Ideological labels simplify rather than distort the real political world

Evidence

Finally, one criticism of our empirical analysis is likely to be that the results are time bound: the symbolic meaning associated with the “liberal” and “conservative” terms is a consequence only of the conflicts and events of the 1960s. But, a closer look at our empirical analysis reveals a basis for drawing more general conclusions concerning the meaning of these terms. The nature of the major symbolic referents that defined each label—the reformist and radical left for liberals, and capitalism, social control, and the status quo for conservatives—indicates that the core symbolic meaning of these labels revolves around elements of “change vs. the preservation of traditional values.” In general, liberals seem to favor change and progress even at the expense of government involvement; conservatives, on the other hand, wish to preserve traditional arrangements particularly those threatened by government involvement. This interpretation is somewhat broader than Converse’s (1964) “spend-save” characterization of the differences between liberals and conservatives, although there are certainly elements of such a distinction in our analysis. Similarly, Robinson and Holm’s (1980) recent description of liberals as being “pro-change” and conservatives as “antigovernment” is compatible with the broad lines of our own characterization. … Given this interpretation of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives, it can be argued that at any one point in time the major symbols of change and progress become associated with evaluations of liberals, while the symbols associated with the preservation of traditional values determine evaluations of conservatives. If this is in fact the case, then liberal/conservative identifications should always reflect in symbolic terms the dominant cleavages in society. This would account for the observed changes in the meaning of these terms over time (Erikson et al., 1980); as the cleavages evolve and change so do the symbolic referents associated with each term. Ideological self-identifications, therefore, may serve an important function for the public by providing a symbolic framework which simplifies societal conflicts. Furthermore, these core meanings of change and the preservation of traditional values do capture symbolically the general, more ideological definitions typically associated with these terms. Thus, our analysis suggests that the public’s usage of ideological labels is more a simplification than a distortion of reality, and that ideological identifications constitute more a symbolic than issue-oriented link to the political world. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2085

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Converse’s “nature of belief systems” work and the symbolic politics literature on political labels. — connects to: Anti-Semitism functions as an interchangeable, replaceable programmatic label under Fascism; Applying the fascism label to present-day movements hinders rather than sharpens opposition to them — Arthur Borriello and Anton Jäger, The Populist Moment: The Left After the…, 46; Overly minimal definitions of populism make the label apply to almost all modern politicians — Arthur Borriello and Anton Jäger, The Populist Moment: The Left After the…, 49
• SEED: The claim that ideological self-identification is symbolic rather than issue-oriented is a strong essay angle for explaining why voters so often vote against their issue-based interests.