American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti‐Establishment Orientations
Abstract
Contemporary political ills at the mass behavior level (e.g., outgroup aggression, conspiracy theories) are often attributed to increasing polarization and partisan tribalism. We theorize that many such problems are less the product of left‐right orientations than an orthogonal “anti‐establishment” dimension of opinion dominated by conspiracy, populist, and Manichean orientations. Using two national surveys from 2019 and 2020, we find that this dimension of opinion is correlated with several antisocial psychological traits, the acceptance of political violence, and time spent on extremist social media platforms. It is also related to support for populist candidates, such as Trump and Sanders, and beliefs in misinformation and conspiracy theories. While many inherently view politics as a conflict between left and right, others see it as a battle between “the people” and a corrupt establishment. Our findings demonstrate an urgent need to expand the traditional conceptualization of mass opinion beyond familiar left‐right identities and affective orientations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An antiestablishment scale correlates with acceptance of political violence, time spent on extremist social media platforms, and belief in misinformation.
“They show that it correlates with the acceptance of political violence, time spent on extremist social media platforms, and belief in misinformation.”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Uscinski et al. (2021)
Conspiracy beliefs can contribute to backsliding by leading people to accept misinformation and develop antiestablishment orientations.
“Conspiracy beliefs can contribute to backsliding by leading people to accept misinformation and develop antiestablishment orientations (Uscinski et al., 2021).”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Uscinski et al., 2021
Cites
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785 · see citing works
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity
Mason, L. (2018) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001 · Cited by 1,985 · see citing works
Disinformation’s spread: bots, trolls and all of us
Starbird, K. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02235-x · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
A systems framework for remedying dysfunction in US democracy
Wang, S. S.-H., Cervas, J., Grofman, B., & Lipsitz, K. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2102154118 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Uscinski, J. E., Enders, A. M., Seelig, M. I., Klofstad, C. A., Funchion, J. R., Everett, C., Wuchty, S., Premaratne, K., & Murthi, M. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Miami (US)
- University of Louisville (US)
- Corresponding author
- Uscinski, Joseph E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-07-15
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 877-895
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5907
- OpenAlex
- W3183527329
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 6
- FWCI
- 109.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- left-right ideology, political polarization, conspiracy theories, populism, antisocial personality traits, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, misinformation beliefs, mass opinion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review