The relationship between citizens and political parties is characterized, generally, in a measure of party identification (PID). Since the onset of behavioralism, this has been a major focus of political scientists in the United States, and remains a dominant, if varying, factor in explaining political behavior. As the discourse on the shape of PID continues, unresolved, a fundamental question remains largely unexamined: "Do citizens actually identify with parties in the U.S.?" I explore the nature of the citizen-party relationship and attempt to bring the discourse from both political theory and social psychology literatures to bear on the study of PID in U.S. politics. An understanding of identity, as applied to political parties, is constructed. That evolved meaning is then compared to the literature on party identity in U.S. politics. This is done with sensitivity to the context from which the term, PID, arose, and with an appreciation for how the empirical measure has been interpreted over the years (revisionist and anti-revisionist).
     I find that the term, PID, while accurate and appropriate in its genesis, is today misleading. In the U.S. most individuals probably associate with broad party structures as collectives, and do not identify with them as groups. The question is more than semantical. Implications of the misnomer are significant for the discipline in general: some political scientists appear to be unaware of the more recent understandings of identity. In addition, our view of citizen-party relations is arguably clouded, and our research affected. By reconceptualizing the nature of those relations, we may more fully appreciate the behavior of the citizens we observe, leading to both better specified models and clearer inferences.