economic liberals those who favor an expanded government role in the economy but a limited role in the social order
Economic conservatives, in the upper-right quadrant of the figure, share their liberal counterparts’ reluctance to allow government interference in people’s private lives, but they combine this with a conviction that government should limit involvement in the economy as well. These economic conservatives prefer government to limit its role in economic decision making to regulation of the market (like changing interest rates and cutting taxes to end recessions), elimination of “unfair” trade practices such as monopolies, and provision of some public goods such as highways and national defense. When it comes to immigration, they favor more open policies, since immigrants often work more cheaply and help keep the labor market competitive for business. The most extreme holders of economic conservative views are called libertarians, people who believe that only minimal government action in any sphere is acceptable. Consequently, economic conservatives also hold the government accountable for sticking to the constitutional checks and balances that limit its own power.
economic conservatives those who favor a strictly procedural government role in the economy and the social order
libertarians those who favor a minimal government role in any sphere
Social liberals, in the lower-left quadrant of the figure, tend to favor a substantive government role in achieving a more equal distribution of material resources (such as welfare programs and health care for the poor) but carry that substantive perspective into the social order as well. Although they continue to want the freedom to make individual moral choices that economic liberals want, they are happy to see some government action to create a more diverse and more equal power structure (including the way different groups are treated in the media and popular culture) and to regulate individual behavior to enhance health and safety (promoting environmental protections, motorcycle helmets, gun control, food labeling, restrictions on how food is produced, and the like). The most extreme adherents of social liberalism are sometimes called communitarians for their strong commitment to a community based on radical equality of all people. Because American political culture is procedural both economically and socially, not a lot of Americans are strong adherents of an ideology that calls for a substantive government role in both dimensions. Many economic liberals, however, pick up some of the policy prescriptions of social liberals, like environmentalism and gun control, but do not embrace their more extreme forms of communitarianism.
social liberals those who favor greater control of the economy and the social order to bring about greater equality and to regulate the effects of progress
communitarians those who favor a strong, substantive government role in the economy and the social order in order to realize their vision of a community of equals
Social conservatives occupy the lower-right quadrant in our ideological scheme. These people share economic conservatives’ views on limited government involvement in the economy but with less force and commitment and perhaps for different reasons. (In fact, many social conservatives, as members of the working class, were once liberals under Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s.) They may very well support government social programs like Social Security or Medicaid for those they consider deserving. Their primary concern is with their vision of the moral tone of life, including an emphasis on fundamentalist values of a variety of religions (demonstrated, for instance, by government control of reproductive choices, opposition to gay rights, and promotion of public prayer and the display of religious icons). They endorse traditional family roles, and a rejection of change or diversity that they see as destructive to the preferred social order. Immigration is threatening because it brings into the system people who are different and threatens to dilute the majority that keeps the social order in place. Social conservatives seek to protect people’s moral character rather than their physical or economic well-being, and they embrace an authoritarian notion of community that emphasizes a hierarchical order (everyone in his or her proper place) rather than equality for all. Since limited government is not valued here, a large and powerful state is appreciated as being a sign of strength on the international stage. Patriotism for social conservatives is not a matter of holding the government to the highest procedural standards, as it is for those at the top half of Figure 1.5. Less worried about limiting government power over individual lives, they adopt more of a “my country right or wrong,” “America First” view that sees criticism of the United States as unpatriotic.
social conservatives those who endorse limited government control of the economy but considerable government intervention to realize a traditional social order; based on religious values and hierarchy rather than equality
Figure 1.5 Ideological Beliefs in the United States
Who Fits Where?
Many people, indeed most of us, might find it difficult to identify ourselves as simply “liberal” or “conservative,” because we consider ourselves liberal on some issues, conservative on others. Others of us have more pronounced views. The framework in Figure 1.5 allows us to see how major groups in society might line up if we distinguish between economic and social-moral values. We can see, for instance, the real spatial distances that lie among (1) the religious right, who are very conservative on political and moral issues but who were once part of the coalition of southern blue-collar workers who supported Roosevelt on the New Deal; (2) traditional Republicans, who are very conservative on economic issues but often more libertarian on political and moral issues, wanting government to guarantee procedural fairness and keep the peace, but otherwise to leave them alone; and (3) moderate Republicans, who are far less conservative economically and morally. As recent politics has shown, it can be difficult or impossible for a Republican candidate on the national stage to hold together such an unwieldy coalition.
In the summer of 2009, with the nation in economic crisis and the new African American president struggling to pass his signature health care reform in Washington, a wave of populist anger swept the nation. The so-called Tea Party movement (named after the Boston Tea Party rebellion against taxation in 1773) crafted a narrative that was pro-American, anticorporation, and antigovernment (except for programs like Social Security and Medicare, which benefit the Tea Partiers, who tended to be older Americans). Mostly it was angry, fed by emotional appeals of conservative talk show hosts and others, whose narratives took political debate out of the range of logic and analysis and into the world of emotional drama and angry invective. A New York Times poll found that Americans who identified as Tea Party supporters were more likely to be Republican, white, married, male, and over forty-five, and to hold views that were more conservative than Republicans generally.17 In fact, they succeeded in shaking up the Republican Party from 2010 onward, as they supported primary challenges to officeholders who did not share their antigovernment ideology, culminating in the rejection of the party establishment in 2016. The election that year signaled a moment of reckoning for a party that had been teetering on the edge of crisis for more than a decade. As establishment candidates like former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Ohio governor John Kasich fell in the primaries, so too did Tea Party favorites like Florida senator Marco Rubio and Texas senator Ted Cruz. The split in the party left an opening for the very unconventional candidacy of Donald Trump, which—much to the dismay of party leaders like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell—proved to be more about Trump’s personality and the anger of his followers