Browsing by Author "Mercieca, Jennifer R"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Conflict-Oriented Group Identity of Partisanship
    (2014-05-07) Ferguson, Grant; Kellstedt, Paul M; Hill, Kim Q; Linn, Suzanna; Mercieca, Jennifer R; Pacek, Alexander C
    This dissertation analyzes partisanship in America. I lay out a new theory of partisanship that shows that how strongly an American identifies with the Democrats or Republicans is due to how likely he or she is to take sides in a conflict and join groups generally. I use data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) and a variety of statistical techniques to demonstrate this. Behavior scholars know much about factors that pull Americans toward the Democrats or Republicans, but little (until now) about how strongly an American is pulled toward either party. Strength of partisanship influences almost all aspects of political behavior. Pure independents, independents who lean toward one party, and weak and strong partisans vary considerably in turnout, vote choice, and political knowledge. My theory explains these differences and improves our understanding of political participation, attitudes, and elections. These findings provide answers for why some people are rabid partisans and others don't care much about their party, and why many Americans who favor one party prefer to remain nominally neutral. Additionally, I use the conflict-oriented, group identity theory of partisanship to explain differences in strength of partisanship between women and men. I analyze ANES data, and use difference-of-means tests and logistic regression to compare partisanship between genders. I show that men's greater tendency to judge things and take sides in a conflict, and women's greater tendency to join groups, explain why women are more likely to identify as weak partisans and men are more likely to identify as independent leaners. Finally, I explain gender differences in the social identity and rational choice theories of partisanship. I examine data from the ANES, National Annenberg Election Survey, and Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, and compare models of partisanship using regression techniques and model tests. Ideology and demographics both significantly influence an American's partisanship, but their relative importance is different for women and men. The rational choice model is comparatively better for men, and the social identity model is comparatively better for women. These results increase our knowledge of the gender gap in political behavior.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Rhetoric of Conflict in Political Theory
    (2014-01-14) Brown, Ted H; Nederman, Cary J; von Vacano, Diego; Koch, Michael T; Mercieca, Jennifer R
    The language surrounding the decision to go to war in American political discourse is often very divisive and draws upon numerous rhetorical traditions. Early research on the question of what types of arguments favoring war has been largely inconclusive. Alongside the facts concerning conflict are numerous orators drawing upon various discourses and intellectual traditions seeking to sway their audience either toward or away from conflict. One such study is the work of James Andrews who conducted case studies to develop an “American adolescence” theory suggesting that arguments of honor and principle were the most persuasive in convincing men to take up arms. This research, however, fails to convincingly answer this question. In this dissertation, I use a rhetorical framework to investigate the types of arguments used in early-American history that try to influence the decision to go to war. Primarily, this dissertation examines Andrews’ theory of principled arguments and employs a second variable, that is, arguments of expediency. I argue that principled arguments are not as successful as Andrews concludes and instead arguments of expediency are more commonplace than arguments of principle. Additionally, I argue that expedient rhetoric is a necessary component for mobilizing mass support for a war but expedient rhetoric is not necessary when arguing for inaction. Rather, principled arguments can also serve to motivate audiences toward inaction. To examine whether Andrews’ theory of principled arguments is largely correct, I first demonstrate that Machiavelli used arguments of expediency in an attempt to convince the Medici to go to war. From this example, I conduct three case studies where arguments of principle and arguments of expediency are both present. I find that in arguments prior to the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War are largely a mixed bag. In the American Revolution and the War of 1812, arguments of expediency are often capable in convincing men to take up arms. However, I demonstrate that in the Mexican-American War, arguments of principle may help to limit the severity of conflict.