Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:56:40.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Legacies: Understanding Their Significance to Contemporary Political Debates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2019

Christian Fong Open the ORCID record for Christian Fong [Opens in a new window] ,
Neil Malhotra Open the ORCID record for Neil Malhotra [Opens in a new window]  and
Yotam Margalit
Christian Fong
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Neil Malhotra
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Yotam Margalit
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Politicians bequeath an important legacy after they leave office: the public’s memories of their time in office. Indeed, the media often discuss legacy concerns as a key motivation of politicians. Yet, there has been little empirical analysis of how politicians’ legacies are interpreted and used by the mass public. Analyzing millions of comments from online discussion forums, we show that citizens frequently mobilize memories of past politicians in their discussions of current events. A randomized survey experiment rationalizes such invocations of past politicians: they bolster the persuasiveness of contemporary arguments—particularly bad ones—but only when made in the context of a policy domain specifically associated with a past politician. Our findings suggest that politicians have a strong interest in cultivating a positive, broad, and enduring legacy because memories of them influence policy debates long after they leave office.

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 451 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexa, . 2019a. “The Top 500 Sites on the Web.” https://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Top/News (accessed February 26, 2019).Google Scholar
Alexa, . 2019b. “Top Sites in United States.” https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US (accessed February 26, 2019).Google Scholar
Fine, Gary Alan. 2014. Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Controversial . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2009. “The Effects of the George W. Bush Presidency on Partisan Attitudes.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 39 (2): 172–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kligler-Vilenchik, Neta, Tsfati, Yariv, and Meyers, Oren. 2014. “Setting the Collective Memory Agenda: Examining Mainstream Media Influence on Individuals’ Perceptions of the Past.” Memory Studies 7 (4): 484–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schudson, Michael. 1993. Watergate in American Memory: How We Remember, Forget, and Reconstruct the Past . New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard, and Rieger, Cheryl. 1992. “Collective Memory and Collective Memories.” In Theoretical Perspectives on Autobiographical Memory, eds. Conway, Martin A., Rubin, David C., Spinnler, Hans, and Wagenaar, Willem A., 323–36. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuman, Howard, and Scott, Jacqueline. 1989. “Generations and Collective Memories.” American Sociological Review 54 (3): 359–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Barry. 1982. “The Social Context of Commemoration: A Study in Collective Memory.” Social Forces 61 (2): 374–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Fong et al. supplementary material

Fong et al. supplementary material 1

Download Fong et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 158.4 KB