespectfully Agree’: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 59, no. 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 128– 45. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/ajps.12089.
Noel, Hans. “The Coalition Merchants: The Ideological Roots of the Civil Rights Realignment.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 74, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 156–73.
journals.uchicago.edu (Atypon), doi:10.1017/S0022381611001186. Poole, Keith T.Rosenthal, Howard. Congress: A Political-economic History Of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Print.
Putz, David W. “Partisan Conversion in the 1990s: Ideological Realignment Meets Measurement Theory.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 64, no. 4, 2002, pp. 1199–209.
Saunders, Kyle L., and Alan I. Abramowitz. “Ideological Realignment and Active Partisans in the American Electorate.” American Politics Research, vol. 32, no. 3, May 2004, pp. 285–309. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/1532673X03259195.
Stoker, Laura, and M. Kent Jennings. “Of Time and the Development of Partisan Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 52, no. 3, July 2008, pp. 619–35. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00333.x.
Sundquist, James L. Dynamics Of The Party System: Alignment And Realignment Of Political Parties In The United States. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1983. Print.