Symbolic negotiation is as important to building political coalitions as settling on par- ticular policy stances. Where movements can be united by specific goals and specific symbolic meaning, universalizing coalitions have a different challenge. Cross-cleavage coalitions have to find ways of generating support among different groups of citizens from different political movements. This is precisely the challenge our system presents for major political parties. Running a successful presidential campaign, and winning a majority of the seats in Congress, requires diverse bases of support. Movements and ac- tivists make symbolic demands of the parties that can be just as important as their policy desires. Treating symbols as part of the organizational structure of democratic politics implies that large-scale political parties are built through negotiating which symbols will be highlighted in addition to which specific policy changes will be advanced.
First, using the cherished symbols of a movement is essential to connecting with mem- bers of that movement. By appealing to symbols that a particular group has invested with meaning, political elites can signal that they are committed to the values and perspective of that movement. Edelman argues that symbolic assurances are often more important to generating support for political elites than actual legislative results 1964. Using language and imagery that is symbolically evocative to a certain group communicates an under- standing of their identity as a political collective. Citizens are more apt to see political leaders in a favorable light, and to at least believe that they understand what leaders are saying, if elites speak in a way that matches the symbolic structure they use to interpret
the world.
Second, symbolic confrontations are often central to what divides movements and groups of people. Many issues that do not have a direct impact on the distribution of material resources evoke strident differences of opinion. “Government is unavoidably involved in the social allocation of prestige, the affirmation of values, and the legitimization of lifestyles. To ignore conflict over these matters, even though they may not involve direct of immediate allocation of material resources, is to ignore a major and important part of political life” Cobb and Elder (1983). Studying the American temperance movement, Joseph Gusfield argued that, more than material competition, the temperance movement was about whose values would be given the status of official sanction Gusfield (1963). The rise of the social agenda in contemporary politics is fundamentally about symbolic confrontations over what counts as the American way. A wealth of evidence shows that these symbolic battles often engage citizens deeply and can have profound impacts on partisan affiliation Carmines and Stimson (1980, 1989b). Activists and movements do not just want their policies put forward, they want political elites to describe the world in their terms. Making a pro-gay statement, even if it is in no way followed up by legislative action, is to take a stance on a symbolic conflict that is deeply emotional, and that stance will be noticed.
Finally, word choice can have an impact on the perceptions of voters who are not particularly active in politics. Like everyone else, party elites must work with the linguistic resources available to them. If we think about the diffuse structure of socially understood symbolic meaning as part of the institutional environment in which parties act, their language should reflect the location within that structure that they are striving to reach. If party elites are to communicate effectively, they must recognize that the meaning of the words they use is contingent upon what is in the minds of their audience. As Frank Luntz says, “it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear” 2007. Knowing this, party elites cannot choose their words out of a hat; they must think about what connections their words will call to the minds of different voters.
If this argument is correct, word choice should have a major impact what the sym- bols “Democrat” and “Republican” mean. Parties are symbols with both referential and condensational meaning. As referents, these terms are labels for real people, resources, and choices. However, the party labels are also importantly condensational symbols for everything that we understand the parties to be. I contend that the words the parties use to describe themselves and each other are essential to the condensational meaning that we invest in them. This returns to the contextual and interrelated nature of meaning in language discussed above. When we encounter the names of the parties, or their logos, or salient members, our understanding of these symbols is determined by how these symbols are connected to other linguistic symbols that we use to understand and describe the world.
Word choice should be one mechanism through which we evaluate whether the value systems espoused by political leaders matches our own. Research has shown that people rank-order the importance of different values in their minds and will consistently rank the same values highly regardless of what other values serve as the points of comparison. Just like everyone else, party leaders have to choose which values to emphasize and which will take a back seat. In doing so, political leaders are making choices about whose value systems to emulate and whose to disregard. I contend that party coalitions are built, in part, through choosing the value systems that organize their discussion of specific policies.