Zachary Smith and Dr. Quin Monson, Political Science
From Abraham Lincoln to members of the modern Tea Party, politicians have frequently quoted the Founders in an attempt to build support for a proposed idea. This seems to mostly occur between conservative politicians and their constituents. Indeed, conservatives appear to have a strong connection with the Founders because of their belief in American Civil Religion (ACR). While researchers’ definitions of ACR differ, I define it as a quasi-religious reverence for the Founders and the symbols of America. People’s deep belief in this ACR affects how much they support issues that the Founders spoke in favor of. However, no one has proved that a quote from a Founder can increase public support for an idea or even change people’s support for an issue. My research shows that a quote by James Madison can indeed increase and even shift voter’s support for a political issue. This effect occurs most strongly among Mormons (a conservative religious group), Republicans, and those with a strong belief in ACR. The effect also depends on how voters feel about the specific topic. If they have strong feelings it limits the effect, while weak feelings allow the quote to persuade them.
To determine the effect of a Founder’s quote, I used an online survey of Utah voters (Utah Voter Poll) with over 1,100 participants. In this survey, I randomly assigned the voters to one of four treatments. Each treatment group received the same introductory language and then a quote from James Madison about the need to limit corporations’ powers. However, they were each told a different person was the source of that quote. The control treatment was told a proponent for more regulation gave the quote while the main treatment was told that it was James Madison who said it. The other two treatments were also told that Madison said the quote, but that he was being quoted by either a Republican or Democratic Senator depending on which treatment group they were in. This random distribution of voters into the different treatments helps eliminate any other explanations for differences in the results between the groups.
All voters were then asked to express how much they favored or opposed a proposal calling for increased corporate regulation on a scale of 0 (Oppose) to 100 (Favor). I then took the average rating of each treatment group and compared them. I also compared them among different populations, including conservatives and Mormons. I also measured voters’ political beliefs on corporate regulation, as well as how deeply they believed in the American Civil Religion and compared the results.
Looking at the average response for all voters, those who received the control treatment of the generic proponent only supported the issue at 47 out of the 100 available points.
However, when exposed to the same quote but were told that Madison said the quote, the support increased to 58, an 11 point increase. Party identification also yielded interesting results. Democrats started at a high point (70 out of 100 in support) and only increased by 3 points since they were already strongly in favor of the issue. However, Republicans started at a low of 33 and then increased to 48 when Madison said the same thing, a 15 point increase in support. People who did not feel very strongly about the issue were also more persuadable, increasing support by about 12 points.
The largest effect came from those who believed strongly in the American Civil Religion. Those who did not have strong beliefs in ACR only increased in support by 4 points, while those who did have strong beliefs in ACR increased in support by 16 points. The results were similar when just looking at Mormon respondents by their belief in ACR. Those exposed to the treatments with the Republican or Democratic senator quoting Madison mostly experienced the same results as the treatment with just Madison, suggesting that Madison was the main reason that Utah voters would change their support for an issue, regardless of which politician used the quote.
These results suggest that a quote by a Founder can indeed increase voters’ support for a political issue. It also suggests that a quote can even shift support for an issue since many of the results showed the control group below the middle ground and the Madison treatment showed them either near or above the 50 point mark. It also shows that a politician can effectively quote the Founder for the purpose of increasing or changing support for an issue. Finally, it proves that the level of belief in the American Civil Religion does affect how much a voter will be persuaded by the language of the Founders, especially among conservatives.
This research provides an important first step into understanding the power of Founder quotes in political speech. It also provides a better basis for measuring how much a person believes in American Civil Religion. However, additional research needs to be performed to fully understand this issue. My results are limited in multiple ways, including the lack of an opposing view that most voters might hear in the political landscape. It also does not test how much a Founder’s quote can increase support for an issue they already agree with, nor if it can mobilize them into action instead of just verbal support. Despite these limitations, this research is foundational to understanding how the words of the Founders continue to influence politics today.