Group-interest voters lack the contextual grasp to respond ideologically without elite guidance

Evidence

In the third level were placed respondents who failed to rely upon any such overarching dimensions yet evaluated parties and candidates in terms of their expected favorable or unfavorable treatment of different social groupings in the population. The Democratic Party might be disliked because “it’s trying to help the Blacks too much,” or the Republican Party might be endorsed because farm prices would be better with the Republicans in office. The more sophisticated of these group-interest responses reflected an awareness of conflict in interest between “big business” or “rich people,” on the one hand, and “labor” or the “working man,” on the other, and parties and candidates were located accordingly. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1889 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Group members’ social dominance orientation (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) may be another variable the influence of which can systematically be examined in light of our model of politicized collective identity. We have already indicated that legitimizing myths or ideologies could obstruct, or at least inhibit, the politicizing process. Specifically, hierarchy-enhancing myths can undermine the awareness of shared grievances, foster internal attributions as opposed to external or adversarial attributions, or discourage group members from transforming the in-group/out-group confrontation into a more comprehensive power struggle involving society at large. Research suggests that people high on social dominance orientation are more likely to endorse (hierarchyenhancing) legitimizing myths than people low on social dominance orientation so that social dominance orientation could play an inhibitory role in the politicizing process. However, research also demonstrates that members of low-status groups are generally lower on social dominance orientation than members of high-status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). At the same time, given their relatively disadvantaged social position, members of low-status groups typically have more reason to politicize than members of high-status groups. Taken together, it follows that social dominance orientation and legitimizing myths should not be insurmountable obstacles to a politicized collective identity for those who need it most. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4440 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Voters function merely as a medium for corporate political influence — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s…, 346; Group intentions cannot be reliably ascribed to legislatures — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2482; Citizens often lack formed preferences absent forums for collective deliberation — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 313 (+12 more)

Broader Connections

• Most voters evaluate politics through group-interest loyalties rather than ideology #corroborates (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1889
• Low-status groups’ lower social dominance orientation means ideology does not block their politicization #complicates (0.72) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4440