5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Uncommon and nonpartisan: Antidemocratic attitudes in the American public

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          While American political elites increasingly exhibit an antidemocratic posture, our analysis of public attitudes reveals a clear democratic disconnect: Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly and consistently oppose norm violations and partisan violence–even when their own representatives engage in antidemocratic actions. This commitment to democratic norms remains stable over time in both cross-sectional and panel data, suggesting that recent outbreaks of antidemocratic behavior on the part of political elites have yet to weaken the public’s support for democracy. However, a more ominous implication of our findings is that public support is not a prerequisite for elite backsliding.

          Abstract

          Democratic regimes flourish only when there is broad acceptance of an extensive set of norms and values. In the United States, fundamental democratic norms have recently come under threat from prominent Republican officials. We investigate whether this antidemocratic posture has spread from the elite level to rank-and-file partisans. Exploiting data from a massive repeated cross-sectional and panel survey ( n = 45,095 and 5,231 respectively), we find that overwhelming majorities of the public oppose violations of democratic norms, and virtually nobody supports partisan violence. This bipartisan consensus remains unchanged over time despite high levels of affective polarization and exposure to divisive elite rhetoric during the 2022 political campaign. Additionally, we find no evidence that elected officials’ practice of election denialism encourages their constituents to express antidemocratic attitudes. Overall, these results suggest that the clear and present threat to American democracy comes from unilateral actions by political elites that stand in contrast to the views of their constituents. In closing, we consider the implications of the stark disconnect between the behavior of Republican elites and the attitudes of Republican voters.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The end of the end of ideology.

              The "end of ideology" was declared by social scientists in the aftermath of World War II. They argued that (a) ordinary citizens' political attitudes lack the kind of stability, consistency, and constraint that ideology requires; (b) ideological constructs such as liberalism and conservatism lack motivational potency and behavioral significance; (c) there are no major differences in content (or substance) between liberal and conservative points of view; and (d) there are few important differences in psychological processes (or styles) that underlie liberal versus conservative orientations. The end-of-ideologists were so influential that researchers ignored the topic of ideology for many years. However, current political realities, recent data from the American National Election Studies, and results from an emerging psychological paradigm provide strong grounds for returning to the study of ideology. Studies reveal that there are indeed meaningful political and psychological differences that covary with ideological self-placement. Situational variables--including system threat and mortality salience--and dispositional variables--including openness and conscientiousness--affect the degree to which an individual is drawn to liberal versus conservative leaders, parties, and opinions. A psychological analysis is also useful for understanding the political divide between "red states" and "blue states." ((c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                18 March 2024
                26 March 2024
                18 March 2024
                : 121
                : 13
                : e2313013121
                Affiliations
                [1] aDepartment of Political Science , Stanford University , Stanford, CA 94305
                [2] bAnnenberg School for Communication , University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, PA 19104
                [3] cDepartment of Government , Dartmouth College , Hanover, NH 03755
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: sean.j.westwood@ 123456dartmouth.edu .

                Edited by James N. Druckman, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; received July 28, 2023; accepted January 29, 2024 by Editorial Board Member Mary C. Waters

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0064-4979
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2406-719X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1805-056X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2383-8047
                Article
                202313013
                10.1073/pnas.2313013121
                10990094
                38498713
                36bc5cbd-83f7-457e-962f-b7904d9b6169
                Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).

                History
                : 28 July 2023
                : 29 January 2024
                Page count
                Pages: 8, Words: 5151
                Funding
                Funded by: John S. and James L. Knight Foundation (KF), FundRef 100005959;
                Award ID: GR-2022-65104
                Award Recipient : Shanto Iyengar Award Recipient : Yphtach Lelkes Award Recipient : Sean J Westwood
                Funded by: Charles Koch Foundation (CKF), FundRef 100013861;
                Award ID: Polarization Lab CKoch Fnd
                Award Recipient : Shanto Iyengar Award Recipient : Yphtach Lelkes Award Recipient : Sean J Westwood
                Categories
                research-article, Research Article
                pol-sci, Political Sciences
                429
                Social Sciences
                Political Sciences

                democratic backsliding,democratic norms,polarization

                Comments

                Comment on this article