Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics
2010/05/01 by GEOFFREY C. LAYMAN, Geoffrey C. Layman, THOMAS M. CARSEY +7 · 353 citations
Business, Management and Accounting · Social Sciences · #Argument (complex analysis) #Convention #Electoral Systems and Political Participation #Extension (predicate logic) #Law #Nomination #Polarization (electrochemistry) #Political Influence and Corporate Strategies #Political economy #Political science #Politics #Politics of the United States #Public administration #Public relations #Social Media and Politics #Sociology #Variety (cybernetics)
paper · doi:10.1017/s000305541000016x
published in American Political Science Review 104(2), 324-346 (Cambridge University Press)
openalex publication_date 2010/05/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
Abstract
Party activists have played a leading role in “conflict extension”—the polarization of the parties along multiple issue dimensions—in contemporary American politics. We argue that open nomination systems and the ambitious politicians competing within those systems encourage activists with extreme views on a variety of issue dimensions to become involved in party politics, thus motivating candidates to take noncentrist positions on a range of issues. Once that happens, continuing activists with strong partisan commitments bring their views into line with the new candidate agendas, thus extending the domain of interparty conflict. Using cross-sectional and panel surveys of national convention delegates, we find clear evidence for conflict extension among party activists, evidence tentatively suggesting a leading role for activists in partisan conflict extension more generally, and strong support for our argument about change among continuing activists. Issue conversion among activists has contributed substantially to conflict extension and party commitment has played a key role in motivating that conversion.
Citations
Cited by
- Values and Political Predispositions in the Age of Polarization: Examining the Relationship between Partisanship and Ideology in the United States, 1988–2012
- Partisan communication in two-stage elections: the effect of primaries on intra-campaign positional shifts in congressional elections
- Selecting for Masculinity: Women’s Under-Representation in the Republican Party
- Process Learning and the Implementation of Medicaid Reform
- The Polarization of Contemporary American Politics
- The Politics of Interpersonal Trust and Reciprocity: An Experimental Approach
- Lights, Camera, Inaction? The Effects of Gavel-to-Gavel Floor Coverage on U.S. State Legislatures
- Contingent Confidence: The Effect of the 2024 Election Outcome on Public and Elite Confidence in National Elections
- The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics
- Welfare, egalitarianism, and polarization: the politics of noncontributory social programs
- Procedural Polarization: How Election Rules Shape Voters’ Confidence
- Populism, Emotions, and Boundary Work Among Political Activists in the Trump Era
- Political polarization in Korea
- Bringing contention in: a critical perspective on political parties as institutions
- Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
- Abortion Attitudes: An Overview of Demographic and Ideological Differences
- Polarization, Demographic Change, and White Flight from the Democratic Party
- How Party Polarization Affects Governance
- Do External Threats Unite or Divide? Security Crises, Rivalries, and Polarization in American Foreign Policy
- Cognitive-motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. [europepmc]
- Political identity and risk politics: Evidence from a pandemic. [europepmc]
- Treating a friend to voter registration in a Divided America. [europepmc]
Related