Friend or Foe?

“Race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and social class come immediately to mind as core social identities; political party does not” (2).

In “Partisan Hearts and Minds,” a strange juxtaposition is examined in which Americans statistically do not list their political affiliations as a major aspect of their identity, yet they are unlikely to change over the course of thirty years. At the same time, Brooks and Manza argue that of the core identities listed (race, sex, etc.) plus those such as working and income status, the only statistical evidence of social cleavage in politics since the 60’s is race. In other words, over the past 50 years, the proportions of populations that share certain identity markers that align with a given political party has not changed, with the exception of race. How can Americans claim that their political affiliations are not central to their identities and ideals when studies show that individuals find inherent value in their respective parties?

To answer this question, it must also be considered what political affiliations mean to people. Yes, parties support different platforms and one might believe that some policies are better for the country than others, but as “Voting, Civil Society, and Citizenship” explores, citizens also derive political beliefs in “elements of their personalities” (48). How do you want to be perceived; an ally for the “working class” and “common people” or “rich, wealthy, people of means” (9)? More importantly, to which groups do you want to grant power? Do you believe that the business class has the most knowledge about how to run an economy and that lack of political action or grievances means “consensus” (“Power and Participation” 7)? Or would you rather vote for the party that you feel represents disenfranchised voices, concluding that business experience is not as important? Conscious or not, these are decisions that people make when choosing to affiliate with a political party.