Christopher M. Federico

Concerns about political polarization and threats to democratic ideals are on the rise in the US. The Authoritarian Divide takes on both of these issues by showing how authoritarian predispositions--desires for social conformity and in-group conformity--have influenced American political preferences, voting, and partisanship in recent decades. Voters have increasingly sorted into political parties based on their levels of authoritarianism, with higher levels tending toward the Republican Party and lower levels to Democratic. The authors reveal complexities in this trend, including the outsized effect on White Americans, the dependence on parties offering certain types of choices, and the different ways education level factors into the sorting process. Drawing from nationally representative samples, panel data, and experiments, the book demonstrates that authoritarianism has increasingly structured a wide range of attitudes and has become a growing influence on vote choice. The analysis carries crucial implications for partisan conflict and the future of American democracy.

Debates over redistribution, social insurance, and market regulation are central to American politics. Why do some citizens prefer a large role for government in the economic life of the nation while others wish to limit its reach? In Open versus Closed, the authors argue that these preferences are not always what they seem. They show how deep-seated personality traits underpinning the culture wars over race, immigration, law and order, sexuality, gender roles, and religion shape how citizens think about economics, binding cultural and economic inclinations together in unexpected ways. Integrating insights from both psychology and political science - and twenty years of observational and experimental data - the authors reveal the deeper motivations driving attitudes toward government. They find that for politically active citizens these attitudes are not driven by self-interest, but by a desire to express the traits and cultural commitments that define their identities.

Debates over redistribution, social insurance, and market regulation are central to American politics. Why do some citizens prefer a large role for government in the economic life of the nation while others wish to limit its reach? In Open versus Closed, the authors argue that these preferences are not always what they seem. They show how deep-seated personality traits underpinning the culture wars over race, immigration, law and order, sexuality, gender roles, and religion shape how citizens think about economics, binding cultural and economic inclinations together in unexpected ways. Integrating insights from both psychology and political science - and twenty years of observational and experimental data - the authors reveal the deeper motivations driving attitudes toward government. They find that for politically active citizens these attitudes are not driven by self-interest, but by a desire to express the traits and cultural commitments that define their identities.