Culture War Issues Research Articles

High‐status versus low‐status stakeholders

AbstractThe literature on stakeholder theory has largely ignored the difficult and central issue of how judges and firms should resolve disputes among stakeholders. When the issue is addressed, focus has largely been on the potential for management to use stakeholder theory as cover for rent‐seeking or on disputes between classes of stakeholders. Sharply underappreciated is the potential for disparate interests within a stakeholder class. That potential is particularly acute due to a (largely education‐driven) stark and growing class divide in the United States. There is a substantial difference between the interests of a highly educated professional and managerial elite and a pink‐collar and blue‐collar working class who mostly do not hold 4‐year degrees. Despite their smaller numbers, the professional and managerial elite will frequently win out in intra‐stakeholder disputes with working‐class stakeholders due to their greater status, power, and influence. Because this class divide is cultural, social, and political, as well as economic, these disputes will go beyond financial pie‐splitting to culture war issues. This threatens to be destabilizing for both the republic and individual firms and undermines both the practical and ethical arguments for the stakeholder theory.

Policy Solutions: Transgender students: Navigating the politics

Superintendents increasingly are leaving their positions over pressure and vitriol in their communities over culture war issues, such as critical race theory and supports for LGBTQ+ students. Columnist Jonathan E. Collins performed two studies revealing that when policies on transgender students are framed as protection from violence, more people support those policies, regardless of their political affiliation. These considerations could help districts support transgender students without tension and controversy in their communities.

Much Older Than Thought: The Religious-Secular Divide in Mid-Twentieth-Century Canadian Party Preferences

Several studies have established the existence of religious–secular divisions in Canadians’ party preferences in recent elections. Previous research assumes that such differences arose with the emergence of issues often described as part of a culture war between religious and secular at the end of the twentieth century. This study, however, shows that such divisions are of older provenance. Using surveys of voters conducted in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s and controlling for the potential impact of opinions on culture-war issues, the results seen here demonstrate that the religious–secular divide is older than previously believed and not rooted in the proverbial culture wars. This suggests that the religious–secular divide in Canadian politics reflects an even more fundamental and long-standing tension between religious and secular authority.

The battle for trans rights: Political spectacle theory and its implications for education policy

AbstractIn the United States, an increasing political divide and an emphasis on culture war issues have increased legislation and policy targeting transgender and non‐binary students in public education systems. Transgender and non‐binary identities are weaponized by conservative politicians who seek to influence policies in schools. Local, state, and federal protections are the solution to end discriminatory policies and the weaponization of transgender and non‐binary identities for political gain.

State legislative committee deliberations: Why some issues are difficult and where state legislators turn for help

AbstractObjectiveThis study explores why state legislators think some issues are difficult and where they turn for help with these issues.MethodsWe use content analysis of legislators’ interview responses to identify sources of difficulty that arose during committee deliberations.ResultsMany legislators say that issues are difficult because of committee and caucus politics, technical information, interest group pressure, jurisdictional competition, and budget constraints. We find few associations between sources of difficulty and legislator characteristics or institutional context. Mundane issues are often seen as difficult, with culture war issues rarely mentioned.Using cluster analysis, we identify five major categories of issue difficulty. We find that legislators grapple with these categories of difficulty by relying on interest groups, partisan staff, and committee members rather than on caucus leaders, the governor, or their voters.ConclusionThese findings contribute to our understanding of impediments to policy making that legislators navigate in legislative committees.

Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another's opinions

Ideologically committed people are similarly motivated to avoid ideologically crosscutting information. Although some previous research has found that political conservatives may be more prone to selective exposure than liberals are, we find similar selective exposure motives on the political left and right across a variety of issues. The majority of people on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate willingly gave up a chance to win money to avoid hearing from the other side (Study 1). When thinking back to the 2012 U.S. Presidential election (Study 2), ahead to upcoming elections in the U.S. and Canada (Study 3), and about a range of other Culture War issues (Study 4), liberals and conservatives reported similar aversion toward learning about the views of their ideological opponents. Their lack of interest was not due to already being informed about the other side or attributable election fatigue. Rather, people on both sides indicated that they anticipated that hearing from the other side would induce cognitive dissonance (e.g., require effort, cause frustration) and undermine a sense of shared reality with the person expressing disparate views (e.g., damage the relationship; Study 5). A high-powered meta-analysis of our data sets (N=2417) did not detect a difference in the intensity of liberals' (d=0.63) and conservatives' (d=0.58) desires to remain in their respective ideological bubbles.

Moral Power: How Public Opinion on Culture War Issues Shapes Partisan Predispositions and Religious Orientations

Party-driven and religion-driven models of opinion change posit that individuals revise their positions on culture war issues to ensure consonance with political and religious predispositions. By contrast, models of issue-driven change propose that public opinion on cultural controversies lead people to revise their partisan and religious orientations. Using data from four panel studies covering the period 1992–2012, we pit the party- and religion-based theories of opinion change against the issue-based model of change. Consistent with the standard view, party and religion constrain culture war opinion. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, but consistent with our novel theory, opinions on culture war issues lead people to revise their partisan affinities and religious orientations. Our results imply that culture war attitudes function as foundational elements in the political and religious belief systems of ordinary citizens that match and sometimes exceed partisan and religious predispositions in terms of motivating power.

Elite-level issue dynamics

We analyze elite-level issue dynamics of culture war issues in the US from 1971 to 2008 to compare and contrast three theories of issue change: issue evolution, conflict extension, and ideological polarization. Previous studies often conflate these perspectives by only focusing on increased partisanship as evidence of issue change. We argue that these theories differ on a key aspect of issue conflict: dimensionality, that is, the relationship between political conflict on the issue in question and conflict on other issues. We analyze changes in the dimensionality of roll call voting in the US House on the environment, women’s rights, gun control, abortion, and immigration to present a more comprehensive view of issue dynamics. Our results suggest that these perspectives need further clarification and can complement one another. In particular, considering degrees of an issue evolution is beneficial. Although most issues became more partisan as they were simply absorbed into existing partisan cleavages, which is not consistent with some descriptions of an evolution, the more prominent culture war issues, such as abortion and gun control, showed more distinctive and prominent characteristics.

Debating “Intrinsic Evil”

Recent US election cycles, debates about the Affordable Care Act, and a variety of so-called culture war issues have placed the term “intrinsic evil” into public discourse. This issue's roundtable affords readers the opportunity to probe deeply various dimensions of the concept, such as the pedagogical effectiveness of the term, its current use in virtue ethics, and the rhetorical effectiveness of competing moral discourses. The authors' explorations range from consideration of classical questions about the substance and circumstances of acts to a taxonomy for “intrinsic evil” to how social processes affect the discourses available to ethicists.

Debating “Intrinsic Evil”

Recent US election cycles, debates about the Affordable Care Act, and a variety of so-called culture war issues have placed the term “intrinsic evil” into public discourse. This issue's roundtable affords readers the opportunity to probe deeply various dimensions of the concept, such as the pedagogical effectiveness of the term, its current use in virtue ethics, and the rhetorical effectiveness of competing moral discourses. The authors' explorations range from consideration of classical questions about the substance and circumstances of acts to a taxonomy for “intrinsic evil” to how social processes affect the discourses available to ethicists.

Debating “Intrinsic Evil”

Recent US election cycles, debates about the Affordable Care Act, and a variety of so-called culture war issues have placed the term “intrinsic evil” into public discourse. This issue's roundtable affords readers the opportunity to probe deeply various dimensions of the concept, such as the pedagogical effectiveness of the term, its current use in virtue ethics, and the rhetorical effectiveness of competing moral discourses. The authors' explorations range from consideration of classical questions about the substance and circumstances of acts to a taxonomy for “intrinsic evil” to how social processes affect the discourses available to ethicists.

Immigration and National Identity in Obama's America: The Expansion of Culture-War Politics

Abstract: The culture-war issues salient in US politics in the 1990s and early 2000s were typified by debates over the legality and morality of abortion and same-sex marriage. Immigration, in contrast, has been an intermittent issue, not as polarized as many others. That changed with the candidacy and then election of Barack Obama to the presidency. While anti-abortion and “pro-family” activism has continued, there is a new public focus on a vision of “America” that depends upon a conflation of race, religion, and national identity. This has helped transform immigration into a highly charged, highly polarized culture-war-style issue and has facilitated the lasting resonance of the construction of Obama as Muslim, as born in Kenya, as not a citizen, and as both a socialist and a fascist simultaneously. Drawing on popular media discourse and material from Tea Party and immigration reform web sites, I explore the construction of American national identity in terms of its ethno-cultural articulations.

Agenda Control in the 2008 CNN/YouTube Debates

This article examines the evolving dynamic between citizens, journalists, and politicians—what we call agenda control—using the CNN/YouTube presidential primary debates as a case. A systematic content analysis of questions asked and candidates’ answers as compared with standard journalist-as-questioner debates hosted by MSNBC reveals that the dynamic between politicians, journalists, and citizens suggests that journalists do a better job of getting candidates to answer questions than do citizens in the YouTube video format, not by virtue of being journalists, but by virtue of asking the right form of question. Results also indicate that the CNN/YouTube debate questions from citizens failed to reflect the broad set of issues of interest to those who submitted questions, and instead included a disproportionate number of culture–war issues and campaign strategy questions. Findings suggest that journalists maintain the upper hand in agenda control.

Issue Evolution, Political Parties, and the Culture Wars

Using the issue evolution framework, our research examines partisan polarization on several culture war issues, including pornography, environment, gun control, and gay civil rights. We look for evidence of partisan polarization among political elites and citizens, as well as examine top-down versus bottom-up paths of influence among Republicans and Democrats. Data from the General Social Survey and congressional rollcall votes between 1970-1999 are analyzed. Our results suggest that although partisan elites have become increasingly polarized on culture war issues, mass partisans have not followed suit across all issues. Only on environmental and gun control issues do we find significant evidence of issue evolution, including a linkage between elite and mass opinion. We conclude that culture war issues may not be as prone to issue evolution as previous research has indicated, in part because these issues are not all equally salient to the mass public.

Redistributing Values in Congress: Interest Group Influence Under Sub-Optimal Conditions

Empirical studies on the ability of interest groups to influence legislative voting behavior are mixed. Most legislative researchers, however, have avoided studying culture war issues, such as abortion, school prayer, or homosexuality These issues often exhibit extreme levels of conflict and low levels of public and/or legislative support, precisely those conditions under which interest group influence should be weak. My research fills this gap by examining the influence of lesbian and gay interest groups on legislative voting behavior from the 95th to 104th Congresses. I use an exchange theory of interest group/legislator relationships to construct empirical models of House and Senate voting on lesbian and gay issues. I hypothesize that legislative voting is driven by partisanship, ideology, religious beliefs, and constituency opinion, with interest group influence occurring at the margins. The results of multiple regression analysis suggest that interest groups may be able to influence legislative voting behavior even when conditions are sub-optimal. I suggest that interest group influence on culture war issues is conditional, but may be more visible simply because support has been relatively low.