Political culture and ideology in the Mountain West: regionalism in the state of Idaho

The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

Political culture and ideology in the Mountain West: regionalism in the state of Idaho Leslie R. Alm a,∗ , Ross E. Burkhart a , W. David Patton b , James B. Weatherby b a

b

Department of Political Science, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725-1935, USA Department of Public Policy and Administration, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725-1935, USA

Abstract Analysis of conflict in state politics based on intrastate regionalism is an important, yet neglected, perspective in current scholarship. We demonstrate regionalism’s analytic power by illustrating the case of Idaho. Understanding how regionalism interacts with political culture and political ideology in Idaho should aid the understanding of how the Mountain West (containing the five fastest growing states in the United States in the 1990s) is going to evolve in the coming century. Our research is based on analysis of aggregate data collected at the county level, including a survey conducted in the autumn of 2000 of county-elected officials. We find that regionalism as commonly understood in Idaho needs revision. The north region is really two sub-regions, one extremely conservative, the other the least conservative in the state. We suggest this change in Idaho regionalism affects attitudes toward important policies. © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The study of regionalism and political culture in the United States is meaningful because the very expression of social, economic, and political differences along geographic lines is considered to be “part and parcel of American political life” (Elazar, 1998, p. xix). This sentiment is not new. Key (1949, 1963) highlighted regional cleavages in his analysis of political parties in the democratic process, and Elazar (1966, 1972, 1984) strategically developed a synthesis of three nation-wide political subcultures—individualistic, moralistic, and traditionalistic—within a regional framework. Kincaid summarized this linkage of political culture to regionalism as follows: ∗

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-208-426-4094; fax: +1-208-426-4370. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.R. Alm).

0362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2004.01.009

164

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

Geographic diversity . . . helped to anchor the moralistic, individualistic, and traditionalistic political cultures in particular areas because each regional environment presented sets of common problems and opportunities around which diverse settlers had to organize their social, economic, and political systems. The sharing of long-term common interests and political cultural orientations has continued to invest these regions with political reality. (1982, p. 12)

Recent scholarship shows that within the realm of political culture, regionalism still matters. Despite major changes in social and economic conditions, differences in regional political attitudes appear to linger over long periods of time (Weakliem & Biggert, 1999, p. 864). Scholars continue to find that place of residence and political attitudes are strongly associated with each other (Erikson, Wright, & McIver, 1993, p. 72; Gray, 1999, p. 25). Keating argues that while some observers question the analytical value of regionalism as a concept, “in its varied and changing form, [regionalism] returns regularly to the political agenda” (1997, p. 17). To be sure, regionalism is so pervasive it is rarely overlooked as a cause of political behavior (Landes, 1995, p. 300). Most scholars view regionalism as a dynamic concept based on the interaction between people and their location (Bradshaw, 1988, pp. 7–8; Gray, 1999, p. 25; Weakliem & Biggert, 1999, p. 864). In this vein, regions have been characterized as places bound by the similar cultural and economic backgrounds of the people who settled in that area (Gastil, 1975, p. 40) and as places that allow an individual to “feel right” about his or her connection to a meaningfully bounded entity (Garreau, 1981, p. xv). Regionalism is used to denote political competition at various levels of intensity between two or more geographic regions (Thomas, 1991, p. 10), and recent scholarship has defined regionalism as a phenomenon that brings adjacent state, interstate, or even sub-state areas together because of immediate and specific common interests (Elazar, 1998, p. xix). Regionalism is also tied directly to the concept of governing. Scholars have coined the term “regional governance” to represent how community leaders and citizens are brought together to address challenges that cut across communities (Dodge, 1996, p. 2). As Katz explains, More and more of us travel across city, county, even state borders every morning on our way to work. Our broadcast and print media rely on a regional marketplace. Our businesses, large and small, depend on suppliers, workers, and customers who rarely reside in a single jurisdiction. The parks, riverfronts, stadiums, and museums we visit serve and provide an identity to an area much larger than a single city. The fumes, gases, chemicals, and runoff that pollute our air and water have no regard for municipal boundaries. (2000, p. 1)

Viewing governance in this manner—across artificial boundaries—highlights the need to investigate differences between and within regions. Finding where these differences lie could very well lead to a better understanding of how political culture and political ideology affects the formulation of public policy. In the study that follows, we explore the concepts of regionalism, political culture, and political ideology within the framework of a single-state analysis. Key (along with Munger) conducted one such study of Indiana. Key and Munger explored partisanship within Indiana, eventually concluding that persistent patterns of party division existed between northern and southern Indiana for well over a century (1959, p. 283). Nardulli conducted another systematic and rigorous study of intrastate regionalism within the state of Illinois. Sounding very much

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

165

like his colleagues who were exploring interstate regionalism in the United States, Nardulli concluded that even in the face of vast social changes within Illinois, regional animosities persisted over time (1989, p. 18). Nardulli further concluded that regional rivalries within Illinois tended to “obscure similarities and commonalties while highlighting and magnifying isolated instances of conflict” (1989, p. 319). At the same time, he found that these regional rivalries bred mistrust and were self-perpetuating. On the positive side, Nardulli pointed out that regional cleavages in Illinois led to many economic and political benefits that he believed could serve as the basis for creating “a greater tolerance for, and appreciation of, regional diversity in the American states” (1989, p. 319). This study specifically examines intrastate regional differences in political ideology among political elites (elected county officials) by way of bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses.1 In so doing, we control for certain aspects of political culture as they currently exist in the state of Idaho. Political ideology, used in this context, incorporates the values of freedom, order, and equality into a person’s belief about the proper purpose and scope of government. In the United States, the terms liberal and conservative are used to denote how individuals view the scope of government in conjunction with how they perceive the purpose of government. Liberals support a broader role for government, especially as government can be used to promote equality. Conservatives want less government and more private enterprise freedoms, but are willing to use the coercive power of government to improve social order and moral climate (Ebenstein, Ebenstein, & Fogelman, 1994, pp. 76–78; Etzioni, 1996, pp. 8–10; Janda, Berry, & Goldman, 2000, pp. 23–27; Macridis & Hulling, 1996, pp. 90–93; Murray, 1997, pp. xi–xiii). Political culture refers to “patterns of thought and behavior that are widely held in a society and that define the relationship of citizens to their government and to each other in matters affecting politics and public affairs” (Jillson, 1999, p. 103). These shared values—at least in the United States—generally include faith in democracy, in representative government, in the free market, in freedom of speech, and in the rights of individuals (Flanigan & Zingale, 1998, pp. 6–7; Gitelson, Dudley, & Dubnick, 1998, pp. 134–135; Harrigan, 1998, p. 7). Simply put, political culture is an expression of the social, cultural, economic, and political conditions that define the context of a person’s beliefs, attitudes, and values toward government. We factor in these conditions in our analysis of Idaho political ideology by controlling for political party affiliation, gender, welfare payments, and urbanization. In short, our research centers on whether ideological beliefs of county-elected officials (controlling for the effects of political culture) vary across the historically defined regions of the state of Idaho. More important, we want to gauge the relative importance of regionalism to political ideology in present-day Idaho. We rely on two major assumptions to structure our work. First, like Elazar, Key, and many scholars before us, we begin with the assumption that regionalism may be defined through the related concepts of political ideology and political culture. In essence, our study is based on the belief that a liberal-conservative continuum exists and may be used to explore the relationship between political culture and regionalism. Further, we use the definitions of conservative and liberal that have been established and well documented by a host of scholars (as noted above). While this categorization was initially developed for use across the nation as a whole, it has particular meaning for the state of Idaho where there appears to be a very well defined ideological spectrum.

166

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

Second, as discussed below, we base our study on the three traditionally defined regions of Idaho (North, Southwest, and Southeast). We do so for two reasons. One, these three regions have been historically delineated as worthy of discussion by a host of well-respected scholars from Elazar (1966) and Martin (1969) to Gastil (1975) and Blank (1978). Two, we want to test the proposition that this typology remains relevant in today’s Idaho. In sum, the goal of this study is to show that intrastate regionalism remains linked to the historically developed concepts of political culture and political ideology as these forces play out both in the state of Idaho and in the Mountain West today.

2. Idaho and the Mountain West Idaho has great advantages with respect to discovering relationships between regionalism and political ideology. First, over the years, scholars have labeled Idaho as a state with distinct regional subcultures. Elazar (1966)—setting the stage for all who followed—cast Idaho as a state geographically defined by three distinct subcultures. Southeastern Idaho was classified as moralistic—a place that promotes the public good in terms of honesty, selflessness, and commitment to the public welfare. Northern Idaho was classified as individualistic—a place that emphasizes the concept of democratic order as a marketplace, putting a premium on the self-interest of individuals. Southwestern Idaho was classified as a mixture of the moralistic and individualistic political subcultures. While other scholars have played at the margins of his portrayal of Idaho’s subculture classification (see Gastil, 1975; Lieske, 1993), Elazar’s basic description has remained fairly well intact over the years. Second, Idaho lies in the Mountain West, an interstate region inherently ingrained with the western regional ideals that have received so much national attention over the past decade.2 Both Time and Newsweek ran cover stories documenting the dynamic changes taking place in Idaho and other Mountain West states, referring to a new American heartland struggling “to combine the yearning for a simpler, rooted, front-porch way of life with the urban-bred, high tech worldliness of computers and modems” (Bonfante, 1993, p. 23). Moreover, Barone and Ujifusa in the Almanac of American Politics singled out Idaho “as one of America’s leading states in the 1990s—leading in population growth, in technological progress and leading at least part of the nation in cultural attitudes and politics . . . ” (1997, p. 450). Idaho’s struggles with advancing an economic vision based on recreation and high technology (leaving behind extractive industries) mirror the struggles of other Mountain West states. For instance, over the past decade, Idaho is one of the five fastest growing states in the United States. Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah are the other four—all of which lie in the Mountain West (Quintana, 2000, p. 1A).

3. Idaho and regionalism In the 1960s, Martin published a work on Idaho titled “The Sectional State” that documented the cultural, economic, and religious dimensions that created three distinct regions

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

167

in Idaho—northern, southeastern, and southwestern (1969, pp. 182–183). Shortly thereafter (in the early 1970s), Palmer observed that “because of its peculiar shape and topography, Idaho reveals a three-way division in which the northern section of the state is closely linked to Washington, the southwestern to adjacent Oregon, and the southeastern portion, where large numbers of Mormons live, to Utah” (1972, p. 34). Gastil (1975, pp. 18–25) in his work on cultural regions in the United States and Thomas (1980, p. 114) in his portrayal of the Pacific Northwest also followed Martin’s lead in sub-dividing Idaho into three distinct regions. In his seminal work on Idaho political culture, Blank found that sectionalism [here defined as geographic regionalism] was the most evident cleavage line in Idaho (1978, pp. 157–160). Besides noting the historical division between north and south Idaho (the bitter dispute over the location of the territorial capital, the repeated efforts by the northern panhandle to secede, and the lasting sectional rivalries relating to the distribution of education and highway funds), Blank sub-divides the south into distinct regions. One of these regions is southeastern Idaho, which is characterized by its ties to northern Utah and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church, or LDS). A second region is southwestern Idaho, dominated by Boise, the largest metropolitan area in the state. Despite finding some differences between these regions in Idaho, Blank concluded that there was little support for cultural or political diversity along regional lines as reflected in his Idaho survey data. In fact, at the time of his study (the mid-to-late 1970s), Blank concluded that Idaho political culture encompasses all geographic and demographic groups within the state such that it was quite accurate to speak of an “Idaho political culture” whereby the impact of regionalism was either minimal or non-existent (1978, p. 168). As a manifestation of this cultural unity, Idaho has a statewide history of voting for social reform (Peirce & Hagstrom, 1983, p. 689). It was the fourth state to endorse women’s suffrage and the first to elect a Jewish governor (in 1914). Idaho was also among the first states to abolish probate justice-of-the-peace courts and replace them with a modern unified trial court system. Studying Idaho is important because it is a state characterized by the regional growth, economic displacement, and conflicts between political pragmatism, individualism, and an all-pervasive dependence on government that marks all of the states in the fastest growing region of the United States (Bartlett, 1993, p. 107; Thomas, 1991, p. 8). More important, because Idaho is experiencing a fundamental change in its economic structure due to the shift from a natural resource-based economy to more dependence on recreation and high-tech companies (Durning, 1999, p. 3; Sandusky, 1999, p. 24), it gives us a chance to reflect on whether these changes are leading to what some claim as the “homogenizing of political and social attitudes” (McBeth & Bennet, 1998, p. 586). In this regard, Kincaid argues that while such forces as homogenization have promoted a certain amount of cultural commonality, other countervailing forces (e.g., forces of distinction, communalism, and individualism) have maintained diversity (1982, p. 1). More recently, Donahue suggests that more research must focus on the increasing importance of the internal homogeneity of states (1997, p. 41). This study should not only shed light on the evolving concepts of regionalism and homogenization as they play out in Idaho, it should provide insight into the continuing evolution of the Mountain West.

168

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

4. Methodology In this study, we compare and contrast political, social, cultural, and economic variables along Idaho’s historical regional classification: the North, the Southwest, and the Southeast. Idaho counties were chosen as the focus of our study because the county is one of the oldest forms of government in the West and has long been considered an essential component of local government as defined by the Idaho constitution. Given the absence of townships in Idaho, counties are the only unit of government between the state and municipal governments. As an administrative arm of state government, counties perform many state functions such as election, tax, and court administration. The county covers a larger area than municipalities, has land-use policy-making authority, and has the primary responsibility for solid waste management. Furthermore, the county is the unit of government designated to receive federal resource entitlement payments derived from mineral leases, national forest revenues, the Taylor Grazing Act, and payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILTs) for federal land holdings. This study investigates Idaho regionalism using both aggregate data (gathered from the United States Census Bureau and the Idaho Department of Commerce) and the results of a statewide mail survey of all county-elected officials in Idaho (n = 352), including commissioners, assessors, clerks, attorneys, sheriffs, and treasurers.3 We use the perceptions of these county-elected officials as representative of Idahoans’ political beliefs in general. These political elites are elected by the general populace within their counties on a regular basis and hence, are held accountable for reflecting the views of a locally based constituency.4 In this regard, previous research has shown that the political opinions of state and local officials—especially homegrown, locally elected officials—tend to be more ordered and coherent than those of the general public and also tend to be “most expressive of a political culture milieu” (Kincaid, 1982, pp. 21–22). The survey of county-elected officials was conducted during August and September of 2000, with a response rate of 65.9%. The response rate was over 60% for each of the three geographically defined regions, for each job classification (except for sheriffs, where the response rate was 56.8%), for both males and females, and for both Democrats and Republicans. Of the total number of surveyed county-elected officials in Idaho, 72% were Republican and 28% were Democrat; 68% were male and 32% were female; 23% resided in the North, 44% in the Southwest, and 33% in the Southeast. Gender across regions was essentially the same. There were, however, substantial differences in party across region, and gender across party. The Southwest had the highest percentage of Republican officials (88%), followed by the Southeast (69%), and the North (43%). The Southeast had the highest percentage of females among the Democratic Party (54%), followed by the Southwest (50%) and the North (40%). The percentage of females in the Republican Party was fairly consistent across the regions (Southeast = 30%; North = 30%; Southwest = 22%). This demographic breakdown of the survey results mirrors closely the demographic breakdown of the overall population of Idaho county-elected officials except for the party breakdown in District I, where Democrats were underrepresented (by approximately 20%).5 We address this issue in the following section. The survey questionnaire consisted of a series of questions (n = 18) where respondents were asked to choose the ideas they considered to be the most important in the making of public policy. These choices were coded by the authors as either liberal or conservative, according

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

169

to the generally accepted definitions (as described earlier). A conservative rating was then calculated for each respondent. These ratings were used to calculate the average conservative rating for each county, which was then used as the dependent variable in the multiple regression (OLS) model. (The survey is available upon request.)

5. Results The results of this research project clearly show that county-elected officials across the entire state of Idaho are, as a whole, conservative when it comes to their political ideology. In fact, based on the results of our survey, it is probably more appropriate to refer to parts of the state as being more or less conservative, rather than as any degree of liberal. However, the survey responses do indicate some very distinct differences between the three historically defined regions of Idaho. The most conservative counties in the state of Idaho lie in the Southeast, and the least conservative counties lie in the North. The counties in the Southwest appear to reflect more of a middle-ground conservatism that moderates the extremes of the liberal-conservative continuum. Most striking, though, is the finding that the North region stands apart from both southern regions. We also found substantial differences within the North region itself. The county-elected officials from the five most northern counties of Idaho (District I) rate among the most conservative in the state, while the county-elected officials from District II (the second planning district that makes up the North region) rate as the least conservative in the state.6 5.1. Questions on government activism and the death penalty We begin our analyses by looking at political ideology in the state of Idaho, controlling for region, party, and gender. The questions from the survey that we choose to highlight involve specific concepts and values identified as central to the ideals fostered by people associated with either liberal or conservative leanings (as described earlier). These include questions about government activism and responsibility, freedom versus equality, and the death penalty. Respondents were asked to choose whether they preferred an “activist” or “less activist” government (see Table 1). The survey results show that a large majority of county-elected officials in Idaho want a less activist government; that is, they prefer a smaller government that provides fewer services and taxes less. The results also show, however, that the North region has a statistically significant and substantially higher percentage of county-elected officials who want an activist government (North = 37.7%; Southwest = 14.9%; Southeast = 22.5%). An activist government is one that collects a higher level of taxes, but provides more services. Members of the Democratic Party statewide were also more likely to want, by a very large percentage, a more activist government (Democrats = 58.6%; Republicans = 9.6%). Only a slightly higher percentage of females than males statewide (27.9–20.1%) preferred a more activist government. This difference is not statistically significant. The results presented in Table 2 show that, overall, a large majority of county-elected officials in Idaho favor the death penalty. Once again, the North region stands out. The most opposition to the death penalty comes from respondents in the North, where 16.7% of respondents opposed the death penalty, as compared to only 8% in the Southwest and 5.2% in the Southeast. Also,

170

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

Table 1 Percentage support of elected county officials for the question about the level of government activism by region, party, and gender (cross-tabs with chi-square significance tests) Positions

Regions∗∗∗ North

Parties∗∗∗ Southwest

Southeast

Democrat

Gender Republican

Male

Female

Activist 37.7 (20) 14.9 (14) 22.5 (16) 58.6 (34) 9.6 (15) 20.1 (30) 27.9 (19) government Less activist 62.3 (33) 85.1 (80) 77.5 (55) 41.4 (24) 90.4 (142) 79.9 (119) 72.1 (49) government Source: Authors’ computations notes: Respondents were asked to choose which position they preferred. Activist government: An activist government that can provide more services if it means higher taxes. Less activist government: A smaller, less activist government that provides fewer services, but taxes less. In parentheses, number of county elected officials who answered in support of the position statements is given. ∗∗∗ p < .01.

while a vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans favored the death penalty, a much higher percentage of Democrats (18.8%) than Republicans (5.5%) opposed the death penalty. The differences between regions and political parties are both statistically significant. However, with respect to support for the death penalty, the difference between males and females is slight and statistically insignificant. 5.2. Questions on freedom, equality, and government responsibility Several sets of questions were asked such that the respondent had to choose two of four responses from each set, with two of the choices having a liberal flavor and two of the choices having a conservative flavor. For example, one of these sets centered upon the concepts of freedom, equality, and government responsibility (see Table 3). Respondents were asked to indicate which two of the following four statements best reflected their views: (1) (2) (3) (4)

individuals should be allowed to live in freedom with limited government interference; equality is more important than personal freedom; government should take more responsibility for providing for individuals in need; individuals should take more responsibility for providing for themselves.

Table 2 Percentage support of elected county officials for question about capital punishment by region, party, and gender (cross-tabs with chi-square significance tests) Positions

Oppose death penalty Favor death penalty

Parties∗∗∗

Regions

Gender

North

Southwest

Southeast

Democrat

Republican

Male

Female

16.7 (9) 83.3 (45)

8.0 (8) 92.0 (92)

5.2 (4) 94.8 (73)

18.8 (12) 81.3 (52)

5.5 (9) 94.5 (155)

8.9 (14) 91.1 (143)

9.6 (7) 90.4 (66)

Source: Authors’ computations notes: Respondents were asked whether they opposed or favored the death penalty. In parentheses, number of county elected officials who answered in support of the position statements is given. ∗∗∗ p < .01.

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

171

Table 3 Percentage support of elected county officials for selected questions about freedom, equality, and responsibility by region, party, and gender (cross-tabs with chi-square significance tests) Positions

Parties∗∗∗

Regions North

Southwest

Southeast

Democrat

Gender Republican

Male

Female

Freedom 84.3 (43) 88.0 (100) 89.5 (68) 66.1 (41) 96.3 (156) 90.4 (141) 82.9 (58) Equality 15.4 (8) 10.0 (10) 8.0 (6) 29.0 (18) 3.1 (5) 7.1 (11)∗∗ 16.9 (12)∗∗ Government 17.6 (9)∗ 6.0 (6)∗ 8.0 (6)∗ 26.2 (16) 3.1 (5) 6.5 (10)∗∗ 15.7 (11)∗∗ responsibility Individual 84.9 (45)∗∗ 96.0 (97)∗∗ 94.7 (71)∗∗ 80.6 (50) 97.6 (160) 96.2 (150)∗∗∗ 86.1 (62)∗∗∗ responsibility Source: Authors’ computations notes: Respondents were asked to choose two of the following four positions. Freedom: Individuals should be allowed to live in freedom with limited government interference. Equality: Equality is more important than personal freedom. Government responsibility: Government should take more responsibility for providing for individuals in need. Individual responsibility: Individuals should take more responsibility for providing for themselves. In parentheses, number of county elected officials who answered in support of the position statements is given. ∗ p < .10. ∗∗ p < .05. ∗∗∗ p < .01.

In this case, statements (1) and (4) are coded as the conservative responses, and statements (2) and (3) are coded as the liberal responses. Large majorities of all Idaho county-elected officials chose freedom over equality, and individual responsibility over government responsibility. At the same time, statistically significant and substantial differences were found between regions, political parties, and gender. Respondents from the North region were less apt to choose freedom (North = 84.3%; Southwest = 88.0%; Southeast = 89.5%) and more apt to choose equality (North = 15.4%; Southwest = 10.0%; Southeast = 8.0%). Respondents from the North region were also significantly less apt to choose individual responsibility (North = 84.9%; Southwest = 96.0%; Southeast = 94.7%) and significantly more apt to choose government responsibility (North = 17.6%; Southwest = 6.0%; Southeast = 8.0%). Democrats, as compared to Republicans, were significantly less likely to choose freedom (Democrats = 66.1%; Republicans = 96.3%) and significantly more likely to choose equality (Democrats = 29.0%; Republicans = 3.1%). Democrats were also significantly less apt to choose individual responsibility (Democrats = 80.6%; Republicans = 97.6%) and significantly more apt to choose government responsibility (Democrats = 26.2%; Republicans = 3.1%). Female county-elected officials, as compared to their male counterparts, were less likely to choose freedom (Females = 82.9%; Males = 90.4%) and significantly more likely to choose equality (Females = 16.9%; Males = 7.1%). Females were also significantly less apt to choose individual responsibility (Females = 86.1%; Males = 96.2%) and significantly more apt to choose government responsibility (Females = 15.7%; Males = 6.5%). Therefore, despite the generally conservative tone sounded throughout Idaho, there exist significant notes of regional, party, and gender-based ideological differences. Democratic, female, and northern county-elected officials were substantially less conservative in their views of freedom, equality,

172

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

government responsibility, and the death penalty. The one exception to this finding is that both male and female county-elected officials in Idaho favor the death penalty at a nearly identical (and overwhelming) rate.

6. The conservative rating Using the conservative rating (as described in Section 4) for each of the county-elected officials, we completed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) multiple regression analyses. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 4 and 5. For both of these analytical models, we tested regionalism along two levels. We used the traditionally and historically developed geographical breakdown of North, Southwest, and Southeast, and a more narrowly defined categorization of districts whereby each of the historically defined regions was divided into two sub-regions (as defined by planning districts).7 The results of the ANOVA test show that when Idaho is divided into its three historically defined regions, the average conservative rating for the North region is substantially less than either of the other two regions (North = 0.5688; Southwest = 0.6327; Southeast = 0.6274). This difference, however, was not statistically significant. On the other hand, when the narrower definition of regionalism—using planning districts—is used, the conservative rating for the county-elected officials of District II (of the North region) proves to be significantly less than all other districts in the state, while District VI (of the Southeast region) earned the highest conservative rating in the state. For both regression models, while the effects of the four control variables proved statistically significant (Table 5), the differences between the historically defined regions were not statistically significant.8 However, the results for the district model show that District II has a substantially lower conservative rating than any of the other districts. Hence, the relationship we found in the ANOVA (without controls) is also found in the regression model (with controls)—the North region of Idaho contains two sub-regions that are diametrically opposed with respect to their political ideology. County-elected officials in District I of the North region are among the most conservative in the state, while county-elected officials in District II of the Table 4 Average county conservative ratings of elected Idaho officials by region and district (one-way ANOVA) Regions North (10) Southwest (18) Southeast (16)

Average conservative rating 0.5688 0.6327 0.6274

Districts∗∗ 1 (5) 2 (5) 3 (10) 4 (8) 5 (7) 6 (9)

Average conservative rating 0.6326 0.5051 0.6424 0.6206 0.5678 0.6738

Source: authors’ computations notes: The average county conservative rating was calculated by dividing the number of times a respondent chose the more conservative position by the total number of choices (18), and then averaging the scores of all respondents within the county, region, and district. In parentheses, number of counties is given. ∗∗ p < .05.

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

173

Table 5 Average county conservative ratings of elected Idaho officials by region and district with the results of the multivariate model presented (OLS coefficients) Dependent variable Conservative rating

Independent variable Percent urban population, 2000 Percent vote for Republican presidential candidate, 2000 Percent of county elected officials who are women, 2000 Welfare payments per capita in dollars, 1998 Southeast Southwest District 1 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 N Adjusted R2

By region ∗∗∗

By district

−.00203 (.000) .735∗∗∗ (.150)

−.00171∗∗∗ (.000) .702∗∗∗ (.135)

−.00295∗∗∗ (.001)

−.00272∗∗∗ (.001)

.00013∗ (.000) −.03530 (.035) −.00527 (.030) – – – – – 44 576

.00016∗∗∗ (.000) – –

.122∗∗∗ (.036) .06692∗ (.034) .05582 (.035) .00134 (.036) .06144 (.039) 44 .687

Source: Authors’ computations notes: The average county conservative rating was calculated by dividing the number of times a respondent chose the more conservative position by the total number of choices (18), and then averaging the scores of all respondents within the county, region and district. To establish a baseline for the “Region” model, the north region is left out and for the “District” model, District 2 is left out, reflecting the nominal-level measurement of these variables. ∗ p < .10. ∗∗∗ p < .01.

North region are, by far, the least conservative in the state. Furthermore, rank ordering districts according to the conservative rating for both the ANOVA and the regression models also reveals that neither of the districts in the Southwest region fell at the extreme of the liberal-conservative continuum. The most conservative districts lie in the North and Southeastern regions and the least conservative lie in the North region. 7. Analyses and conclusions Public opinion polls and recent media reports have marked Idaho as one of the most conservative-leaning states in the nation (see Hahn, 2000, p. 1A; Miller, 2001, p. 1A; Mortensen, 2000, pp. 20–24; Popkey, 2001, p. 1B; Wright et al., 1985, pp. 469–489). Our survey results provide substantial evidence in support of this kind of rhetoric. On every question we asked our respondents—be it on freedom, equality, economic growth, environmental protection, abortion, taxes, or the death penalty—the vast majority of county-elected officials in Idaho exhibited conservative leanings. Even when controlling for partisanship, gender, urbanization, and welfare payments, Idaho’s counties (as represented by their elected officials) remain staunchly conservative. It is true (as conventional wisdom suggests) that Democrats, women, and those living in urban areas are less conservative, but the fact remains that most of Idaho’s county-elected officials are solidly conservative.

174

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

However, our results also suggest that Idaho remains marked by distinct regional differences. This finding contradicts Blank’s (1978) contention that Idaho is represented by a singular political culture. For instance, in attitudes held by county-elected officials toward government activism, there is a statistically significant regional difference between the North (most activist), Southeast (in the middle), and Southwest (least activist). In a somewhat weaker statistical respect, support for the death penalty decreases from the Southeast region, to the Southwest region, to the North region. Finally, the role of the government in aiding individuals in need is thought to be more substantial in the North than in the Southeast, and especially more so than in the Southwest. Elite attitudes therefore shift from region to region in Idaho on important political questions. Those attitudes are reflective of the attitudes held by the mass public. A previous study that examined Idaho aggregate population survey results and statewide voting patterns found that residents of the North region are politically less conservative and those of the Southeast are politically more conservative from all the other regions (see Alm, Burkhart, Patton, & Weatherby, 2001). From the perspective of democratic theory, therefore, the attitudes of political leaders— as represented by the results of this study—mirror those of the general public, demonstrating that Idaho is represented by local officials who are conservative and reflect regional biases. In fact, it would be easy to endorse the beliefs of a returning native son, who recently penned the following description of modern-day Idaho: What has not changed is the cold war that has existed in this state for as long as I can remember. People in the north, where it’s still remotely possible to elect a Democrat. . . still distrust those who live in southern Idaho and the Mormons in the east. The Mormons to the east think folks to the north and in Boise are crazy radicals, and there are some around here [in Boise] who no doubt would be delighted if the state’s name were changed to “Adaho.” (Malloy, 1999, p. B8)9

But there is more to the story than this broad-brushed description. There is, in fact, a marked elite ideological contrast within these regional classifications. In particular, the North region of Idaho should no longer be viewed in simple, monolithic terms with respect to regionalism, political ideology, or political culture. While it is true that the North region of Idaho (as a whole) is politically less conservative, economically more depressed, and culturally less homogeneous, it is also true that these characteristics are far from uniform throughout northern Idaho. With respect to political ideology, the five most northern counties are substantially more conservative than the counties to their immediate south. This division in the North is consistent across all analyses of our data. Simply put, it no longer makes sense in the state of Idaho to casually view northern Idaho as a singular region. People, be they scholars, policy makers, journalists, or common citizens, must be aware that broad-brushed and stereotypical references to North Idaho as a homogeneous region are no longer warranted. North Idaho now consists of two distinct, ideologically opposed regions—one that is the most politically conservative in the state, and one that is the least conservative in the state. What does all this mean with respect to the concepts of regionalism, political culture, and political ideology? In simple terms, it means that one must be very careful about reading too much into the rhetoric that pervades the notion that Idaho is representative of a single political culture. Certainly it is true that Idaho’s political culture is marked by a conservatism that runs through the entire state. One might even argue that this conservatism exemplifies a

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

175

homogenizing of political and social attitudes. But we would argue otherwise. Our research provides empirical evidence that Idaho is marked by inherent differences between—and in one case, within—its historically defined geographical regions. More important, at least with respect to reflecting on the Mountain West as a whole, is our finding that the Southwest region of Idaho appears to be acting somewhat as a moderating force for the other two sub-regions of the state. As a whole, the Southeast region contains the most conservative counties in the state, while the North contains the counties that are the least conservative. The counties in the Southwest appear to fall comfortably between these two extremes. This may be significant because the Southwest region of Idaho happens to contain the state’s capitol (Boise), which is also the overwhelming population center of the state. Nearly one-third of all the people in Idaho reside within the Boise area, creating a center-periphery dynamic that is also prevalent in many of the states that make up the Mountain West. All five of these states can be characterized as having a single metropolitan area that dominates the states’ demographics at the expense of the periphery regions: Arizona (Phoenix), Colorado (Denver), Idaho (Boise), Nevada (Las Vegas), and Utah (Salt Lake City).10 If we found that a center-periphery dynamic moderates the liberal-conservative balance in the state of Idaho, might we find that it also does so in these other center-periphery dominated Mountain West states? While the answer to this question lies beyond the scope of this particular paper, it certainly seems worth exploring in future research. For if, as Katz (2000) and others believe—that artificial boundaries are necessarily linked to governance across regions—the elements of regionalism we have found in Idaho, including the center-periphery dynamic, may very well be impacting the formulation of public policy across a much broader range of states within the Mountain West.

Notes 1. Within the discipline of political science, there exists much disagreement on exactly what political ideology means. One synthesis of a political ideology reads as follows: (1) an interpretation of the present and a view of a desired future; (2) active steps to achieve goals; (3) oriented to masses; (4) simply stated and presented in motivational terms (Baradat, 2000, p. 1). 2. Garreau puts Idaho in the middle of a region he calls “The Empty Quarter”—a place characterized as “high, arid, resource-rich, beautiful, [and] often still pristine . . . ” (1981, p. 311). 3. County coroners are not included because they have no major policy making role. 4. All county-elected officials in Idaho are elected to 4-year terms except for commissioners, who are elected to either 2- or 4-year terms. 5. In the early 1970s, the state of Idaho established six planning districts (two each in the historically defined regions) to provide a common framework and statistical base for statewide planning activities (State Planning and Community Affairs Agency, 1972, pp. 1–2). 6. As previously noted, in our survey, Democrats were underrepresented in District I. We believe that this does not substantially affect our conclusions because both the Democrats

176

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

Fig. 1. Regions and Districts of Idaho.

7. 8.

9. 10.

and Republicans in District I (according to our survey results) are the most conservative members of their respective parties in the state. See footnote number 5 and Fig. 1. In our initial model, we also controlled for percent Mormon, median age, government transfer payments, unemployment rate, and percent employed in extraction. These variables were left out of our final model because their effects were minimal (insignificant) or because they were highly correlated to independent variables already in the model. The capital city of Boise lies in Ada County. All of these states—including Idaho, which shows signs of influence from metropolitan centers outside of the state (such as Salt Lake City and Spokane)—have other pockets of population density that influence their center-periphery dynamics. We suggest, however, that these five states have one particular community whose influence transcends all others.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Leah Taylor for her research assistance.

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

177

References Alm, L. R., Burkhart, R. E., Patton, W. D., & Weatherby, J. B. (2001). Intrastate regional differences in political culture: A case study of Idaho. State and Local Government Review, 33, 109–119. Baradat, L. P. (2000). Political ideologies: Their origins and impact. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (1997). The almanac of American politics 1998. Washington, DC: The National Journal. Bartlett, R. V. (1993). Political culture and the environmental problematique in the American West. In Z. A. Smith (Ed.), Environmental politics and policy in the West (pp. 101–116). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. Blank, R. H. (1978). Regional diversity of political values: Idaho political culture. Washington, DC: University Press of America. Bradshaw, M. (1988). Regions and regionalism in the United States. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi. Bonfante, J. (1993, September 6). Sky’s the limit. Time, 142, 20–27. Dodge, W. (1996). Regional excellence: Governing together to compete globally and flourish locally. Washington, DC: National League of Cities. Donahue, J. D. (1997). Disunited states. New York: Basic Books. Durning, A. (1999). Green-collar jobs: Working in the new Northwest. Seattle: Northwest Environmental Watch. Ebenstein, A., Ebenstein, W., & Fogelman, E. (1994). Today’s isms: Socialism, capitalism, fascism, and communism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Elazar, D. J. (1966, 1972, 1984). American federalism: A view from the states. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Elazar, D. J. (1998). Series introduction to D. R. Berman. In Arizona politics and government: The quest for autonomy, democracy, and development. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Etzioni, A. (1996). The new golden rule: Community and morality in a democratic society. New York: Basic Books. Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in American states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flanigan, W. H., & Zingale, N. H. (1998). Political behavior of the American electorate (9th ed.). Washington DC: CQ Press. Garreau, J. (1981). The nine nations of North America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gastil, R. D. (1975). Cultural regions of the United States. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Gitelson, A., Dudley, R., & Dubnick, M. (1998). American government (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gray, V. (1999). The socioeconomic and political context of states. In V. Gray, R. L. Hanson, & H. Jacob (Eds.), Politics in the American states (2nd ed., pp. 1–31). Washington, DC: CQ Press. Hahn, G. (2000, June 19). Pocatello Democrats buffeted by relentless Republican tide. Idaho Statesman, p. 1A. Harrigan, J. (1998). Politics and policy in states and communities (6th ed.). New York: Longman. Janda, K., Berry, J. M., & Goldman, J. (2000). The challenge of democracy (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Jillson, C. (1999). American government: Political change and institutional development. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Katz, B. (2000). Reflections on regionalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Keating, M. (1997). The political economy of regionalism. In M. Keating & J. Loughlin (Eds.), The political economy of regionalism (pp. 17–40). London: Frank Cass. Key, V. O., Jr. (1949). Southern politics. New York: Random House. Key, V.O., Jr. (1963). American state politics: An introduction. New York: Knopf. Key, V.O., Jr., & Munger, F. (1959). Social determinism and electoral decision: The case of Indiana. In E. Burdick & A. J. Brodbeck (Eds.), American voting behavior (pp. 281–299). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Kincaid, J. (1982). Political culture, public policy and the American states. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. Landes, R. G. (1995). The Canadian polity: A comparative introduction (4th ed.). Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice Hall Canada, Inc. Lieske, J. (1993). Regional subcultures of the United States. The Journal of Politics, 55, 888–913.

178

L.R. Alm et al. / The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 163–178

Macridis, R., & Hulling, M. R. (1996). Contemporary political ideologies: Movements and regimes. New York: Harper Collins. Martin, B. A. (1969). The sectional state. In F. H. Jonas (Ed.), Politics in the American West (pp. 181–200). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. Malloy, C. (1999, September 12). This native son is happy for opportunity to return to his home state. Idaho Statesman, p. 8B. McBeth, M. K., & Bennet, K. (1998). Local elected officials and environmental policy: Does rural matter anymore? The Social Science Journal, 35, 577–588. Miller, K. (2001, February 27). Some lawmakers say ‘Squaw’ not a derogatory term. Idaho Statesman, p. 1A. Mortensen, K. (2000). Party prominence. Focus, 26, 20–24. Murray, C. (1997). What it means to be a Libertarian: A personal interpretation. New York: Broadway Books. Nardulli, P. F. (1989). Diversity, conflict, and state politics. Urbana, IL and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Palmer, K. T. (1972). State politics in the United States. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Peirce, N. R., & Hagstrom, J. (1983). The book of America: Inside 50 states today. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Popkey, D. (2001, February 8). Governor needs to push for real minimum-wage law. Idaho Statesman, p. 1B. Quintana, C. (2000, December 29). Idaho among fastest growing states. Idaho Statesman, p. 1A. Sandusky, G. (1999). Rural isn’t what you think. Western States Center Newsletter, 19, 3–25. State Planning and Community Affairs Agency. (1972). A framework for regional planning in Idaho: Report and recommendation on uniform planning regions. Boise, ID. Thomas, C. S. (1991). The West and its brand of politics. In C. S. Thomas (Ed.), Politics and public policy in the contemporary American West (pp. 1–20). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Thomas, W. V. (1980). Pacific Northwest: Paradise lost. In H. Gimlin (Ed.), American regionalism: Our economic, cultural and political makeup (pp. 110–128). Washington, DC: CQ Press. Weakliem, D. L., & Biggert, R. (1999). Region and political opinion in the contemporary United States. Social Forces, 77, 863–886. Wright, G. C., Jr., Erikson, R., & McIver, J. P. (1985). Measuring state partisanship and ideology with survey data. The Journal of Politics, 47, 469–489.