Gender, Anger, and Federalism: Governing Preferences in the COVID-19 Pandemic

• In Event: State Politics

Abstract

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, women in the United States bore a disproportionate share of the burdens caused by COVID-19 policy, primarily caregiving responsibilities. As a result, women were particularly affected by state and federal policymaking and may have had strong preferences about who should control COVID-19 policy. The existing literature on voters’ federalism preferences predominantly explores blame attribution after a crisis. Specifically, do citizens blame one level of government because the opposite party controls it, or do constituents have deeper preferences about the abstract role of state versus federal policymaking? Moreover, because some policies affect people based on their individual attributes (e.g., race, gender, or employment), those attributes may be key in predicting a constituent’s preferences during a crisis. Further, because emotions motivate voters differently, understanding constituents’ emotional responses may provide insight into voter behavior. Were constituent preferences driven by party loyalty or by anger or fear during COVID-19? Utilizing a unique module in the 2020 Cooperative Election Study, we analyze the role of constituent emotions in shaping federalism preferences. Specifically, under what conditions do constituents prefer to have their governor versus the federal executive branch in charge of COVID-policy choices? Does party affiliation, emotions, or other individual attributes such as gender, race, and class influence these preferences?

Authors

• Sophia Helland, University of Southern California

• Pamela Clouser McCann, University of Southern California

• Abby Wood, USC