Who Decides When The Party Doesn’t? Authoritarian Voters and the Rise of Donald Trump

While the party decides theory explains the outcomes of past nomination battles for president, this year in the Republican presidential contest party insiders failed to anoint a standard bearer. Who decides when the party elites don’t? In 2016, it was America’s authoritarian voters. And their candid...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPS, political science & politics Vol. 49; no. 4; pp. 716 - 721
Main Author MacWilliams, Matthew C.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, USA Cambridge University Press 01.10.2016
Subjects
Authoritarianism
Candidates
Fear
Nominations
Partisanship
Personality Traits
Polarization
Political Attitudes
Political parties
POLITICS
Presidential elections
Presidents
Psychological Characteristics
Terrorism
Trump, Donald J
Voters
New York
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:While the party decides theory explains the outcomes of past nomination battles for president, this year in the Republican presidential contest party insiders failed to anoint a standard bearer. Who decides when the party elites don’t? In 2016, it was America’s authoritarian voters. And their candidate of choice, Donald Trump, is anathema to party leaders. I argue that Trump’s rise is in part the result of authoritarian voters’ response to his unvarnished, us-versus-them rhetoric. The failure of Republican Party insiders to coalesce behind one candidate opened the door for Trump. Authoritarian-driven partisan polarization (Hetherington and Weiler 2009), increasing fear of real and imagined threats, and terrorist incidents abroad and at home provided the fuel for Trump’s campaign. And Trump’s message and manner ignited that fuel, propelling him to the Republican nomination for president.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:1049-0965
1537-5935
DOI:10.1017/S1049096516001463