IDEOLOGICAL THINKING AMONG MASS PUBLICS AND POLITICAL ELITES

Although the characterization of the general public's levelof attitudinal constraint and continuity as modest has restedin part on assumed contrasts with political elites, there arescarcely any systematic, parallel studies of the two populations.This article utilizes comparable measures from cross-sectionaland panel surveys included in the National Election Studiesand in the National Convention Delegate Studies. Overall, politicalparty elites have a vastly more constrained and stable set ofpolitical preferences—in terms of the traditional liberal-conservativedimension—than does the mass public, a conclusion thatapplies whether the test is a demanding one based on opinionsabout policy issues or a less stringent one based on appraisalsof sociopolitical groups and prominent political actors. Stratifyingthe mass public according to level of political activity generatesclear, steplike differences in constraint and continuity, butideological consistency among party elites substantially exceedsthat of even the most active stratum of the mass public. Theseresults demonstrate that, however flawed the standard surveyinstrument may be as a means of ascertaining ideological thinking,it performs exceedingly well in making the kind of distinctionsto be expected on a priori grounds. The contrasts between thetwo populations have strong implications for two-way flows ofcommunication.