1
Abstract:
Macro-level studies of public opinion have consistently shown that American citizens are
operationally liberal, but ideologically conservative. The public holds liberal preferences on a wide
range of spending, social, and cultural issues, but identifies primarily as “conservative.” At the micro
level, this “paradox” means that a large segment of the population holds conflicted political
preferences, identifying as ideologically conservative, but holding predominantly liberal positions on
issues. These “conflicted conservatives,” who comprise around one-fifth of the American public and
identify in roughly equal numbers with the Democratic and Republican parties, present an interesting
and important puzzle for scholars of public opinion.
This paper builds on the ideological self-identification and elite framing literatures to develop
a micro-level theory for the preponderance of “conflicted conservatives.” Because of the way
political arguments are framed by politicians, major parties, and the mass media, the dominant
messages that citizens receive from political elites are themselves conflicted in a way that leads
certain segments of the mass public to identify as “conservative” despite holding predominantly
liberal issue preferences. In addition, and even though conflicted conservatives are less likely than
“consistent” ideologues to understand the political implications of ideological terms, “conservatism”
as a general principle is still important in guiding their political choices. The idea of “conflicted
conservatives” suggests that the meanings of ideological terms—and the use of ideology in
structuring mass decision making—are more multifaceted than is often assumed. The impact of
ideology on political choices is not simply conditioned by education and sophistication; rather,
ideological terms are important to different groups of people for substantively different reasons.
These findings have implications for the study of both mass opinion and American electoral
dynamics.
Convention