(538) Americans are shifting the rest of their identity to match their politics - Polidicks

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-are-shifting-the-rest-of-their-identity-to-match-their-politics/?ex_cid=2018-forecast We generally think of a person’s race or religion as being fixed — and that those parts of identity (being black, say, or evangelical Christian) drive political views. Most African- Americans vote Democratic. Most evangelical Christians vote Republican. But New York University political scientist Patrick Egan has written a new paper showing evidence that identity and politics operate in the opposite direction too — people shift the non-political parts of their identity, including ethnicity and religion, to align better with being a Democrat or a Republican. Egan used public opinion data collected through the General Social Survey, one of the most reliable measures of Americans’ views of political and social attitudes that we have. The GSS is conducted every two years and surveys a rotating panel of respondents. Some respondents agree to follow-up interviews two years and four years after their initial interview. Egan’s data set was made up of about 3,900 people who were interviewed three times for the GSS surveys, starting either in 2006, 2008 or 2010 (so the most recent data was from people interviewed in 2010, 2012 and 2014). All three times, respondents were asked to rank themselves on a seven-point ideological scale (from “extremely liberal,” to “moderate, middle of the road,” to “extremely conservative.”) They were also asked questions about aspects of their identity that, at least in theory, are non-ideological — questions like: 1) “From what countries or part of the world did your ancestors come?” and 2) “What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?” There was more inconsistency among answers to these types of questions than I would have expected. For example, about a quarter of people who identified themselves as born- again Christian in at least one of the three interviews either had not described themselves that way in a previous interview or stopped describing themselves that way in a later interview. Nearly half of respondents who identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual at some point during the three interviews did not identify themselves that way in all three (meaning that some people stopped identifying as LGB, while others started to after not having done so at first). Egan found that these shifts were correlated with political ideology and partisanship: -Liberal Democrats were much more likely than conservative Republicans to start identifying as Latino or saying that their ancestry was African, Asian or Hispanic. -Conservative Republicans were much more likely than liberal Democrats to become born-again Christians and to stop identifying as non-religious; liberal Democrats were much more likely than conservative Republicans to leave religion and stop describing themselves as born-again. -Conservative Republicans were more likely than liberal Democrats to stop describing themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual; liberal-leaning Democrats were more likely to start identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual. In a recently published book, the University of Pennsylvania’s Michele Margolis makes a case similar to Egan’s, specifically about religion: Her research found, for example, that church attendance by Democrats declined between 2002 and 2004, when then-President Bush and Republicans were emphasizing Bush’s faith and how it connected to his opposition to abortion and gay marriage. I don’t want to overemphasize the results of these studies. Egan still believes that the primary dynamic in politics and identity is that people change parties to match their other identities. But I think Egan’s analysis is in line with a lot of emerging political science that finds U.S. politics is now a fight about identity and culture (and perhaps it always was). Increasingly, the political party you belong to represents a big part of your identity and is not just a reflection of your political views. It may even be your most important identity. Asked what he thinks the implications of his research are, Egan said that he shies away from saying whether the results are “good or bad.” “I don’t think one kind of identity (say ethnicity or religion) is necessarily more authentic than another (e.g., ideology or party),” he said in an email to FiveThirtyEight. He added: “Throughout American history, different kinds of identities have always advanced into the foreground or retreated into the background. These results add to the growing evidence that in our current era, political affiliations and beliefs are increasingly at the core of many Americans’ self-conceptualizations.” Pretty interesting

It's a fucking horrible time to be alive. I'm begging for the bombs at this point.

or maybe people who are democrats got tired of a church that says one thing and actively works for the exact opposite of that thing while ripping off people or molesting little kids. maybe democrats still see the government as the ultimate bulwork against rampant expansive corporate power and the unchecked wealthy. just saying, their stats don't prove causality

You lot had the chance to vote for giant meteor in 2016.

-Conservative Republicans were more likely than liberal Democrats to stop describing themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual; liberal-leaning Democrats were more likely to start identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual. This part in particular makes me worried that more people are going to be more inclined to think "lol straight people suck" because of this sort of thing.

A straight friend of mine got stabbed by a member of the gay mafia. The growing heterophobia in this country is disgusting :/

What?

Lol "growing heterophobia" imagine that.

I'm talking about half the people on sites like Tumblr who have that kind of mindset, which may or may not possibly expand. Although, I suppose I shouldn't be too worried since they're just a vocal minority. I don't know.

Of all the things to be worried about from that sentence you're worried about that..

All American politics are identity politics now

I'm thinking this kinda division will either never be solved, leading to possible speciation or someshit down the lines if we end up living in separate countries. Or this will be over soon and everyone will just accept leftism as superior to rightism...but as long as people put selfish desires above empathy it'll be hard to get people to that realization.

I remember a study showing people are less willing to marry people of the opposite political party these days, it was like >80% in the 60s

People on those sites are the kind that if they were to actually meet a straight person I seriously doubt they'd be afraid or actively hate them. It's all just fluff so those people can identify themselves with another group of people on that site since they're lonely like the rest of us.

Politics has always been tied to identity. That's never changed and likely never will change. People tend to vote for groups that they think are like them as they may think they'll share the same goals. Identity is a huge part of the human experience. It's not surprising it ties into our politics. People want parties like them and parties want to attract long term supporters. Identity plays into that well.

the divisions are too much, it is only a matter of time before we reach a boiling point

I'll have you know, I actually did vote for giant meteor at 2016. I take no blame for this giant clusterfuck of a mess we've dropped into.

If you actually did vote for giant meteor rather than a runner-up candidate you do bear responsibility for the clusterfuck that you're in because you threw away your vote and, in essence, strengthened the chances for succeeding candidates to win. The only people who don't bear any responsibility at all for this are people whose primary choice lost and who voted for the runner-up candidates in the general.

I don't remember seeing you campaigning? I mean sure you voted I guess but did you really put an effort in?

I don't remember if there were runner up candidates on the ballot or not. If memory serves me, it was a digital vote, and there was only three choices: blue, red, or write-in. So I put in a protest vote instead.

like him campaigning or not would have made ANY difference. quit trying to guilt trip people.

So given that you didn't cast a valid vote, you're partially responsible for the winning candidate gaining their seat. Like in the general if Clinton had won you'd be partially responsible for Clinton winning, and likewise anyone who didn't cast a valid vote in the general is also partially responsible for Trump winning. You realize this, right? Like, unless the entire electorate abstains from voting, this is the effect of protest voting? I'm not trying to shame you or anything but to say 'you take no blame' is categorically incorrect.

if your state votes solidly one color or the other, your vote as a single person does not matter at all. the only votes that matter are in battleground states.

I don't really agree with you there. I chose to vote for the people I wanted in their offices, mostly democrats, and when it came down to the presidential, vice-presidential, and cabinet seats, I chose not to vote for either party. Really, it was a terrible situation overall, and it didn't help that there was practically no coverage of anyone else but the two presidential candidates. I just don't feel like not voting for either party makes me responsible for their win. Back then, it was the lesser of two evils, and instead of sitting at home twiddling my thumbs, I chose to go out there and make my voice heard, even if it was to stick my middle finger in the air at both sides. I could've stayed home, but sometimes a protest vote can be just as valid as one that isn't.

We went straight first into identity politics in the last decade so I'm not sure how any of this is even remotely surprising. People wear their identity on their sleeves now.

This is a good point but there's no way I can know offhand whether, for example, xxfalconxx is in a battlegrounds state or not. If they're not, then fair game protest vote all you want. But if anyone who does happen to live in a battleground state decides to take a protest vote they should understand the game theory of what they're doing. It doesn't say to the system "I am unhappy with the candidates presented", it says "I am okay with whatever the rest of the electorate decides to do", and that's how it will be read by said political system.

Now? Pretty much all politics are identity politics, and have been throughout history. It's a pointless complaint to make.

Meanwhile people identifying as independent is growing so its no surprise that the respective parties are pushing a 'life style' like most fucking corporations have been.

That was largely because both parties were still fairly similar at that point in time. It's a lot easier to get along with someone when the core of their belief system isn't the polar opposite of your own.

This study isn't showing how people have changed, but that this is likely a natural thing that people have always done. They also reiterated that people changing parties to fit their views is the more likely scenario by far - its just that we now know the reverse is possible and in fact does happen. Not surprised, cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug