Abstract

In an era of identity-based partisan polarization, we examine whether social policies can still generate positive attitudinal feedback among beneficiaries. Drawing on nationally representative survey data, we demonstrate that partisanship conditions the policy feedback process through divergent perceptions of group deservingness.

Democrats attribute economic vulnerability to systemic injustice and view policy beneficiaries as hardworking and sympathetic, while Republicans attribute poverty to individual failings and view beneficiaries more negatively. We show that Democrats evaluate both policy beneficiaries and taxpayers favorably, whereas Republicans sharply differentiate between these groups, viewing themselves as “makers” contributing to a system that benefits undeserving “takers.”

These differences shape emotional responses to program use with Democrats reporting positive feelings about using social policies, while Republicans express more negative emotions. Even after controlling for actual policy usage and demographics, partisan gaps in attitudes toward social programs persist across diverse policy types. Experimental evidence reveals that partisan framing affects non-users more than beneficiaries, with Democrats more responsive to group-based cues.

Our findings suggest that in American politics, partisan identities serve as powerful interpretive filters that prevent similar policy experiences from generating widespread positive political attitudes, thereby challenging the assumption that policies create new politics.