Back to Podcasts
October 15, 2018
+Public Policy
Episode 36: Julie Wronski, How Authoritarianism Divides the Democratic Party
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS
Show Notes
In today’s episode, Chris talks to Julie Wronski, professor of political science at the University of Mississippi. In a new paper, she and her coauthors show a difference between the average authoritarianism of Bernie Sanders voters and Hillary Clinton voters. Most of us know how to identify authoritarian leaders, but in today’s interview Julie explains how to define authoritarianism among voters, and why her findings matter to people outside political science. Timeline 0:00 Intro 3:05 Why do people associate authoritarianism with conservatives? 6:00 Why is authoritarianism dividing parties now? 13:00 Bob Altemeyer’s method of measuring authoritarianism 17:10 The right-wing measure vs. child-rearing measure of authoritarianism 25:18 Why is this relevant to other academics? ArticleWronski, Julie et al. (2018). “A Tale of Two Democrats: How Authoritarianism Divides the Democratic Party.” Journal of Politics 80(4): 1384- 1388.Books
Altemeyer, Enemies of Freedom Stenner, The Authoritarian Dynamic Heatherington & Weiler, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics; Heatherington & Weiler, Prius or Pickup: How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great DivideSee the full list of episodes of Half Hour of Heterodoxy >>
Transcript
This is a transcript of this episode.Related Podcasts
S2 Episode 24: From Wokeness to Pluralism: A New Vision for Universities
November 12, 2024+Eboo Patel
+Viewpoint Diversity+Public Policy+Campus Policy+Open Inquiry+Constructive Disagreement+Teaching+Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)+Faith & Religion
S2 Episode 23: The Classroom Legislative Battle
October 22, 2024+Keith Whittington
+Viewpoint Diversity+Institutional Neutrality+Public Policy+Campus Policy
great minds don't
always think alike
Make a Donation
Your generosity supports our non-partisan efforts to advance the principles of open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement to improve higher education and academic research.