In this article, we build on research on affective (emotion-based) polarization in American politics by investigating whether and how it has manifested in campaigns for the presidency. Drawing on a new data set of more than 11,000 statements about opponents from presidential stump speeches over the 1952-2016 period, we use quantitative content analysis to examine trends in negativity, fearful content, and anger content in these statements. We also conduct case studies of the 1968, 1992, and 2016 elections to examine qualitative patterns in these statements. We find compelling evidence that negative, fearful, and angry content in candidate statements about their opponents has been increasing over time among presidential candidates. We also find indications that fearful and angry rhetoric toward opponents is becoming more directed toward opponents' character flaws rather than their issue stances. Our research suggests that affective polarization in presidential campaigns is a long-term, and likely durable, development.
The field of public health law has been honing important transdisciplinary methods such as legal epidemiology and legal mapping. These methods can and should be integrated into socio-legal studies because they provide us with a way to capture the legal elements of interlocking power structures, offer ways to meaningfully compare and predict what access to rights will look like across jurisdictions, and capture a new way to study legal pluralism across and within jurisdictions. To illustrate the benefit of such methods for studying legal pluralism, this article offers the State Reproductive Autonomy Index, which compares all fifty states on seventy-five variables. Modeled on legal epidemiology’s survey of multiple types of law, including laws that can be classified as infrastructural (laying the institutional or policy parameters), interventionist (specifically targeted to produce a result), and incidental (distally related, not intentionally), this method integrates the work of reproductive justice scholars with the work on legal pluralism to illustrate the vast inequalities in access to reproductive autonomy across the United States. The State Reproductive Autonomy Index also shows why reproductive justice, rather than reproductive rights discourse, is a more accurate frame for understanding laws relating to reproduction and bodily autonomy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.