The Moral Diversity of Polarization: Examining Intra-Party Philosophical Differences in a Polarized Political System

The Moral Diversity of Polarization: Examining Intra-Party

Philosophical Differences in a Polarized Political System

Daniel J. Coffey1

Abstract

The polarization between American political parties is often conceptualized as unidimensional. Indeed, the liberal-conservative spectrum has strong empirical support. Since the American party system is federal in nature and the United States is culturally diverse, it is likely, however, that the observation and measurement of polarization hides both inter and intra-party variance. Recent work by social psychologists suggests that there are multiple moral foundations that capture most human judgments about morality. Social scientists have studied this question from the micro-level, but so far there are few studies of how these moral foundations might be altered by a public setting. In an exploratory study, I analyze eight state party platforms (four from each party) and find that party philosophy is articulated (grounded) in easily recognizable moral claims. I also find considerable intra-party diversity as state parties draw on different moral claims in constructing their public platforms. Importantly, the platforms indicate that parties build consensus for position by invoking multiple foundations. Since moral beliefs are both innate and acquired, studying how parties and politicians both reflect and produce the moral frames citizens use in their political evaluations can greatly illuminate the role of morality in partisan polarization.

Prepared for delivery at the Midwest Political Science Conference, April 16-19, 2015, Chicago, IL

1 Fellow, Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics; Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Akron. [email protected]

There is little disagreement that American political parties are ideologically polarized.

Political science, however, has tended to treat ideology as an exogenous variable. Most studies tend

to “measure” ideology, but the degree to which ideology is distinct from party unity is unclear

(Krehibel 1998; Cox and McCubbins 1993). In sum, however, political scientists have found that a

unidimensional, liberal-conservative conceptualization of ideology to be empirically useful

(Abramowtiz 2010; Poole, McCarty and Rosenthal 2006; Jost, Nosek and Gosling 2008).

There is considerable research in social psychology that the underlying reasons for the

attraction to these polar ends is rooted in both biological and psychological factors (Hibbing 2013).

These explanations are perhaps less philosophical and more empirically driven than previous claims

about the nature of human morality. Considerable research suggests that the liberal-conservative

polarization most likely masks a multidimensional foundation, whether this is rooted in genetics,

culture, personality or socio-economics, or some combination of these factors (Carney et al 2009;

Mondack; 2010; Hetherington and Weiler 2009).

In recent years, social psychologists have proposed a “moral foundations” theory to describe

fundamental human dimensions of morality (Graham, Haidt, and Nosek 2009). Haidt 2012) has

shown that differences in party ideology are partially rooted in moral intuitions. Empirical work

testing moral foundations theory provides compelling evidence that five “taste buds” make up the

foundations for nearly all moral beliefs. These foundations are 1) care/harm, 2) fairness/cheating 3)

loyalty/betrayal, 4) authority/subversion and 5) sanctity/degradation.2 Use of the moral foundations,

theory, therefore, could help detect different types of intra-party ideological variance, such as

libertarian vs. religiously conservative Republicans or moderate “Blue Dog” vs. progressive

Democrats.

2 Haidt provides some evidence that there may in fact be six foundations, including a liberty/freedom foundation.

Moral foundations theory has had considerable success in explaining differences between

Democrats and Republicans in their policy preferences. In general, extensive survey research has

consistently demonstrated that liberals generally tend to endorse only two dimensions, while

conservatives tend to weigh a broader spectrum of considerations in their moral judgments

(Graham, Haidt, and Nosek 2009, Haidt 2012; Clifford and Jerit. 2013).

There is some debate whether there is a separate sixth dimension of liberty. Initially, Haidt

and his colleagues identified five foundations. Recent work has shown that the second foundation,

equality and reciprocity, taps into different considerations for Republicans and Democrats (Iyer,

Koleva, Graham, Ditto, and Haidt 2012). Libertarianism tends to be orthogonal to the liberal-

conservative divide; libertarians are less empathetic, but much more sensitive to violations of

procedural fairness, and yet often have attitudes streaked with anti-authoritarianism. The Tea Party

movement tends to focus more on restrictions on the power and authority of government and

places value on individual freedom from government. Subsequent research by Haidt and his

colleagues provides empirical support there are probably more than five dimensions and the

strongest candidate for inclusion would be the “liberty/oppression” foundation (Haidt 2013).

None of this tells us much about the variance properties of moral foundations theory. In this

paper, I examine state party platforms in order to uncover the moral principles underpinning party

issue positions. In previous studies, I have demonstrated that state party platforms exhibit a high

degree of within and between-party variance in terms of ideology and issue positons (Coffey 2007;

2011; 2014). There is good reason, to believe then, that cultural or contextual factors will influence

party morality due to the federal nature of the American party system and cultural diversity in the

United States. The review of state party platforms demonstrates that nearly all party positions are

grounded in moral terms that can be categorized into the dimensions identified by moral

foundations theory. Republicans and Democrats rely on different considerations as predicted by the

theory, such that Republican platforms endorse the full range of moral foundations, while

Democrats tend to restrict morality to the care/harm and fairness/equality foundations.

This research also explores the public nature of the platforms. Platforms are often written by

committees and are intended to foster intra-party unity. As a result, they represent some degree of

“reflective equilibrium” in that parties, seeking to build consensus, craft positions to gain the

support of factions within the organization (Noel 2013). While sometimes state party platform

committees include planks to simply appease a particular group, often party platform planks and the

language articulating the policy position is designed to appeal to the moral beliefs of a diverse group

of supporters. As such, state party platforms often endorse multiple foundations within each issue or

policy position. Studying how moral language is used by parties attempting to appeal to multiple

groups within an electorate provides a new avenue for understanding the intersection of politics and

morality. This study provides new insight into how party moral beliefs are developed, how they

change over time and how parties win support among different groups within the electorate.

Morality by Committee

While moral foundations theory has solid empirical grounding, the research in this field has largely

been focused on distilling the separate nature of each foundation. Indeed, the research largely been

survey-driven. In this sense, moral foundations can be used to accurately describe the innate

morality produced through evolution, as well as the acceptance of moral principles as they are

affected by social or cultural context. In sum, moral foundation theory has so far sought to explain

individual variance in moral beliefs (Graham, Haidt, and Nosek 2009, Haidt 2012).

Parties, by contrast, are composed of groups of individuals who may share basic personality

dispositions and moral beliefs, but who often disagree about policy or the exact rationale for

pursuing different policies. Noel’s (2013) recent work on political parties and ideology demonstrates

that ideology and partisanship can overlap substantially, but ideology is a fundamentally different

concept than the party which pursues that ideology. As such, party positions are more dynamic and

philosophically inconsistent than much recent work on the psychological roots of ideology would

predict.

Political science has shown that individual attitudes are highly susceptible to elite discourse

(Zaller 1992; Druckman, Peterson and Slothuus 2013) and interpersonal discussion (Mutz 2006 ).

Studies of priming and framing consistently show that individual preferences are highly affected by

context (Iyengar and Kinder 1982). Priming and framing effects can be limited when citizens are

exposed to competing frames and different considerations;. (Chong and Druckman 2013).

As a result, we have only broad predictions about how moral principles will be shaped

through public debate. Partisan expressions of political morality may be different than what can be

detected in a survey because the process for generating the policy position consists of bargaining and

reasoning among factions within the party. Political argumentation is a form of public is reasoning

to both persuade others, but often to change what the argument is about (Noel 2014). Political

language requires making appeals to others that will be found convincing (Hart, Childers and Lind

2013). Indeed, recent evidence shows that the appeal of moral foundations shifts as respondents are

exposed to different moral frames (Day, Fiske, Downing, and Trail 2014).

Party Platforms and Party Morality

A unique way to test these claims is by focusing on state party platforms. These are ideal for

several reasons. First, they are “official” pronouncements of party policy and this elite nature .

Second, parties are able to articulate not just their policies but the moral justification of their policy

positions. Third, individual states craft platforms so that internal variance, especially regional

variance can be detected. e public nature of platforms and their committee approach to writing leads

to multiple issues being addressed.

Not all states write platforms. Of the 100 state parties, about two-thirds write platforms

every four years; some issue platforms every two years while others issue platforms sporadically. The

platforms are usually fairly lengthy; they are often comparable in length to gubernatorial state of the

state speeches ad so they tend to provide rich descriptions of party beliefs and policy positions.

For several reasons we should expect heterogeneity in party moral beliefs. Social

psychologists have noted that while many are universal, culture can powerfully shape basic beliefs

about right and wrong. In the American context, it has long been noted that the states are culturally

quite distinct, even if there remains disagreement about how this can be empirically measured. At

the least, compositional differences are substantial across states (Gimpel and Sckekek 2004 Gimpel

and Schuknecht 2003; Stonecash, Brewer, and Mariani 2003); Talhelm et al 2013). States in the U.S.

have differed dramatically in their political development. Daniel Elazar’s (1968) trichotmomy of

political cultures (moralist, individualist, and traditionalist), continues to predict a range of state

policy differences, while other scholars similar typologies Lieske (2012; Woodward (2012). In fact, a

recent study found that basic personality differences exist across states (Rentfrow et al 2013). In

sum, we should expect some degree of diversity in terms of the acceptance of moral foundations

across U.S. states, both between and within parties.

Data and Methods

To assess party issue agendas, I performed a manual content analysis of eight state Democratic and

Republican platforms, four from each party written in 2008. The platforms were coded into six

moral foundations (including one for liberty) and into 25 issue categories by sentence. 1331

sentences were coded. The states selected were Maine, West Virginia, Idaho and California. The

platforms were selected for regional diversity and because they were comparable in terms of length

and ideology (see appendix 1). The four states selected for regional diversity and to make sure that

the platforms were of roughly equal length, as platform content and format can often vary

substantially from state to state. The four state platforms contain nearly equal numbers of

sentences.3

The platforms were coded manually with the assistance for additional coders for reliability.

Computer-assisted-text-analysis (CATA) programs have numerous advantages over human coding

(Grimmer and Stewart 2013 Young and Soroka 2011; Grimmer 2010; Weinberg 2010; Hart, Childers

and Lind 2013). At the same time, for exploratory work, human coding can preserve semantic

validity while definitions and coding rules are established. These can later be used as a baseline for

CATA methods (Lowe and Beniot and 2013).4

Few sentences in the state party platforms are descriptive; almost all sentences contain some

moral or prescriptive content. For example, the statement in the 2008 Idaho Republican platform

“We recognize the increasing role of technology in society” is descriptive and was not coded into

any of the moral categories. Later, however, the party states, “We believe parents have the right to

educate their children at home , that court rulings that undermine these rights devalue the important

role of parents and family in a child’s education.”

Few sources really allow a researcher to put the state party on the psychological couch, so to

speak. In the platforms, state parties expend considerable space to articulate exactly what they

believe in detailed terms both in policy specifics and in terms of the moral underpinnings of their

beliefs. The platforms represent the formal positions of the state organizations, whether they are put

together by the state party central committee or written by activists at the precinct level. Certainly,

3 A larger analysis is currently being conducted for all platforms written between 2008 and 2012 with over 20,000 individual sentences were coded, providing a detailed window into the priorities of state party leaders and activists. 4 A dictionary of moral terms is currently being tested for all platforms written in 2008 and 2012.This dataset contains only 400,000 words and is ideal for using CATA.

state platforms cannot be said to represent the single view of an entire state party. Indeed, part of

the value of studying these platforms is that they are windows into not only the core values of the

parties, but the conflicts and tensions that exist within and across state parties.

The platforms address numerous issues. Of the 25 categories, every single one was

addressed. Consequently, the platforms are representative of the full range of debate in American

politics. I have previously shown that state party platforms written from 2000 to 2004 are highly

polarized (Coffey 2007; 2011; 2014). Evidence of this polarization, along with intra-party ideological

heterogeneity is provided in Appendix II and III.

Table 1: Primary Moral Foundation of State Party Platform Sentences

Democrats Republicans

Harm/Care 34.0 (224) 19.1 (126) Fairness/Equality 43.5 (286) 37.6 (248) Liberty/Oppression 10.6 (70) 21.1 (139) Loyalty/Betrayal 1.4 (9) 7.3 (48) Sanctity/Purity 7.9 (52) 5.5 (36) Tradition/Authority 2.6 (17) 9.4 (62) No Category .5 (3) .2 (10) N 661 670

Cell entries represent percentage of sentences referencing the moral foundation; sentences are in parentheses.

The results a show that the state parties framed their positions in clearly identifiable moral

terms. Fewer than one percent of sentences did not make a moral claim or frame a policy in moral

terms. This is not surprising; the documents are specifically crafted to provide justification for party

policy positions (Coffey 2006). As predicted, Democrats overwhelmingly articulate policy positions

using two moral frames, Harm/Care and Fairness/Equality. Nearly 80 percent of sentences

primarily referred to these foundations. In comparison, 56.7 percent of Republican sentences refer

to these dimensions. Republicans were twice as likely to base policy positions on the liberty

foundation than Democrats. The remainder of moral foundations were spread fairly evenly across

foundations for Republicans, although Democrats were slightly more likely to base policy positions

in terms of sanctity/purity than Republican platforms (especially environmental views).

The policy positions articulated in the platforms also demonstrate clear evidence of the

mixing of moral foundations. Nearly 70 percent of sentences contained an identifiable references to

another moral foundation. On the second dimension, some differences emerge. While Democratic

platforms generally were less likely to endorse liberty as a primary moral concern, nearly one-third of

statements refer to individual freedom or oppression. Democrats are also slightly more likely to refer

to conservative foundations such as tradition and loyalty, with nearly four times the frequency

compared the first dimension. Republicans, in contrast, largely shift the secondary emphasis to the

remaining foundations, especially more likely to endorse sanctity and loyalty compared to the

primary considerations.

Table 2: Secondary Moral Foundation of State Party Platform Sentences

Democrats Republicans

Harm/Care 30.0 (135) 20.0 (90) Fairness/Equality 27.3 (123) 24.9 (112) Liberty/Oppression 24.4 (110) 23.3 (105) Loyalty/Betrayal 6.0 (27) 10.4 (47) Sanctity/Purity 3.6 (16) 10.0 (45) Tradition/Authority 8.7 39) 11.3 (51) Total 31.9 (211)

32.8 (220)

Cell entries represent percentage of sentences referencing the moral foundation; sentences are in parentheses.

Particularly of interest is how the parties combine these foundations. For Democrats, nearly all

issues are translated in some way into the “Care/Harm” dimension. A good example of this is with

immigration in the 2008 California Democratic platform. The platform states, “[We] Affirm efforts to

provide equal access to housing to all immigrants and condemn any xenophobic or racist conduct

that denies equal housing to all , including a landlord s inquiry into the citizenship or immigration

status of a tenant or a prospective tenant.” The statement is largely about ensuring immigrants are

treated fairly, but stressing the need to make sure that immigrants are protected against attacks. This

was common in discussions about the environment, with statements about preserving the pristine

nature of the environment stressing both purity (restricted access or pollution reduction) with the

same language used in statements about social welfare programs and disadvantaged groups. Veterans

issues also demonstrated this pattern; veterans were held up as models of sacrifice but nearly all

statements included references to the need to provide medial and education benefits to veterans as

well.

In contrast, Republican platforms were much less predictable in terms of how issues were

combined. Fairness and liberty were frequently combined, and most issues were framed to refer to

fairness-as-proportionality. This is illustrated in the following statement by the Maine Republicans:

“We believe private ownership of Maine lands is consistent with our economic system, limited

government , good land stewardship and our Constitution , as such , we support the right of

property owners to develop the Maine Woods in a responsible and lawful manner.” Here, the

mixing of ideas is at full force. An individual might come up with these different sentiments on their

own, but this is less likely than when a party committee is coming up with a policy to satisfy and gain

the consensus of many individuals. The analysis also reveals the striking mixing of the care and

purity foundations in Republican platforms, as evidenced in the Idaho Republican platform:

“Families, not government programs , are the best way to properly nurture and protect our children

, care for our elderly , preserve and perpetuate our cultural and spiritual heritage , and assure that our

traditional values are transmitted to the next generation.”

Table 3: Republican Combinations of Moral Foundation Harm/Care Fairness Liberty/

Oppression Loyalty/ Betrayal

Sanctity/ Purity

Tradition/ Subversion

Total

Harm/Care 36 (31) 25.6 (22) 7 (6) 22.1 (19) 9.3 (8) 100 (86)

Fairness 26.9 (45) 37.1 (62) 19.2 (32) 6.6 (11) 100 167)

Liberty/Oppression 9.3 (9) 58.8 (57) 2.1 (2) 6.2 (6) 23.7 (23) 100 (97)

In-Group 41.4 (12) 34.5 (10 3.4 (1) 13.8 (4) 6.9 (2) 100 (29)

Sanctity/Purity 58.1 (18) 9.7 (3) 12.9 (4) 16.1 (4) 3.2 (1) 100 (31)

Tradition/Respect 15 (6) 27.5 (11) 40 (16) 5 (2) 12.5 (5) 100 (40)

Note: Rows represent primary moral consideration; columns represent secondary dimension Table 4: Democratic Combinations of Moral Foundations Harm/Care Fairness Liberty/

Oppression Loyalty/ Betrayal

Sanctity/ Purity

Tradition/ Subversion

Total

Harm/Care 53.8 (77) 18.2 (26) 11.9 (17) 7.0 (10) 8.4 (12) 100 143)

Fairness 39.7 (75) 42.9 (81) 4.8 (9) 2.6 (5) 10.1 (19) 100(189)

Liberty/Oppression 32.8 (19) 53.4 (31) 1.7 (1) 0 (0) 12.1 (7) 100 (58)

In-Group 100 (4) 100 (4)

Sanctity/Purity 78.0 (32) 17.1 (7) 2.4 (1) 2.4 (1) 0 (0) 100 (41)

Tradition/Respect 26.7 (4) 53.3 (8) 13.3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6.7 (1) 100 (15)

Note: Rows represent primary moral consideration; columns represent secondary dimension

Finally, we can see how the parties differ in how moral beliefs are invoked for different

issues. Not surprisingly, Democrats largely alternate between relying on sentiments to care or protect

from harm as well as to provide for fair and equal treatment. Of the 25 issues, only two (federalism

and party organizational statements) did not include , Care and Fairness/Equality are the moral basis

for the party position. Republicans, in contrast, address the care dimension only twice (compared to

eight times for Democrats) as the main consideration on the 25 issues. Proportionality and liberty

were the most likely combination (seven issues).

We can also see how parties differ in the moral basis for policy positions, but also how they

are similar. For example, as expected, Republicans largely express social welfare policy through

proportionality, while Democrats emphasis the need to care for recipients. The parties are talking

past each other on gay rights; Democrats emphasize liberty and fairness, while Republicans

emphasize sanctity and tradition. There is certainly some overlap, but it is important to recognize

that on only one issue, education, do the parties have the same ordering of moral concerns.

Table 4: Moral Foundations by Issue

Democrats Republicans Primary Secondary Primary Secondary

Budgets and Taxes Fairness ------ Fairness Liberty

Econ. Development Fairness Care Fairness Liberty

Social Welfare Care Fairness Fairness Care

Health Care Care Fairness Liberty Fairness

Infrastructure/Energy Fairness Purity Fairness Care

Veterans Care Fairness Loyalty Care

Crime and Courts Care Fairness Fairness Care

General Principles Fairness Care Liberty Tradition

Immigration Fairness Care Fairness Purity

Civil Rights Fairness Care Fairness Liberty

Gay Rights Liberty Fairness Purity Tradition

Abortion, Euthanasia Liberty Care Care Liberty

Education Fairness Care Fairness Care

Environment Purity Care Fairness Care

Federal-State-Local Liberty Tradition Fairness Tradition

Cultural Development Liberty Fairness -------- --------

Campaign Finance Fairness -------- Fairness Liberty

Terrorism Care Liberty Care Fairness

Foreign Policy Care Fairness Fairness Tradition

Partisan Statements Loyalty ---------- Loyalty Tradition

Civil Liberties Liberty Care Liberty Tradition

Gun Rights/Control Care Liberty Liberty Fairness

Drug Policy Care --------- Fairness Tradition

Voting and Elections Fairness Tradition Liberty Fairness

Open Government Fairness Liberty Fairness Loyalty

Conclusion

The federal nature of American parties provides an opportunity to study the intersection of human

morality and political coalition-building. While Moral Foundations Theory has solid empirical

support, an emerging body of research shows that moral beliefs are mediated by contextual factors.

This paper demonstrates that American state political parties largely follow the predictions of MFT

in that Democratic state agendas are relatively narrower in their moral outlook compared to

Republican agendas. I also find strong evidence that a sixth “liberty” dimension is needed to fully

explain the moral beliefs articulated in the platforms.

Finally, this research indicates that MFT can be further understood by studying both ends of

the causal process. Moral beliefs are both innate and acquired. Citizens have moral beliefs they are

born with, and yet cultural factors determine the relative salience of these moral frames. Parties and

politicians both reflect and produce the moral frames citizens use in their political evaluations.

Parties are, by their very nature, consensus-building institutions, and so their statements about their

reasons behind their policy positions can be very illuminating. By examining political platforms and

other types of overtly political messages, social scientists can learn more about how specific issues

come to acquire distinct moral frames. Future research can benefit by examining MFT in situations

requiring cooperation amongst individuals and groups to establish consensus for agendas.

Works Cited

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center., Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American

Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” Journal of Politics, 70:

542-555.

Aldrich, John H. 2011. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Benoit, Kenneth, and Michael Laver. 2008. “Compared to What? A Comment on ‘A Robust

Transformation Procedure for Interpreting Political Text’ by Martin and Vanberg.”

Political Analysis 16:101–11.

Budge, Ian, David Robertson, and Derek Hearl, eds. 1990. Ideology, Strategy, and Party

Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Carnes, Nate C. Brian Lickel1, and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman. 2015. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin. . 41: 351–362.

Carney, Dana R., John T. Jost, Samuel D. Gosling and Jeff Potter. 2008. “The Secret Lives of

Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They

Leave Behind.” Political Psychology 29: 807-840.

Clifford, Scott, and Jennifer Jerit. 2013. “How Words Do the Work of Politics: Moral

Foundations Theory and the Debate over Stem Cell Research." The Journal of Politics 75:

659-671.

Chong, Dennis and James N. Druckman. 2013. “Counterframing Effects.” The Journal of Politics, 75:

1–16.

Coffey, Daniel. 2005. “Measuring Gubernatorial Ideology: A Content Analysis of State of the State

Speeches.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5:88–103.

_________. 2006. State Party Agendas: Representation in an Era of Polarized Parties. Unpublished

Dissertation.

_________. 2007. “State Party Activists and State Party Polarization,” in Green, John C. and

Daniel J. Coffey, The State of the Parties, 5th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

_________. 2011. “More than a Dime's Worth: Using State Party Platforms to Assess the Degree

of American Party Polarization.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44: 331-337

Conger, Kimberly H. 2010. “Party Platforms and Party Coalitions: The Christian Right and State-

Level Republicans.” Party Politics 16:651–68.

Cox, Gary and Matthew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Day, Martin V., Susan T. Fiske, Emily L. Downing, and Thomas E. Trail. 2014. “Shifting Liberal

and Conservative Attitudes Using Moral Foundations Theory.” Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin. 40: 1559-1573.

Druckman, James N., Erik Peterson, and Rune Slothuus. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization

Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107: 57-79.

Egan, Patrick. 2013. Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Erikson, Robert S., Gerald C. Wright, and John McIver. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion

and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2007. “Measuring the Public’ Ideological Preferences in the 50 States: Survey Responses

versus Roll Call Data.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7 (2): 141–51.

Gelman, Andrew, David Park, Boris Shor, Joseph Bafumi and Jeronimo Cortina 2008. Red State,

Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Gerring, John. 1998. Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grimmer, Justin and Brandon M. Stewart 2013. “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of

Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts.” Political Analysis. 21: 267–297

Hart, Roderick P., Jay P. Childers and Colene J. Lind. 2013. Political Tone: How Leaders Talk and Why.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and

Religion. Pantheon: New York.

______. 2013. “Of Freedom and Fairness.” Democracy Journal 28:38-50.

Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan. 2010. “The Weirdest People in the World?” Behavioral Brain

Science 33: 61-83.

Hetherington, Mark. J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.”

American Political Science Review 95:619–32.

Hetherington, Mark and Jonathan D. Weiler. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American

Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iyer Ravi, Koleva Spassena, Graham Jesse, Ditto Peter, Haidt Jonathan. 2012. Understanding

Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians. PLoS

ONE 7(8).

Jacoby, William G. and Saundra K. Schneider. 2001. “Variability in State Policy Priorities: An

Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Politics 63: 544-568.

John T. Jost, Brian A. Nosek, and Samuel D. Gosling.2008. “Ideology: Its Resurgence in Social,

Personality, and Political Psychology.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3: 126-136.

Kidd, Quentin. 2008. “The Real (Lack of) Difference between Republicans and Democrats: A

Computer Word Score Analysis of Party Platforms, 1996–2004.” PS: Political Science and

Politics 41:519–25.

Krippendorf, Klaus. 2012. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, 3rd ed. New York: Sage.

Krehibel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Lakoff, George. 2002. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Laver, Michael and John Garry. 2000. “Estimating Policy Positions from Political Texts.”

American Journal of Political Science 44: 619-634.

Laver, Michael, Kenneth Benoit, and John Garry. 2003. “Extracting Policy Positions from Political

Texts Using Words as Data.” American Political Science Review 97:311–31.

Layman, Geoffrey, and Thomas Carsey. 2002. “Party Polarization and ‘Conflict Extension’ in the

American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 46:786–802.

Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey, John C. Green, Richard Herrera, and Rosalyn

Cooperman. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American

Political Science Review 104(2): 324-46.

Lieske, Joel. 2012. “American State Cultures: Testing a New Measure and Theory." Publius 42: 108-

133.

Lowe, Will and Kenneth Benoit 2013. “Validating Estimates of Latent Traits from Textual Data

Using Human Judgment as a Benchmark.” Political Analysis 21: 298-313.

Lowe, Will, Ken Benoit, Slava Mihaylov, and Michael. Laver. 2011. “Scaling Policy Preferences

from Coded Political Texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36: 123–55.

Martin, Lanny W., and George Vanberg. 2008. “A Robust Transformation Procedure for

Interpreting Political Text.” Political Analysis 16:93–100.

McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology

and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mondak, Jeffrey, J. 2010. Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Rentfrow, Peter J., Michal Kosinski, David J. Stillwell, Samuel D. Gosling, Markus Jokela, Jeff

Potter. 2013. “Divided We Stand: Three Psychological Regions of the United States and

Their Political, Economic, Social, and Health Correlates.” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology.

Talhelm, T., Zhang, X., Oishi, S., Chen, S., Duan, D., Lan, X., & Kitayama, S. (in press). Discovery

of large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice vs. wheat agriculture.

Science.

Weinberg, Micah. 2010. “Measuring Governors’ Political Orientations Using Words as Data.” State

Politics and Policy Quarterly 10:96–109.

Young, Lori, and Stuart Soroka. 2011. “Affective news: The Automated Coding of Sentiment in

Political Texts.” Political Communication 29: 205–31

Woodward, Colin. 2012. American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North

America. New York: Penguin.

Appendix One: Platform Sentence Length

State Democrats Republicans

California 315 202

Idaho 107 294

Maine 115 40

West Virginia 124 134

Cell entries are the number of sentences and quasi-sentences in each platform.

Appendix II: State Party Issue Attention Difference

Appendix III: State Party Issue Polarization