Mass–Elite Divides in Aversion to Social Change and Support for Donald Trump

Abstract

Donald Trump won the American presidency in 2016 by overperforming expectations in upper Midwest states, surprising even Republican political elites. We argue that attitudes toward social change were an underappreciated dividing line between supporters of Trump and Hillary Clinton as well as between Republicans at the mass and elite levels. We introduce a concept and measure of aversion to (or acceptance of) social diversification and value change, assess the prevalence of these attitudes in the mass public and among political elites, and demonstrate its effects on support for Trump. Our research uses paired surveys of Michigan’s adult population and community of political elites in the Fall of 2016. Aversion to social change is strongly predictive of support for Trump at the mass level, even among racial minorities. But attitudes are far more accepting of social change among elites than the public and aversion to social change is not a factor explaining elite Trump support. If elites were as averse to social change as the electorate—and if that attitude mattered to their vote choice—they might have been as supportive of Trump. Views of social change were not as strongly related to congressional voting choices.

Emotions and Affective Polarization: How Enthusiasm and Anxiety About Presidential Candidates Affect Interparty Attitudes

“…Experiencing positive emotions about the other party’s candidate inherently crosses group boundaries, creating an internal conflict that would necessitate reevaluating intergroup comparisons. For example, many voters in the Midwest who had traditionally voted for Democrats found Trump’s message about resisting social change appealing (see Grossmann & Thaler, 2018). This enthusiasm for Trump likely activated consideration about how and why the Democratic Party had not been meeting their needs.…”

Adaptive and maladaptive narcissism, charisma, and leadership performance: A study of perceptions about the presidential leadership of Donald Trump

“…Despite this, researchers suggest that Trump was viewed as more prototypical by party loyalists (embodying the values of the Republican Party) in comparison to the view of Clinton by Democrats (Christian et al., 2018). Grossmann and Thaler (2018) reflected that many of the same factors that matter in every election explained the 2016 vote choice (over 90% of party loyalists supporting their party’s candidates). The rhetoric used by Trump in appealing to supporters emphasized a return to an earlier era and building economic greatness “… when America was less diverse and (thought to be) more proudly patriotic, criticizing immigration and global openness” (Grossmann and Thaler, 2018: 754).…”

“…Grossmann and Thaler (2018) reflected that many of the same factors that matter in every election explained the 2016 vote choice (over 90% of party loyalists supporting their party’s candidates). The rhetoric used by Trump in appealing to supporters emphasized a return to an earlier era and building economic greatness “… when America was less diverse and (thought to be) more proudly patriotic, criticizing immigration and global openness” (Grossmann and Thaler, 2018: 754). Evaluations of Trump’s leadership and performance post-inauguration are likely to be areas of great interest given earlier assessments of his traits and leadership potential (Williams et al., 2018).…”

Measuring the Contribution of Voting Blocs to Election Outcomes

“…Economics Monnat (N.d.) Economics Weinhold (2018) Economics Goetz et al (2018) Economics Political Science Green and McElwee (2019) Political Science Grossmann and Thaler (2018) Political Science Schaffner, MacWilliams and Nteta (2017) Political Science Lewis-Beck and Quinlan (2019) Political Science Sances (2019) Political Science Reny, Collingwood and Valenzuela (2019) Political Science Bunyasi (2019) Political Science Mutz (2018) Political Science Enns, Lagodny and Schuldt (2017) Political Science Appendix References…”