Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Purity test

A purity test is an informal, self-graded survey comprising approximately 100 yes-or-no questions about personal experiences in areas such as sexual activity, substance use, rule-breaking, and other behaviors deemed indicative of worldly exposure, yielding a score from 0 (least pure) to 100 (most pure) based on unchecked items.^[1]^[2] The format encourages self-reflection and comparison among peers, often during transitional life stages like college orientation, though it carries cautions against treating it as an aspirational checklist.^[3] The archetype, known as the Rice Purity Test, traces its roots to Rice University in Houston, Texas, where it emerged as a bonding tool for incoming freshmen during orientation week, facilitating discussions on maturation from sheltered beginnings to broader college experiences.^[3] Early versions date to at least the 1920s, with a 1924 iteration reprinted in the campus newspaper by 1974, evolving into a 100-question staple by the 1980s amid shifting social norms.^[4] Its spread via college networks and later online platforms has made it a viral phenomenon, with updated editions incorporating modern activities while retaining focus on empirical markers of experience over abstract morality.^[5] Critics have highlighted its potential to foster peer judgment, particularly on gender-related items originally skewed toward female respondents, reflecting historical cultural emphases on sexual restraint.^[6] In political discourse, the term denotes rigid benchmarks for assessing adherence to ideological principles, often invoked to critique demands for uncompromising positions on issues like policy or alliances, which can exacerbate internal divisions but also enforce accountability against compromise.^[7]^[8] Such tests have been documented in various parties, where failure to meet them leads to ostracism, though empirical outcomes show they correlate more with factional power dynamics than objective policy efficacy.^[9]

Definition and Core Concepts

Defining Purity Tests

A purity test in politics constitutes a stringent criterion or series of benchmarks employed to gauge an individual's fidelity to the doctrinal tenets of a political faction, party, or movement, frequently serving as a prerequisite for endorsement, nomination, or alliance. These tests typically manifest as demands for unequivocal positions on emblematic issues, such as stances on abortion, taxation, or foreign policy, where deviation invites disqualification regardless of broader electability or pragmatic considerations.^[10] Such evaluations prioritize ideological orthodoxy over compromise, often framing partial alignment as betrayal or impurity, thereby functioning as mechanisms to delineate in-groups from out-groups within ideological coalitions. For instance, they may require candidates to affirm absolute opposition to certain policies without exception, as seen in voter expectations during primaries where "deal-breakers" override evaluations of governance competence. This rigidity can escalate into escalating demands, where initial tests spawn ancillary litmus probes, reinforcing echo chambers and sidelining moderates.^[10] The application of purity tests underscores a tension between aspirational principle and realpolitik, with proponents viewing them as safeguards against dilution of core values, while critics, including former President Barack Obama in 2019 remarks, caution that they impose unattainably high standards ill-suited to a heterogeneous polity, potentially fostering paralysis or electoral defeat by alienating swing voters. Empirical observations from U.S. party dynamics indicate that excessive reliance on these tests correlates with internal schisms, as factions weaponize them to purge perceived apostates, though their invocation often carries a pejorative tone from establishment figures decrying extremism.^[10]^[11] While litmus tests and purity tests both assess ideological compatibility in politics, they diverge in breadth and intensity. Litmus tests hinge on adherence to a singular, emblematic position—such as unwavering support for abortion rights or opposition to gun control—as a proxy for overall alignment, often determining endorsements or nominations without exhaustive review.^[12] Purity tests extend far beyond this, requiring comprehensive fidelity across an array of issues, including voting history, public rhetoric, and affiliations, to root out any perceived compromise or evolution in views. This expansive scrutiny frequently escalates to demands for absolute orthodoxy, sidelining pragmatists or moderates even if they align on the core litmus issue.^[13] In distinction from loyalty oaths, purity tests lack the formalized, legal character of oaths, which mandate sworn pledges of allegiance to a state or its foundational principles, disavowing threats like communism or sedition, as enforced in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s under programs like the Smith Act.^[14] Loyalty oaths typically involve one-time affirmations upheld by courts as constitutional if narrowly tailored to future conduct, without perpetual monitoring.^[15] Purity tests, by comparison, rely on decentralized, ongoing enforcement via internal party mechanisms—such as primary challenges, donor boycotts, or activist campaigns—imposing de facto ideological litmus without statutory backing, often amplifying factional divisions over institutional loyalty.^[16] Purity tests further differ from ideological extremism and factionalism, phenomena they may exacerbate but do not equate. Extremism denotes the substantive embrace of fringe positions diverging sharply from mainstream norms, irrespective of enforcement.^[17] Purity tests, however, constitute the procedural apparatus for imposing such views, using exclusionary tactics to purge dissenters and consolidate control within groups. Factionalism arises from inherent subgroup rivalries over resources or strategy within parties, as parties historically served as gatekeepers filtering candidates.^[18] Purity tests function as a targeted instrument within this dynamic, elevating doctrinal uniformity above coalition-building or electoral viability, thereby rigidifying factions rather than merely reflecting their existence.^[19]

Historical Origins and Evolution

Pre-20th Century Precursors

In early modern England, the Act of Supremacy of 1534 established King Henry VIII as the Supreme Head of the Church of England, requiring clergy, officials, and subjects to swear an oath affirming royal supremacy over papal authority.^[20] Refusal constituted treason, resulting in executions such as that of Sir Thomas More in 1535 and the persecution of approximately 300 Catholics by 1540, functioning as a test of ideological alignment with the nascent Protestant state religion fused to monarchical politics.^[21] Subsequent iterations under Elizabeth I in 1559 reinforced this, mandating the oath for public office and leading to the exclusion or fining of recusants, thereby enforcing political conformity through religious doctrinal purity.^[22] Colonial Puritan governance in the Massachusetts Bay Colony from 1630 onward integrated religious orthodoxy with political eligibility, restricting voting and office-holding to male church members in full communion who demonstrated doctrinal purity via public examination of faith.^[23] Dissenters faced banishment, as in the 1637 expulsion of Anne Hutchinson for antinomian views challenging clerical authority, preserving communal unity under a covenant theology that equated political stability with theological conformity.^[24] This freestanding polity, with a population peaking at around 20,000 by mid-century, prioritized ideological cohesion to avert perceived divine judgment, mirroring later political purity mechanisms by subordinating individual variance to collective ideological rigor.^[25] During the American Revolution (1775–1783), Continental Congress recommendations prompted all thirteen states to enact loyalty oaths demanding renunciation of allegiance to King George III and affirmation of fidelity to the emerging republican order.^[26] Non-jurors, estimated at 15–20% of the population as Loyalists, suffered property confiscation, tarring and feathering, or exile, with 60,000 to 80,000 fleeing by war's end, illustrating how revolutionary ideology weaponized oaths to purge perceived internal threats and consolidate national legitimacy.^[27] Penalties varied by state—New York seized estates worth over £3 million—but uniformly served to test and enforce patriotic purity, excluding moderates or monarchists from civic participation.^[28] The French Revolution's Jacobin faction, dominant from 1792, imposed ideological tests during the Reign of Terror (September 1793–July 1794), executing 16,594 individuals via guillotine for deviations from radical republicanism, including moderates like the Girondins in 1793 and erstwhile allies such as Georges Danton in 1794.^[29] Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety justified this as virtuous terror to purify the nation against counter-revolutionaries, counter-revolution, with laws like the 1793 Revolutionary Tribunal expanding purges to encompass any suspected ideological impurity, from economic hoarding to rhetorical ambiguity.^[30] This period's spiral of escalating demands for orthodoxy, affecting even Jacobin ranks, prefigured modern political purity dynamics by linking survival of the regime to unrelenting factional conformity, ultimately contributing to the faction's own Thermidorian downfall.^[31]

20th Century Developments

In the Soviet Union, purity tests became a central mechanism for enforcing ideological conformity within the Communist Party following the Bolshevik Revolution. By the 1920s, internal factional struggles prompted bans on organized opposition groups, culminating in Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power through verification campaigns that expelled members suspected of deviationism.^[32] These evolved into the Great Purge of 1936–1938, a systematic campaign of show trials, confessions extracted under torture, and mass executions targeting alleged Trotskyists, rightists, and other perceived disloyal elements to ensure absolute loyalty to Stalinist orthodoxy.^[33] Approximately one-third of the party's roughly 3 million members were purged, with estimates of 680,000 to 1.2 million executions or deaths in gulags overall, reflecting the regime's causal prioritization of doctrinal purity over competence or prior service. This model influenced satellite communist parties in Eastern Europe post-World War II, where similar loyalty screenings and purges, often directed from Moscow, eliminated suspected nationalists or reformists during the late 1940s and 1950s.^[32] In fascist regimes, ideological purity was enforced less through formal tests and more via violent purges to align party structures with leader-centric doctrine. The Nazi Party's Night of the Long Knives on June 30, 1934, exemplified this by eliminating Ernst Röhm and SA leaders viewed as ideologically unreliable or threats to Adolf Hitler's authority, thereby purifying the movement of paramilitary rivals and reinforcing Führerprinzip loyalty. While Nazi emphasis on racial hygiene overshadowed intra-party ideological vetting, party membership required oaths of personal allegiance to Hitler, and the Gestapo monitored deviations, contributing to the execution or imprisonment of thousands of internal dissenters by the late 1930s.^[34] During the Cold War, purity tests manifested in democratic contexts as anti-communist loyalty probes, particularly in the United States. President Harry Truman's Executive Order 9835 in 1947 initiated federal employee screenings for "loyalty," investigating over 5 million workers for subversive associations and dismissing more than 2,700, establishing a bureaucratic framework to test adherence to anti-communist norms.^[35] Senator Joseph McCarthy amplified this from 1950 to 1954 through Senate hearings demanding public naming of associates with communist ties, effectively functioning as ideological purity rituals that ruined careers in government, academia, and entertainment via blacklists.^[36] These measures, while uncovering some espionage cases like Alger Hiss, often relied on guilt by association, prioritizing perceived ideological cleanliness over due process.^[35] In China, Mao Zedong's communist regime adapted Soviet-style purges into mass campaigns, such as the 1957 Anti-Rightist Movement, which labeled and persecuted over 550,000 intellectuals for insufficient ideological zeal, and escalated in the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), where Red Guards conducted struggle sessions to interrogate and expel "capitalist roaders" within the party and society. These developments highlighted purity tests' role in totalitarian governance, enabling leaders to weaponize ideology against rivals while fostering paranoia and inefficiency, as empirical purges decimated experienced cadres across Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies.^[37]

Post-Cold War Shifts

The dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991, marked the end of the Cold War and diminished the external ideological threat that had previously encouraged broad coalitions within U.S. political parties. This shift facilitated greater intra-party ideological sorting, whereby voters and elites aligned more consistently with partisan labels, reducing tolerance for deviation and amplifying purity tests as tools for enforcing orthodoxy. Political scientists have documented this sorting process, noting that by the 1990s, both major parties became more ideologically cohesive, with Republicans consolidating around cultural conservatism and Democrats around social liberalism, enabling factional groups to demand stricter adherence through primaries and scoring systems.^[38]^[39] Within the Republican Party, early post-Cold War purity tests emerged during the 1992 primaries, where Pat Buchanan challenged incumbent President George H.W. Bush on issues like immigration restriction and opposition to free trade agreements such as NAFTA, framing the contest as a defense of traditional American values against elite globalism. Buchanan's campaign, though unsuccessful, highlighted tensions between establishment internationalism and populist conservatism, culminating in his "culture war" speech at the Republican National Convention on August 17, 1992, which warned of a battle for the nation's soul and presaged later intra-party conflicts. By the mid-1990s, House Speaker Newt Gingrich's leadership after the 1994 midterm gains enforced factional discipline via the informal Hastert Rule, under which bills lacking majority support from House Republicans were not brought to the floor, sidelining moderates willing to compromise with Democrats on issues like spending and welfare reform.^[40]^[41] The Tea Party movement, galvanized in February 2009 by opposition to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus package, represented a peak in conservative purity enforcement, with activists and groups like the Club for Growth scoring lawmakers on fiscal orthodoxy and launching primary challenges against those deemed insufficiently committed to debt reduction and deregulation. In the 2010 elections, this approach yielded successes such as the defeat of Utah Senator Bob Bennett in the GOP primary for supporting TARP bailouts in 2008, and contributed to the election of 87 new Republican House members, many aligned with the Freedom Caucus's later demands for litmus-test votes on defunding Planned Parenthood and Obamacare.^[42] On the Democratic side, purity tests gained traction in the 2000s amid debates over the Iraq War, with organizations like MoveOn.org, founded in 1998 but active post-2003 invasion, rating candidates on anti-war stances and supporting primary challengers to perceived enablers of interventionism. A prominent case occurred in the 2006 Connecticut Senate primary, where MoveOn-backed Ned Lamont defeated incumbent Joe Lieberman for his support of the Iraq War authorization, forcing Lieberman to run as an independent; Lieberman won reelection but the episode underscored progressive insistence on foreign policy alignment over electability. This trend intensified after the 2008 financial crisis, with Occupy Wall Street in 2011 and Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential bid introducing economic purity demands, such as endorsements of Medicare for All, that pressured moderates like Hillary Clinton and later Joe Manchin on issues from student debt forgiveness to climate policy stringency.^[43]

Applications Across Ideologies

In Left-Wing Contexts

In left-wing political movements, purity tests often center on enforcing strict adherence to ideological principles such as radical economic redistribution, rejection of incremental reformism, and uncompromising stances on social justice and foreign policy. These tests evaluate whether individuals or groups sufficiently oppose capitalism, prioritize identity-based equity over class unity, or align with anti-imperialist positions, frequently resulting in ostracism or expulsion of perceived deviants.^[44]^[45] A prominent example occurred within the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which grew from 5,000 members in 2015—spurred by Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign—to over 92,000 by the early 2020s. In July 2023, the Boston chapter of DSA pressured state Representative Mike Connolly to disaffiliate after he supported a rent stabilization program and endorsed a non-DSA candidate in 2020, actions deemed insufficiently aligned with the organization's platform against compromise. Connolly preemptively dropped his DSA affiliation to avoid formal expulsion, leaving the group with only one state legislator in Massachusetts. Similar internal purges have targeted members for legislative pragmatism, contributing to DSA's loss of control over the Nevada Democratic Party in 2023 state elections following its 2021 takeover, amid accusations of ideological dilution through bipartisan deals.^[44]^[46]^[47] In the broader U.S. Democratic Party, progressive factions have imposed purity tests during primaries, such as demanding candidates reject super PAC funding or corporate donations from sectors like Silicon Valley, even as they court those donors elsewhere. By 2019, leading 2020 presidential contenders like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders embraced these standards to signal authenticity to the left base, sidelining moderates perceived as compromised. On foreign policy, particularly Israel-Palestine, tests have intensified since the October 2023 Hamas attacks, with activists and DSA-aligned groups condemning Democrats like Senator John Fetterman for supporting Israel's military response in Gaza, leading him to renounce the "progressive" label in December 2023 amid death threats and primary challenges from purists. Fetterman had previously navigated left-wing expectations by backing causes like Medicare expansion while resisting absolutist demands, highlighting tensions between electoral viability and doctrinal rigor.^[48]^[45]^[49] These mechanisms extend to historical precedents in communist organizations, where early 20th-century parties like the Comintern vetted members for "opportunist" tendencies, expelling those favoring gradualism over revolutionary purity as outlined in foundational texts like the Communist Manifesto. In the U.S. Communist Party during the 1930s, internal trials enforced loyalty to Soviet lines, purging suspected reformists and mirroring broader socialist movements' emphasis on ideological homogeneity to prevent dilution. Modern iterations, however, prioritize non-violent exclusion, such as social media campaigns or primary boycotts, though critics within the left, including Sanders aides, argue they undermine coalition-building and electoral gains, as evidenced by DSA's setbacks in 2022 midterms despite some progressive victories.^[50]^[51]^[52]

In Right-Wing Contexts

In right-wing political contexts, purity tests typically enforce adherence to core principles such as limited government, traditional social values, fiscal conservatism, and strong national sovereignty, often manifesting as litmus tests on specific policy stances during candidate selection, primaries, or party endorsements.^[53]^[54] For instance, opposition to abortion has served as a longstanding litmus test within the Republican Party since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, with party platforms and voter coalitions, including evangelical groups, pressuring candidates to affirm pro-life positions to avoid primary challenges or loss of support.^[53] Similarly, unwavering support for Second Amendment rights has functioned as a purity criterion, where deviations, such as backing assault weapon bans, have led to endorsements being withheld by organizations like the National Rifle Association.^[55] The Tea Party movement in the late 2000s and early 2010s exemplified fiscal purity tests, demanding candidates pledge against tax increases and toward balanced budgets, which contributed to the defeat of incumbents perceived as insufficiently conservative, such as in the 2010 primaries where figures like Bob Bennett were ousted.^[56] This approach peaked when the Republican National Committee in January 2010 rejected a formal "purity test" resolution requiring candidates to oppose cap-and-trade legislation, government-run healthcare, and tax hikes, with 87% voting against it to preserve broader electoral appeal.^[57] Despite this, grassroots factions continued enforcing such tests informally, as seen in state-level Republican organizations. In the post-2016 era under Donald Trump's influence, purity tests shifted toward loyalty to Trump and skepticism of the 2020 election results, becoming a de facto requirement for many GOP endorsements and nominations; by 2024, over 60% of Republican candidates in competitive primaries affirmed election fraud claims to align with the MAGA base, sidelining moderates like Liz Cheney who refused.^[58] This dynamic has been evident in congressional races, where the House Freedom Caucus, founded in 2015, applies stringent ideological scrutiny on issues like immigration enforcement and spending cuts, contributing to leadership impasses such as the 2023 speaker election delays.^[42] At the local level, examples include Georgia's Catoosa County Republican Party in 2024, which fined candidates up to $500 for failing to answer a questionnaire on stances like border security and election integrity, enforcing party-line conformity.^[16] These mechanisms aim to consolidate ideological cohesion but have drawn internal criticism for alienating swing voters and hindering unified opposition to progressive policies.^[59]

Cross-Ideological and International Cases

In Canada, the New Democratic Party (NDP) experienced a prominent debate over purity tests during its 2025 leadership contest. Candidate Heather McPherson argued that party supporters should not be required to undergo ideological purity tests on issues like environmentalism or anti-capitalism to demonstrate loyalty, positioning this as a means to expand electoral appeal beyond core activists. This stance drew sharp criticism from NDP MP Leah Gazan, who contended that rejecting such standards diluted commitments to justice, planetary protection, and opposition to oppression, framing it as a betrayal of foundational principles. The exchange highlighted tensions between pragmatic broadening and doctrinal enforcement within left-leaning parties.^[60]^[61] In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party has faced recurring purity tests, particularly on foreign policy and social issues, which transcend simple left-right binaries by enforcing conformity across factional lines. During the 2015-2020 period under Jeremy Corbyn, activists demanded rigid adherence to positions such as unconditional support for Palestinian causes and opposition to NATO interventions, resulting in the suspension or expulsion of over 200 members for perceived deviations, including criticisms of Hamas or Hezbollah. More recently, demands for unwavering support on transgender self-identification policies have tested party unity, with moderates like Keir Starmer navigating pressures from both progressive wings and traditional working-class bases wary of rapid social changes. Analysts have warned that such tests alienate broader voter coalitions, potentially mirroring historical schisms that contributed to Labour's 2019 electoral defeat, where 60% of seats were lost amid internal ideological fractures.^[62] Cross-ideological applications appear in transnational issues like foreign policy litmus tests, where demands for purity on military non-interventionism unite disparate groups. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) has used opposition to Western-led interventions, exemplified by the 2022 Ukraine conflict, as a purity standard to gauge loyalty among allies and rivals, framing NATO skepticism as a marker of national sovereignty that appeals to both Islamist conservatives and secular nationalists. Similarly, in European multiparty systems, fiscal austerity aversion post-2008 crisis served as a cross-spectrum test in coalition formations, as seen in Greece's 2015 Syriza-led government, where initial anti-EU bailout purity pledges excluded compromisers, leading to internal purges and economic concessions that fractured the left-populist coalition. These cases illustrate how purity tests on sovereignty or economic orthodoxy can bridge ideological divides while exacerbating fragmentation when core tenets clash with pragmatic governance.^[63]

Criticisms and Drawbacks

Impact on Party Unity and Electoral Success

Purity tests often erode party unity by incentivizing the marginalization or expulsion of moderates and pragmatists, fostering factionalism and reducing the incentive for compromise within party structures. In the U.S. Republican Party, Tea Party-affiliated organizations in the 2010s imposed litmus tests on issues like fiscal conservatism and opposition to compromise legislation, leading to primary challenges against incumbents and heightened internal divisions that manifested in events like the 2013 government shutdown and subsequent leadership instability.^[42] This dynamic contributed to repeated failures in House speaker elections in January 2023, where demands for ideological conformity paralyzed the party's ability to organize effectively.^[42] Similarly, in the UK Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn from 2015 to 2020, efforts to enforce left-wing orthodoxy through member-driven deselections of MPs seen as insufficiently radical deepened rifts between the leadership and parliamentary moderates, culminating in a "toxic culture" that hampered coordinated campaigning.^[64] Such tests also correlate with diminished electoral success by nominating candidates whose extreme positions alienate swing voters and independents in general elections, where median voter preferences favor moderation over doctrinal rigidity. Empirical analysis of U.S. elections shows that ideological extremism—frequently amplified by purity enforcement—imposes measurable vote penalties, with the effect strongest in statewide races like governorships, where extremists face up to a 2-3 percentage point disadvantage compared to centrists.^[65] In the 2012 U.S. Senate cycle, Republican candidates vetted through conservative purity processes, such as Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana, advanced past primaries but lost general elections after gaffes on social issues that underscored their unfitness for broader appeal, costing the GOP potential seats in a winnable year.^[66] Recent Democratic experiences highlight parallel risks, with progressive demands functioning as de facto purity tests on issues like corporate ties and foreign policy, which former President Barack Obama cautioned against in 2019 as likely to alienate necessary coalition voters.^[67] Post-2024 election analyses attributed part of Kamala Harris's defeat to progressive insistence on ideological purity, which narrowed the party's appeal amid economic and immigration concerns prioritizing pragmatism over orthodoxy.^[68] In Labour's 2019 UK general election, Corbyn's unyielding positions on nationalization and foreign policy, enforced through party mechanisms, repelled centrist and working-class voters, resulting in a net loss of 60 seats—the party's worst since 1935—and a popular vote share drop to 32.1%.^[69] These cases illustrate how purity tests, while energizing core activists, systematically undermine the broad coalitions required for victory by prioritizing base satisfaction over electoral viability.

Enabling Extremism and Intolerance

Purity tests, by enforcing strict adherence to ideological norms, often precipitate purity spirals in which successive waves of scrutiny demand ever-escalating demonstrations of loyalty, marginalizing moderates and propelling groups toward more radical positions. This dynamic rewards extremism as a signal of commitment, while punishing any perceived deviation, thereby shrinking the group's effective membership and concentrating influence among hardliners. Historical analyses indicate that such spirals rarely conclude without significant internal conflict or external backlash, as seen in the Puritan era's escalating moral outbidding during the English Civil War (1642–1651), where demands for religious conformity fragmented alliances and contributed to the execution of Charles I in 1649.^[70] Similarly, the French Revolution's Jacobin factions (1793–1794) imposed purity tests on republican virtue, resulting in the Reign of Terror that executed approximately 16,600 individuals, many for insufficient revolutionary zeal, as tribunals deemed even allies impure.^[70] In contemporary political movements, purity tests foster intolerance by establishing rigid in-group/out-group boundaries, where failure to affirm core tenets—such as unqualified support for specific policies—leads to ostracism or cancellation. For instance, within progressive online communities, escalating demands for alignment on social justice issues have manifested as purity spirals, as observed in the 2019 Ravelry knitting platform's policy banning expressions of support for then-President Trump, which splintered the community and amplified intra-group accusations of complicity in perceived harms.^[71] This mechanism extends to ideological enclaves on both left and right, where neo-Nazi groups exemplify right-wing variants through obsessive ethnic purity vetting, purging members for insufficient radicalism and thereby intensifying isolationist and violent rhetoric.^[71] Such processes not only enable extremism by validating fringe views as the new orthodoxy but also cultivate a culture of intolerance, wherein nuance is equated with betrayal, as evidenced by Maoist China's Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), a state-enforced purity campaign that mobilized Red Guards to denounce and persecute millions, including party loyalists, for ideological impurity.^[72] Empirical observations from group dynamics research underscore how these tests exacerbate intolerance by leveraging moral foundations like sanctity and loyalty, which, when overemphasized, correlate with heightened condemnation of out-groups and internal dissenters. In political contexts, this has led to self-reinforcing cycles where surviving adherents adopt more extreme stances to avoid scrutiny, ultimately rendering the group less adaptable to broader coalitions and more prone to authoritarian enforcement. Critics note that mainstream media and academic sources, often exhibiting left-leaning biases, may underreport symmetry in these dynamics across ideologies, focusing disproportionately on right-wing cases while downplaying left-wing parallels in institutional purges.^[73] The resultant extremism not only alienates potential allies but also risks real-world violence, as purified groups prioritize doctrinal enforcement over pragmatic governance.^[74]

Empirical Evidence of Negative Outcomes

In analyses of U.S. congressional elections from 1992 to 2014, the nomination of ideologically extreme candidates—frequently propelled by intra-party purity tests demanding strict adherence to partisan orthodoxy—has been associated with reduced general election performance. Using multidimensional scaling of roll-call votes (DW-NOMINATE scores) to quantify candidate ideology, one study found that more extreme nominees increase turnout among copartisans but elicit even greater mobilization from opposing partisans, yielding a net vote loss of approximately 1-2 percentage points per standard deviation of increased extremism, with effects amplified in competitive districts.^[75]^[76] This pattern holds across both parties, as extremists alienate median voters while failing to proportionally expand their base's margin. The Republican Party's Tea Party-influenced primaries in the 2010 and 2012 cycles exemplify this dynamic, where pledges against tax increases and demands for fiscal purity ousted moderates in favor of hardline challengers. In open-seat races and challenges to incumbents, Tea Party-backed candidates won about 40% of contested primaries but underperformed in subsequent generals, with empirical models estimating 3-5 percentage point deficits in vote share relative to ideological moderates in similar districts, contributing to narrower House majorities and Senate setbacks such as the defeats of Sharron Angle in Nevada (by 5.6 points) and Todd Akin in Missouri (by 9.1 points).^[77] Similar dynamics appeared in Democratic primaries, where progressive purity tests on issues like single-payer healthcare led to nominees who secured 2-4% lower vote shares in swing districts compared to centrist alternatives.^[78] Cross-nationally, the UK Labour Party's 2019 general election rout provides corroborating evidence, as Corbyn-era enforcement of left-wing ideological conformity—through deselection threats against moderate MPs and rigid stances on Brexit neutrality and foreign policy—fractured unity and repelled centrists. The party garnered just 32.1% of the vote, its worst result since 1935, losing 60 seats; post-election audits attributed up to 10-15% of the swing to Tory gains in traditional Labour heartlands to voter perceptions of extremism and internal discord, with net losses exceeding 2 million votes from 2017.^[79]^[80] These outcomes underscore a recurring empirical pattern: purity-driven extremism narrows electoral appeal by prioritizing base satisfaction over broader viability, often at the cost of winnable seats.

Defenses and Purported Advantages

Role in Maintaining Ideological Integrity

Purity tests serve as enforcement mechanisms within ideological groups to uphold doctrinal consistency by screening out members or candidates whose positions diverge from core tenets, thereby averting the dilution of foundational principles through incremental concessions or external influences. This practice ensures that the group's platform remains distinct and faithful to its originating vision, as deviations could otherwise lead to a fragmented or compromised identity over time. For example, litmus tests on key issues provide a clear benchmark for alignment, allowing adherents to discern genuine commitment from opportunistic affiliation.^[81] Advocates contend that such tests cultivate internal cohesion and signal reliability to external observers, enabling movements to sustain long-term momentum without the erosion caused by ideological drift. In progressive politics, insistence on purity regarding anti-corporate stances or policy specifics has been framed not as rigidity but as a necessary stand for principled governance, countering elite pressures toward centrism that might undermine the base's trust.^[7] Similarly, selective litmus tests can offer voters assurance of a party's unwavering stance on pivotal matters, reducing ambiguity and bolstering electoral appeal among dedicated supporters.^[82] Empirical instances illustrate this role's efficacy in preserving ideological boundaries; the Tea Party movement's application of conservative purity criteria in Republican primaries from 2010 onward ousted moderates perceived as insufficiently committed to fiscal restraint and limited government, resulting in a Congress with heightened adherence to these priorities and a sharper partisan differentiation that energized the base.^[83] While not without internal friction, this approach has been credited with realigning the party toward its stated conservative roots, preventing assimilation into broader establishment norms.^[84]

Accountability Mechanisms

Proponents of purity tests contend that they establish structured accountability by empowering grassroots activists, interest groups, and primary electorates to enforce adherence to core ideological tenets through tangible penalties for deviation. These include withholding financial support, launching intraparty challenges, public scorecards of legislative fidelity, and conditional voter mobilization, which collectively deter compromise and ensure elected officials prioritize base priorities over establishment deals.^[81] In progressive circles, such tests on policy commitments like Medicare for All—supported by 55% of registered voters in April 2020 polling—function as preemptive accountability tools, compelling candidates to pledge transformative reforms and thereby shielding against post-election capitulation to industry lobbies.^[81]^[85] Advocates assert this mechanism fosters genuine representation, as seen in demands to reject candidates like Michael Bloomberg for past policies conflicting with racial justice principles, prioritizing voter-driven standards over pragmatic anti-opposition voting.^[81] Conservative defenders similarly highlight litmus tests on social issues, such as opposition to abortion, as vital for party strengthening; by 2007 analyses, enforcing pro-life stances via nominee vetting had solidified Republican alignment with its values-oriented electorate, reducing betrayal risks and bolstering long-term cohesion.^[84] Fiscal enforcers like the House Freedom Caucus apply analogous mechanisms through vote-tracking scorecards, which in July 2025 were credited with securing spending cuts in omnibus bills, holding members accountable to taxpayer interests amid ballooning deficits exceeding $35 trillion.^[86] These tools purportedly mitigate principal-agent problems in representative systems, where without ideological checks, politicians may drift toward self-preservation; empirical instances, such as Tea Party-backed primaries ousting incumbents over 2008 bailout votes, illustrate how purity enforcement can realign behavior toward voter mandates, though outcomes vary by electoral context.^[81]^[84]

Evidence of Positive Effects

Research in political science indicates that ideological congruence between candidates and their party, often reinforced by purity tests in primaries, enhances success in intraparty competitions by weeding out mavericks and selecting nominees aligned with core voter preferences, thereby fostering greater cohesion.^[87] This alignment can translate to stronger general election performance, as evidenced in analyses of candidate positioning where party-congruent nominees outperform ideological outliers in mobilizing support.^[87] In the 2010 U.S. midterm elections, the Tea Party movement's application of purity tests on fiscal conservatism and limited government—such as opposition to earmarks and demands for balanced budgets—intensified Republican primaries, resulting in the nomination of more ideologically committed candidates who energized the conservative base and contributed to net Republican gains of 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats.^[77] Studies confirm that Tea Party involvement in primaries, through ideological vetting, benefited Republican general election outcomes by increasing voter turnout among partisans and clarifying party brands, despite losses in a few high-profile races like Nevada's Senate contest.^[88]^[77] Theoretical models of multiparty systems further demonstrate that ideological cohesion, maintained via internal enforcement mechanisms akin to purity tests, allows parties to occupy distinct policy niches, reducing voter confusion and enabling vote maximization by appealing to ideologically consistent blocs rather than diluting positions for broader appeal.^[89] Empirical extensions in proportional representation contexts show cohesive parties outperforming fragmented ones in seat shares when voters prioritize policy clarity.^[89] Party system polarization, which purity tests exacerbate by enforcing sharper intra-party lines, correlates with elevated voter turnout, as distinct ideological offerings heighten stakes and partisan mobilization; for instance, cross-national data link greater ideological divergence between parties to turnout increases of up to 5-10 percentage points in established democracies.^[90]^[91] This effect stems from heightened affective engagement, where enforced purity sustains voter loyalty and reduces abstention among core supporters.^[90]

Psychological and Sociological Underpinnings

Moral Foundations and Purity Concerns

In Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), developed by psychologist Jonathan Haidt and colleagues, the sanctity/degradation foundation encompasses intuitive concerns about purity, contamination, and moral cleanliness, rooted in evolutionary adaptations for pathogen avoidance and disgust responses.^[92]^[93] This foundation underpins judgments of degradation, such as bodily violations or spiritual impurity, extending beyond physical hygiene to abstract ideals like doctrinal or ideological integrity.^[94] Empirical assessments using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire reveal that conservatives endorse the purity/sanctity foundation more strongly than liberals, who prioritize care/harm and fairness/reciprocity to a greater degree.^[92]^[95] Heightened purity sensitivity correlates with support for policies framed in terms of moral contamination, including restrictions on behaviors deemed impure, such as certain sexual practices or immigration policies viewed as cultural threats.^[96] Ideological purity tests align with this foundation by treating deviations from orthodoxy as forms of group-level degradation, eliciting disgust-like aversion to prevent "contamination" of collective values.^[97] For instance, demands for litmus tests on issues like abortion or fiscal conservatism among right-leaning groups reflect sanctity concerns, where compromise signals moral erosion akin to physical pollution.^[95] On the left, analogous purity dynamics appear in enforcement of anti-discrimination norms, though data indicate lower overall reliance on sanctity compared to binding foundations like loyalty.^[98] Threat perception amplifies purity endorsements, with conservatives showing greater shifts toward sanctity under existential stress, potentially intensifying purity test rigor in polarized environments.^[99] However, some analyses challenge purity's coherence as a standalone moral module, arguing it overlaps with disgust mechanisms rather than forming a distinct ideological driver.^[100] Despite such debates, MFT evidence links purity concerns to in-group enforcement, where tests function as barriers against perceived moral impurities that could undermine group cohesion.^[97]

Group Dynamics and In-Group Enforcement

In-group enforcement of purity tests operates through social mechanisms that reward conformity and punish deviation, often escalating into purity spirals where members compete to demonstrate superior adherence to group norms. This process begins with initial litmus tests of belief or behavior, but intensifies as individuals signal loyalty by advocating stricter standards, thereby elevating their status within the hierarchy. Such dynamics foster short-term cohesion by weeding out perceived impurities, yet they erode broader participation by alienating moderates who fail escalating criteria.^[71]^[101] Enforcement relies on decentralized tools like public shaming, peer review in resource allocation, and exclusion from opportunities, amplified by digital platforms that enable rapid consensus on violations. In the Canadian music industry, for instance, artists faced concert cancellations and funding denials in 2015 after scrutiny over band names evoking historical conflicts, with peer jurors in grants and awards systems upholding these norms through withheld recognition. Similarly, social media facilitates crowdsourced policing, where accusations of impurity trigger boycotts or blacklisting, as seen in knitting communities where nuanced views on politics led to forum expulsions and doxxing campaigns starting around 2019.^[101]^[71] Psychologically, these tests leverage moral emotions such as disgust toward purity violations, which signal threats to group sanctity and provoke collective outrage to deter future lapses. Studies indicate that expressions of anger and disgust in response to norm breaches infer autonomy or sanctity infringements, strengthening in-group bonds by framing enforcers as guardians. Sociologically, in-group favoritism biases norm application, promoting cooperative enforcement internally while heightening intolerance externally, as groups prioritize ideological authenticity to distinguish "true believers" from pretenders. This can manifest in political contexts through primaries or caucuses where ideological factions demand purity oaths, reducing compromise and amplifying factionalism.^[102]^[103]^[104] Empirical observations across domains reveal that while purity enforcement initially bolsters perceived unity, it often culminates in implosion, as endless escalation leaves no room for dissent or adaptation. In voluntary associations, oppositional responses to emergent violations sustain norms but risk over-correction, shrinking groups to unviable sizes. Historical parallels, such as ideological purges in revolutionary movements, underscore causal links between unchecked enforcement and internal collapse, though contemporary data from online and professional networks provide proximate evidence of these patterns.^[105]^[101]

Contemporary Relevance and Future Implications

Examples from the 2020s

In the aftermath of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, purity tests within the Republican Party centered on acceptance of claims that the election was stolen from Donald Trump. During the formation of the second Trump administration in early 2025, prospective appointees underwent interviews where they were asked directly who won the 2020 election, with affirmation of Trump's victory serving as a loyalty benchmark to filter out perceived disloyalty.^[106] This approach extended to vice presidential vetting in 2024, where candidates were evaluated on their willingness to publicly break from Mike Pence's role in certifying the results, reinforcing narrative alignment as a prerequisite for advancement.^[107] Democratic Party dynamics in the early 2020s featured purity tests tied to progressive priorities, such as unequivocal support for reducing police funding and expansive racial justice frameworks following the 2020 George Floyd protests. These standards alienated moderate voters and contributed to electoral setbacks, as evidenced by post-2024 analyses attributing Kamala Harris's defeat partly to progressive insistence on uncompromising positions over pragmatic appeals.^[68]^[108] Organizations like the Democratic Majority for Israel urged the party to abandon such litmus tests to recapture broader coalitions, arguing they prioritized ideological conformity over winning strategies.^[109] Beyond formal politics, purity spirals proliferated in social movements during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2022, where communities enforced escalating demands for compliance with vaccination, masking, and lockdowns, often shaming or excluding skeptics as moral defectors.^[110] In activist networks influenced by Black Lives Matter, adherence to rigid interpretations of anti-racism—such as mandatory endorsements of concepts like systemic racism without nuance—led to internal purges, with figures facing cancellation for insufficient zeal.^[111] Niche online groups, including knitting communities in 2020, devolved into factional strife over public professions of loyalty to social justice causes, illustrating how fixation on unbounded moral values eroded group cohesion.^[112] These instances highlight purity tests' role in amplifying division, as seen in philanthropy sectors by 2024, where donor expectations of zero-tolerance for ideological deviation fostered zero-sum enforcement within organizations.^[113] Empirical patterns from surveys of progressive activists indicate that such tests correlate with exclusionary cultures, prioritizing performative correctness over substantive goals.^[114]

Potential Reforms or Alternatives

One proposed structural reform to mitigate the influence of purity tests involves adopting open or non-partisan primaries combined with ranked-choice voting (RCV), which broadens the electorate beyond low-turnout partisan bases often dominated by ideological extremes.^[115] In traditional closed primaries, turnout typically ranges from 18% to 27%, enabling activists to enforce rigid standards, whereas open systems allow independents and cross-party voters to participate, pressuring candidates to appeal to median voters rather than fringes.^[115]^[116] Alaska's 2020 electoral overhaul exemplifies this approach: a top-four non-partisan primary advances the leading candidates regardless of party affiliation, followed by RCV in the general election where voters rank preferences until a majority winner emerges.^[115] Implemented in 2022, it elected a moderate Democrat to the U.S. House and retained moderate Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski against a purist challenger, demonstrating reduced reliance on base mobilization and incentives for cross-appeal.^[115] Proponents argue this diminishes purity tests by requiring candidates to secure second- or third-choice votes from opponents, fostering compromise over doctrinal rigidity.^[115] At the party level, post-2024 Democratic initiatives advocate internal shifts away from litmus tests on issues like immigration, race, and gender to prioritize electability and economic pragmatism.^[109] The Majority Democrats group, comprising figures such as Sens. Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin, calls for a "big-tent" strategy that engages working-class and minority voters alienated by progressive orthodoxy, such as school closure policies during COVID-19.^[109] Similarly, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto's leadership of the Moderate Democrats PAC (ModSquad) emphasizes "common-sense" positions on border security and community safety, rejecting extremes like "defund the police," with data showing such centrists won four swing-state Senate races in 2024 despite national losses.^[117] Broader alternatives include emphasizing outcome-based accountability over ideological conformity, such as evaluating policies by empirical metrics like economic growth or crime rates rather than adherence to partisan markers.^[118] In local contexts, like Deschutes County, Oregon, reformers urge focusing on governance efficacy—e.g., infrastructure delivery—irrespective of litmus-test compliance, arguing this sustains coalitions without fracturing over secondary disputes.^[118] These approaches, while untested at scale, aim to preserve ideological cores through voluntary alignment on core principles while tolerating diversity on peripherals, potentially enhancing party resilience.^[109]

References

[1]
Purity Test Definition & Meaning - YourDictionary
An informal survey that assesses the participant's supposed degree of innocence in worldly matters, such as sex, drugs, and deceit.
[2]
Rice Purity Test - Monkey Type
The rice purity test is a hundred question tests and it defines your purity and innocence, based on questions.
[3]
The Rice Purity Test
It's a voluntary opportunity for O-week groups to bond, and for students to track the maturation. of their experiences throughout college. Caution: This is not ...
[4]
Rice University's 1924 Purity Test - Facebook
Nov 12, 2024 · 1. Gender: Female. 2. Grade: 12. 3. How often do you witness cheating in class? A lot. 4. Have you ever cheated? Yes. 5.If you answered yes to 4 ...
[5]
Rice Purity Test with Statistical Reports updated to 2025 - Arealme
It is a self-graded survey that assesses the participants' supposed degree of innocence in worldly matters (sex, drugs, deceit, and other activities assumed to ...<|separator|>
[6]
The Impure Truth About the Rice Purity Test. - The Trail
Apr 11, 2024 · The Rice Purity Test was first introduced by Rice University in 1924. ... “The first test was only given to women, and so this test originated ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
[7]
'Purity Tests': How Corporate Media Describe Progressives Standing ...
Apr 17, 2019 · The term “purity test” has a very specific meaning, largely used by elites to chastise and attack the left, or to gaslight them into supporting more centrist ...
[8]
'Purity Tests' Can Be a Good Thing - OtherWords
May 15, 2019 · When powerful people complain about "purity tests," it means they're being pressured in ways they don't like.
[9]
Purity Testing Politicians Is A Good Thing | by Laura Westford
Aug 24, 2025 · Purity Testing Politicians Is A Good Thing We should always demand more from those who govern us Whenever people on the left make demands of ...
[10]
On Political Purity Tests - The Prindle Institute for Ethics
Jan 24, 2020 · With the 2020 presidential election less than a year away, talk of “purity” tests for political candidates – so-called requirements, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[11]
https://apnews.com/5411b7bd9c414b36b4cf35dead3b75be
[12]
Abortion: the new litmus test for Democratic candidates?
Apr 28, 2017 · Abortion: the new litmus test for ... “There are some very substantial consequences for trying to demand an ideological purity test ...
[13]
PBS Democratic Debate: Warren, Buttigieg, 'Purity Tests' - The Atlantic
Dec 20, 2019 · ... litmus test. But a purity test suggests an even more stringent ... and the laws they will make will stand the purity test.” Purity ...Missing: differences | Show results with:differences
[14]
Loyalty Oaths | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Jan 1, 2009 · A loyalty oath is a declaration by an individual of allegiance to a government and its institutions and a disavowal of support for foreign ideologies or ...Missing: purity | Show results with:purity
[15]
Amdt1.7.9.1 Loyalty Oaths - Constitution Annotated - Congress.gov
A loyalty oath disclaiming belief in or advocacy of, or membership in an organization that stands for or advocates unlawful or disloyal action.Missing: purity | Show results with:purity
[16]
Republicans in Georgia put candidates through purity tests. Now ...
Mar 9, 2024 · The prospect of barring candidates for insufficient political fidelity has been raised by both parties at one point or another in Georgia and ...
[17]
[PDF] The Evolution of Extremism in the First 100 Days of the Biden ... - ICSR
Apr 22, 2021 · 81 Matt Shuham, “Armed Right-Wing Group Oath Keepers Banned From Twitter For Violating Extremism Policy”, ... extremist religio-political ideology ...<|separator|>
[18]
How political parties have changed over time - Stanford Report
Feb 14, 2024 · “Political parties used to be gatekeepers in politics. Now, voters have a much bigger say in determining who's going to be the presidential ...Missing: purity | Show results with:purity
[19]
Democrats Are Having a Purity-Test Problem at Exactly the Wrong ...
Jun 29, 2022 · Democrats Are Having a Purity-Test Problem at Exactly the Wrong Time ... Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, ...
[20]
Act of Supremacy in 1534 | Background, Provisions & Significance
The Act of Supremacy in 1534 was an act passed by the Parliament of England declaring the English monarch as the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
[21]
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: English Post-Reformation Oaths
Oath of royal supremacy (1534). This oath was imposed in March 1534 (26 Henry VIII, c. 1). The title "Supreme Head" had first been introduced by Henry VIII.
[22]
Act of Supremacy | England [1559] - Britannica
The Act of Supremacy, passed by Parliament and approved in 1559, revived the antipapal statutes of Henry VIII and declared the queen supreme governor of the ...<|separator|>
[23]
Puritan New England: Massachusetts Bay (article) - Khan Academy
The Massachusetts Bay colony, a "city upon a hill," aimed to reform Protestantism, emphasizing literacy, and faced internal and external conflicts.
[24]
Anne Hutchinson and Religious Dissent - Bill of Rights Institute
The Puritans believed the survival of the Massachusetts Bay Colony depended upon a common vision and unity based upon their mutual covenant. Puritan theology ...Missing: tests | Show results with:tests
[25]
The Massachusetts Bay Colony | United States History I
Roger Williams questioned the Puritans' taking of Indian land. Williams also argued for a complete separation from the Church of England, a position other ...Missing: tests | Show results with:tests
[26]
https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-848
[27]
Loyalists | George Washington's Mount Vernon
Jul 3, 2025 · The British loss of the American Revolution meant that many Loyalists would never return to America. Between 60,000 and 80,000 Americans left ...
[28]
https://sar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Oaths-of-Allegiance-During-the-American-Revolution-8-May-2021.pdf
[29]
The Reign of Terror | World Civilizations I (HIS101) - Lumen Learning
The year of Jacobin rule was the first time in history that terror became an official government policy, with the stated aim to use violence to achieve a higher ...
[30]
Jacobin Club | History, Members, & Facts | Britannica
Sep 29, 2025 · After the fall of Robespierre on 9 Thermidor, year II (July 27, 1794), the Parisian club, now a symbol of dictatorship and terror, was ...
[31]
A Guide to the French Revolution - Jacobin
Jul 14, 2015 · What should we think about the “Reign of Terror”? The Reign of Terror was a period of intense violence led by Robespierre's Jacobins, during ...
[32]
Internal Workings of the Soviet Union - Revelations from the Russian ...
Although the post-Stalin secret police, the KGB, no longer inflicted such large-scale purges, terror, and forced depopulation on the peoples of the Soviet Union ...<|separator|>
[33]
Great Purge | History & Facts - Britannica
Sep 20, 2025 · Great Purge, three widely publicized show trials and a series of closed, unpublicized trials held in the Soviet Union during the late 1930s.
[34]
The Biological State: Nazi Racial Hygiene, 1933–1939
Between 1933-1939, Nazi eugenics and racial hygiene led to policies like mass sterilization and criminalizing marriage between Jews and non-Jews.
[35]
McCarthyism and the Red Scare | Miller Center
In the early 1950s, American leaders repeatedly told the public that they should be fearful of subversive Communist influence in their lives.Missing: purity tests
[36]
U.S. Senate: "Have You No Sense of Decency?"
... communism. McCarthy relentlessly ... At a session on June 9, 1954, McCarthy charged that one of Welch's attorneys had ties to a Communist organization.Missing: purity tests<|separator|>
[37]
[PDF] A Quantitative Analysis of the 1937-38 Purges in the Red Army
Dec 9, 2024 · The Stalin's purge of the Soviet military during the Great Terror (1937-1938) is one of the most sweeping, famous, and well-studied episodes of ...
[38]
The polarization in today's Congress has roots that go back decades
Mar 10, 2022 · A Pew Research Center analysis finds that, on average, Democrats and Republicans are farther apart ideologically today than at any time in the past 50 years.Missing: purity | Show results with:purity
[39]
The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and ...
This “sorting,” the book contends, results directly from the increasingly polarized terms in which political leaders define their parties. Exploring its far- ...
[40]
'Cultural War' of 1992 Moves In From the Fringe - The New York Times
Aug 29, 2012 · Twenty years after Patrick J. Buchanan spoke at the Republican convention of a “cultural war,” his views are more common than controversial.
[41]
Definition of the Hastert Rule - ThoughtCo
Jan 28, 2019 · The Hastert Rule is an informal policy in House Republican leadership designed to limit the debate on bills that don't have support from a majority of its ...Missing: purity | Show results with:purity
[42]
Opinion | How the Right's Purity Tests Are Haunting the House G.O.P.
Oct 24, 2023 · The Tea Party of the 2010s seemingly reflected the same tendency toward greater conservative purity. Yet, it was more populist and more ...
[43]
Going After Joe Lieberman - Commentary Magazine
Mar 1, 2010 · There are Democratic politicians more conservative than Lieberman on contentious issues such as abortion, as well as some who have less ...
[44]
The left goes to war with itself - POLITICO
The Democratic Socialists of America has seen a meteoric rise since 2015, when Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed ...
[45]
Fetterman, Breaking With the Left on Israel, Rejects 'Progressive' Label
Dec 21, 2023 · The Pennsylvania senator, who has angered liberal Democrats with his staunchly pro-Israel stance and position on immigration, assailed the ...
[46]
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/massachusetts-playbook/2023/07/10/connolly-leaving-dsa-00105369
[47]
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democratic-socialists-swept-power-nevada-judith-whitmer-rcna72905
[48]
Democratic Candidates Woo Silicon Valley for Donations, Then Bash It
Jun 6, 2019 · In a contest where purity tests on the left have already propelled leading campaigns to disavow super PACs and reject money from federal ...Missing: movements | Show results with:movements<|separator|>
[49]
Buttigieg discovers Dems' 2028 litmus test: Israel - POLITICO
Aug 14, 2025 · Across the still-forming field, ambitious Democrats are reevaluating their positions and staking out their territory.
[50]
Theses on the Communist Parties and - Marxists Internet Archive
Thus still more opportunist elements will manage to enter the Communist International, who will not become revolutionary Communists overnight. They will carry ...
[51]
The Communist Party in the 1930s: What Lessons for Socialists ...
Mar 22, 2021 · The activities of the Communist Party in the 1930s are a treasure trove of important lessons, both positive and negative, for socialists.<|separator|>
[52]
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/09/democrats-progressive-candidates-races-wins-midterms-congress
[53]
How abortion became the single most important litmus test in ...
Jan 22, 2018 · Forty-five years ago today, on Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion across America with its historic Roe v.
[54]
THE G.O.P. LITMUS TEST | TIME
Jul 21, 2008 · Wade. Citing Thomas Jefferson, the Republican presidential aspirant called the high court an ”unelected oligarchy” and assailed the Justices as ...
[55]
The Republican Litmus Test - The Atlantic
Apr 6, 2010 · It is with Palin and her political aspirations that we are going to find out whether the tottering GOP is merely desperate, or depraved. Palin ...
[56]
Van Hollen says GOP has 'ideological purity test' - POLITICO
Oct 10, 2010 · “On the other side…you have this ideological purity test, and it's being moved even further to the right." “When Mike Castle loses,” Van ...
[57]
Republicans reject ideological purity test - UPI.com
Republicans reject ideological purity test ... HONOLULU, Jan. 30 (UPI) -- The Republican National Committee, meeting in Hawaii, has rejected a proposed "purity ...
[58]
How 2020 election denialism became a litmus test for the GOP - PBS
Feb 19, 2024 · True the Vote, a group that spread false allegations about the 2020 election, recently admitted to a judge – reported first by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ...
[59]
The GOP's right-wing, ideological purity litmus test lunacy
Jun 24, 2022 · The GOP's right-wing, ideological purity litmus test lunacy. The Republican Party is making news for all the wrong reasons.
[60]
NDP leadership candidate McPherson defends 'purity test' remarks
Oct 1, 2025 · NDP leadership candidate Heather McPherson isn't backing down from her claim that backers of the party shouldn't have to pass a purity test.<|separator|>
[61]
Heather McPherson declares for NDP leadership, contrasts her ...
Sep 30, 2025 · McPherson launched her campaign with a call for the NDP to get rid of 'purity tests.' She said her parents were not 'terribly political'.<|separator|>
[62]
Labour's purity test risks electoral suicide - The Times
Abraham Lincoln; B — Mark Twain; C — Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund of Bohemia; D — Angela Rayner MP.
[63]
A foreign policy litmus test: How the war in Ukraine has fuelled ...
Mar 4, 2023 · The war in Ukraine has become a litmus test for European politicians. The unexpected conflict in Europe has prompted a revaluation of the ...
[64]
Labour: dysfunctional 'toxic culture' led to defeat, major report finds
Jun 18, 2020 · A major review of the 2019 general election defeat, which paints a picture of dysfunctionality, toxicity and drift inside the party's election-fighting machine.Missing: purity loss
[65]
[PDF] Electoral Penalties for Ideological Extremism in U.S. Federal and ...
The small- est penalty for extremism is in state legislative elections, where voters barely punish extremists, and the largest penalty is in gubernatorial ...Missing: losses | Show results with:losses
[66]
Did the Tea Party Help or Hurt the Republicans? - Brookings Institution
Is the Tea Party responsible for Tuesday's midterm election results? Justin Wolfers attempts to answer this question by looking at how Republicans would ...
[67]
Obama warns against 'purity tests' in the Democratic primary
Nov 21, 2019 · Former President Barack Obama is warning Democrats against adopting “purity tests” in the presidential primary and alienating voters needed ...
[68]
Decaf coffee, ideological purity, and a lost election - Forest Park ...
Jan 7, 2025 · Barack Obama suggested that one reason Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump was that progressives insisted on “ideological purity.”
[69]
Jeremy Corbyn's crushing defeat - The Economist
Dec 13, 2019 · Don't expect the Labour Party to move back to the centre quickly | Britain.Missing: purity | Show results with:purity
[70]
History tells us that ideological 'purity spirals' rarely end well
Jul 1, 2020 · The polarisation of today's political discourse has echoes of the intolerance that characterised the Puritan era and the French Revolution.
[71]
How knitters got knotted in a purity spiral - UnHerd
Jan 30, 2020 · Nor is it confined to the Left: neo-Nazi groups offer some of the clearest examples of purity spirals: the ongoing parsing of ethnic purity ...
[72]
Purity Culture on the Left: Why Do We Punish the Progress We Ask ...
free from what some see as opportunists or ideologically compromised figures.Missing: science tests factionalism
[73]
Psychology and morality of political extremists: evidence from Twitter ...
May 14, 2019 · ... purity than left-wing extremists. Furthermore, in order to link MFT to political extremism, Graham and Haidt [37] argue that since ...
[74]
Purity Spirals, Political Alliances, and Movement Building
Jun 26, 2022 · I think it is about representing women's political interests, and the political ground we are defending those interests on. There is a lot of ...
[75]
Who Punishes Extremist Nominees? Candidate Ideology and ...
Mar 7, 2018 · If this fear drives voter turnout, then extremists will galvanize voters in the opposing party more than those in their own party's base.
[76]
[PDF] Who Punishes Extremist Nominees? Candidate Ideology and ...
May 18, 2016 · to be more horrified by an extremist nominee than the party's own base is pleased by one. If this fear drives voter turnout, then extremists ...
[77]
Tea Time in America? The Impact of the Tea Party Movement on the ...
Apr 8, 2011 · Specifically, in the 2010 midterm elections, did a Tea Party endorsement lead to an increase in vote share for Republican candidates?Footnote ...Missing: purity | Show results with:purity<|separator|>
[78]
[PDF] What Happens When Extremists Win Primaries? - Andrew B. Hall
Short-term electoral outcomes are not the only con- sequence of nominating extremists in primary elec- tions, either. Even if an extremist performs poorly in.
[79]
Labour's 2019 Campaign: A Defeat of Epic Proportions
Sep 23, 2020 · When the Prime Minister Boris Johnson called an early election, few Labour candidates were expecting a victory or even a repeat of the ...From hubris to chaos · Alarm bells start ringing · Explaining the resultsMissing: purity | Show results with:purity
[80]
Key points from review of 2019 Labour election defeat - The Guardian
Jun 18, 2020 · Corbyn leadership, Brexit policy and party structure among issues singled out.Missing: purity | Show results with:purity
[81]
In Defense of Litmus Tests - Current Affairs
Jul 21, 2020 · “Vote blue no matter who,” has become a sort of gospel among moderate Democrats and “Never Trump Republicans.”Missing: advantages | Show results with:advantages
[82]
Democrats Should Embrace a Few Purity Tests | The New Republic
Jan 21, 2020 · Voters can have a little certainty about what the party stands for, as a treat.Missing: harming | Show results with:harming
[83]
Tea Party Affiliation, Factionalism, and GOP Politics in State ...
Sep 14, 2021 · Our results reveal that in some respects legislators affiliated with the Tea Party are a far-right wing of the Republican Party. However, by ...
[84]
In Defense Of Litmus Tests - CBS News
Mar 9, 2007 · The phrase "litmus tests" has negative connotations. It smacks of regimentation and intolerance. But we should be careful, when we see the ...
[85]
https://morningconsult.com/2020/04/01/medicare-for-all-coronavirus-pandemic/
[86]
House Freedom Caucus: How We're Delivering For Taxpayers
Jul 26, 2025 · Significant savings in the ever-growing federal spending appetite were enacted in the OBBB through sustained work by the HFC and other fiscal ...<|separator|>
[87]
Ideological mavericks or party herd? The effect of candidates ...
Political candidates' ideological positions have been used to explain success in inter-party competition, but little is known about how they impact success in ...
[88]
[PDF] The Tea Party's presence in primaries benefits the general election ...
There is little dispute that the Tea Party increased the number of competitive Republican congressional primaries in 2010, but what is less known is how these.Missing: purity impact
[89]
The Advantages of Ideological Cohesion - A. J. McGann, 2002
This article develops a model of parties in multi-party systems. Instead of treating parties as vote-maximizing candidates able to take any position, ...
[90]
https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1979
[91]
The Mobilizing Effect of Party System Polarization. Evidence From ...
Sep 5, 2023 · Does party system polarization mobilize voters? Polarization is increasingly shaping democratic competition across Europe.Missing: purity | Show results with:purity
[92]
Moral Foundations Theory | moralfoundations.org
Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) explores shared morality themes across cultures, suggesting innate psychological systems are the core of our intuitive ethics.Questionnaires · Videos and Press · Publications · Other Materials
[93]
Mapping the Moral Domain - PMC - PubMed Central
A major goal of Moral Foundations Theory is to expand the range of phenomena studied in moral psychology so that it matches the full range of moral concerns, ...
[94]
Moral Foundations Theory Explained by Jonathan Haidt
Jul 15, 2018 · In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt develops “Moral Foundations Theory" to explain why good people are divided by politics and religion.
[95]
How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war ...
Our results suggest that dispositional tendencies, particularly a person's moral intuitions, may underlie, motivate, and unite ideological positions across a ...
[96]
The moral foundation of purity, but not harm, predicts attitudes ...
Jun 1, 2024 · The theory describes five dimensions of moral value: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, loyalty/ingroup, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity ( ...<|separator|>
[97]
How Purity Divides Us - Greater Good Science Center
Feb 26, 2016 · Purity is the moral foundation that drives people apart—and a glue that keeps them together, a new study suggests.
[98]
It's not only political conservatives who worry about moral purity
Jul 13, 2023 · To assess concerns about purity, researchers have tended to ask about the immorality of behaviours such as sexual promiscuity or masturbation.
[99]
Political ideology moderates threat‐induced shifts in moral purity ...
Nov 7, 2022 · The present research aims to investigate the effect of threat on moral foundations endorsement, which conservatives and liberals reliably differ on.INTRODUCTION · STUDY 1 · STUDY 2 · GENERAL DISCUSSION
[100]
The Problem of Purity in Moral Psychology - PMC - PubMed Central
... purity test” (Levine, 2019). Meanwhile, republican President Donald Trump ... Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: Political ideology and congruent ...
[101]
The Purity Spiral of Canada's Music Industry - Quillette
Sep 30, 2018 · ... purity spirals”since at least the 1980s. But thanks to social media, crowdsourced enforcement mechanisms are now more powerful and unforgiving.
[102]
Emotions as guardians of group norms: expressions of anger and ...
Emotions as guardians of group norms: expressions of anger and disgust drive inferences about autonomy and purity violations ... Source: European Review of Social ...Missing: enforcement | Show results with:enforcement<|separator|>
[103]
Ideological authenticity and the dynamics of suspicion - Frontiers
Many episodes of political repression focus on policing ideological authenticity to distinguish true believers from mere pretenders.
[104]
Group bias in cooperative norm enforcement - Journals
Jan 19, 2016 · Our primary aim in this paper was to survey the empirical evidence in favour of this proposed link between group biases and cooperative norms ...
[105]
Bottom-up influences on social norms: How observers' responses to ...
Social norms are shaped by observers' responses to emergent norm violations. Oppositional responses foster norm maintenance by discouraging future violations.
[106]
Trump Team Tests Job Seekers by Asking Who Won the 2020 Election
Mar 6, 2025 · The White House is giving potential job candidates litmus tests in interviews to make sure they are sufficiently loyal to President Donald Trump and his second ...Missing: 2020s United
[107]
Trump Veepstakes have new litmus test: Breaking with Pence over ...
Mar 12, 2024 · Would-be running mates for former President Trump are facing a new litmus test as they audition for a spot on the Republican ticket: whether ...
[108]
Democrats' Ideological Litmus Tests Are Turning States Red | Opinion
Nov 1, 2024 · The Democratic Party's focus on progressive ideals over real-world issues has alienated its base, not only in Michigan but across the country.
[109]
New Democratic group tells party to drop purity tests - UnHerd
Jul 13, 2025 · Post ... The progressive politics of the Squad and other congressmen are not “left wing”: they are the illusion of a left politics.
[110]
Breaking the COVID Purity Spiral - The Gospel Coalition | Australia
Sep 28, 2021 · A purity spiral occurs when a community becomes fixated on implementing a single value that has no upper limit, and no single agreed ...
[111]
Democrats need to loudly reject progressive extremism - Noahpinion
Dec 7, 2024 · Also, the progressive activists of the 2010s and early 2020s didn't stay on social media. ... purity spirals. Plenty of people did lose their jobs ...
[112]
How knitters got knotted in a purity spiral - UnHerd
A purity spiral occurs when a community becomes fixated on implementing a single value that has no upper limit, and no single agreed interpretation.
[113]
Righteous Attitudes, Ideological Purity Tests, Zero-Sum Thinking
May 2, 2024 · Those working to combat polarization say philanthropy is part of the problem. Many nonprofits describe “win at all costs” mandates that push ...
[114]
[PDF] Progressive Activists - More in Common UK
Movements centred on moral superiority and rigid ideological purity risk creating an exclusionary culture. When people feel that they must hold 'correct' views ...
[115]
How to fix U.S. elections | George W. Bush Presidential Center
Americans aren't as polarized as we seem, but our system gives politicians no incentive to compromise. Adopting ranked choice voting and the Alaska Model ...
[116]
https://primaryproblem.uniteamerica.org/
[117]
Cortez Masto taking over 'ModSquad' PAC, urges Dems to ... - Politico
Apr 28, 2025 · Common-sense Democrats are the only group that really outperformed in the 2024 election,” the Nevada senator said.Missing: harming | Show results with:harming
[118]
https://bendbulletin.com/2025/10/22/guest-column-county-politics-needs-pragmatism-over-political-purity/