During his tenure in office, President Trump made repeated attacks on democratic norms and practices in his public statements, in particular via Twitter. Does this type of anti-democratic rhetoric lead to an erosion of citizens’ democratic attitudes? We argue that reactions to Trump’s rhetoric are not likely to be uniform given the highly polarized political climate in the United States. In order to test this theoretical proposition, we fielded a survey experiment on a module of the 2019 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Treated respondents were exposed to a range of tweets sent by President Trump attacking three critical institutions of a liberal democracy (the media, Congress, and the Courts). We find limited evidence that Trump’s rhetoric leads to an erosion of democratic attitudes. On the contrary, the results suggest there is significant pushback against anti-democratic messages, especially among Democrats.
AbramowitzAlanMcCoyJennifer. 2018. “United States: Racial Resentment, Negative Partisanship, and Polarization in Trump’s America.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science681 (1): 137–156.
2.
AchenChristopher H.BartelsLarry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3.
AlmondGabriel AVerbaSidney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
4.
ArceMoisésCarriónJulio F.. 2010. “Presidential Support in a Context of Crisis and Recovery in Peru, 1985-2008.” Journal of Politics in Latin America2 (1): 31–51.
5.
BerlinskiNicolasDoyleMargaretGuessAndrew M.LevyGabrielleLyonsBenjaminMontgomeryJacob M.Brendan NyhanReiflerJason. in press. “The Effects of Unsubstantiated Claims of Voter Fraud on Confidence in Elections.” Journal of Experimental Political Science.
6.
CampbellAngusConversePhillip E.MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
7.
CareyJohn M.HelmkeGretchenNyhanBrendanSandersMitchellStokesSusan. 2019. “Searching for Bright Lines in the Trump Presidency.” Perspectives on Politics17 (3): 699–718. doi:10.1017/s153759271900001x.
8.
ClaassenChristopher. 2020. “Does Public Support Help Democracy Survive?” American Journal of Political Science64 (1): 118–134.
9.
ClaytonKatherineDavisNicholas T.NyhanBrendanPorterEthanRyanTimothy J.WoodThomas J.. 2021. “Elite rhetoric can undermine democratic norms.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118 (23).
10.
CohenJeffrey E.2015. “Presidential Leadership of Public Opinion: An Embedded Survey Experiment.” Political Communication32 (3): 345–355.
11.
CohenMollie J.SmithAmy EricaMoseleyMason W.LaytonMatthew L.. 2022. “Winners’ Consent? Citizen Commitment to Democracy When Illiberal Candidates Win Elections.” American Journal of Political Science.
12.
DruckmanJames N.LeeperThomas J.. 2012. “Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and Its Effects.” American Journal of Political Science56 (4): 875–896.
13.
DruckmanJames N.PetersonErikSlothuusRune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review107 (1): 57–79.
14.
DruckmanJames N.Cindy DKam. Students as experimental participants. Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. Cambridge University Press, 2011, 1, pp. 41–57.
15.
DrutmanLeeDiamondLarryGoldmanJoe. 2018. Follow the Leader: Exploring American Support for Democracy and Authoritarianism. Washington, DC: Democracy Fund Voter Study Group.
16.
DuchRaymond M.GibsonJames L.. 1992. “Putting Up With” Fascists in Western Europe: A Comparative, Cross-Level Analysis of Political Tolerance.” The Western Political Quarterly45 (1): 237–273.
17.
EndresKylePanagopoulosCostasGreenDonald P.. 2020. “Elite Messaging and Partisan Consumerism: An Evaluation of President Trump’s Tweets and Polarization of Corporate Brand Images.” Political Research Quarterly74 (4): 834–851.
18.
FishkinJosephPozenDavid E.. 2018. “Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball.” Columbia Law Review118: 915–982.
19.
FoaRoberto S.MounkYascha. 2016. “The Danger of Deconsolidation: The Democratic Disconnect.” Journal of Democracy27 (3): 5–17.
20.
FoaRoberto StefanMounkYascha. 2017. “The Signs of Deconsolidation.” Journal of Democracy28 (1): 5–15.
21.
GrahamMatthew H.SvolikMilan W.. 2020. “Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States.” American Political Science Review114 (2): 392–409.
22.
GrossmannMattThalerDaniel. 2018. “Mass–Elite Divides in Aversion to Social Change and Support for Donald Trump.” American Politics Research46 (5): 753–784.
23.
HartzLouis. 1955. The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt Brace and Co.
24.
HibbingJohn R.ElizabethTheiss-Morse. Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
IyengarShantoWestwoodSean J.. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science59 (3): 690–707.
27.
JackmanRobert W.1972. “Political Elites, Mass Publics, and Support for Democratic Principles.” Journal of Politics34 (3): 753–773.
28.
JungherrAndreasRiveroGonzaloGayo-AvelloDaniel. 2020. Retooling Politics: How Digital Media Are Shaping Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
KaufmanRobert R.HaggardStephan. 2018. “Democratic Decline in the United States: What Can We Learn from Middle-Income Backsliding?” Perspectives on Politics17 (2): 417–432.
30.
KinderDonald R.KalmoeNathan P.. 2017. Neither Liberal Nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
KingzetteJonDruckmanJames N.KlarSamaraKrupnikovYannaLevenduskyMatthewRyanJohn Barry. 2021. “How Affective Polarization Undermines Support for Democratic Norms.” Public Opinion Quarterly85 (2): 663–677.
32.
KlaasBrian. 2017. The Despot's Apprentice: Donald Trump's Attack on Democracy. New York: Skyhorse.
33.
KlarSamaraKrupnikovYanna. 2016. Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
LevitskyStevenWayLucan A.. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
LevitskyStevenZiblattDaniel. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.
36.
LiebermanRobert C.MettlerSuzannePepinskyThomas B.RobertsKenneth M.ValellyRichard. 2018. “The Trump Presidency and American Democracy: A Historical and Comparative Analysis.” Perspectives on Politics17 (2): 470–479.
37.
MaglebyDavid B.NelsonCandice J.WestlyeMark C.. 2011. “The Myth of the Independent Voter Revisited.” In Facing the Challenge of Democracy: Explorations in the Analysis of Public Opinion and Political Participation, edited by SnidermanPaul M.BenjaminHighton, 238–265. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
38.
MalkaArielLelkesYphtachBakkerBert N.SpivackEliyahu. 2020. “Who is Open to Authoritarian Governance within Western Democracies?” Perspectives on Politics.
39.
McCoyJenniferSomerMurat. 2018. “Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science681 (1): 234–271.
40.
MeeksLindsey. 2019. “Defining the Enemy: How Donald Trump Frames the News Media.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly97 (1): 211–234.
41.
MerollaJennifer L.ZechmeisterElizabeth J.. 2011. “The Nature, Determinants, and Consequences of Chávez’s Charisma: Evidence From a Study of Venezuelan Public Opinion.” Comparative Political Studies44 (1): 28–54.
42.
MullerEdward N.SeligsonMitchell A.. 1994. “Civic Culture and Democracy: The Question of Causal Relationships.” American Political Science Review88 (3): 635–652.
43.
NewmanBenjaminMerollaJennifer L.ShahSonoCasarez LemiDanielleCollingwoodLorenRamakrishnanS. Karthick. 2020. “The Trump Effect: An Experimental Investigation of the Emboldening Effect of Racially Inflammatory Elite Communication.” British Journal of Political Science: 1–22.
44.
NicholsonStephen P. 2012. “Polarizing Cues.” American Journal of Political Science56 (1): 52–66.
45.
NorrisPippaInglehartRonald. 2019. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
OliverJ. EricRahnWendy M.. 2016. “Rise of the Trumpenvolk.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science667 (1): 189–206.
47.
PeffleyMarkRohrschneiderRobert. 2007. “Guardians of Democracy? Elite Beliefs and the Theory of Democratic Elitism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, edited by DaltonRussell J.KlingemannHans-Dieter. New York: Oxford University Press.
48.
Pérez-LiñánAníbalSchmidtNicolásVairoDaniela. 2019. “Presidential hegemony and democratic backsliding in Latin America, 1925–2016.” Democratization26 (4): 606–625.
49.
SchedlerAndreas. 2019. “The breaching experiment. Donald Trump and the normative foundations of democracy.” Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft13 (4): 433–460. doi:10.1007/s12286-019-00438-0.
50.
ScheppeleKim LaneKovácsKriszta. 2018. “The fragility of an independent judiciary: Lessons from Hungary and Poland—and the European Union.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies51 (3): 189–200.
51.
SingerMatthew. 2018. “Delegating Away Democracy: How Good Representation and Policy Successes Can Undermine Democratic Legitimacy.” Comparative Political Studies51 (13): 1754–1788.
52.
SvolikMilan W.2019. “Polarization versus Democracy." Journal of Democracy30 (3): 20–32.
53.
WiardaHoward J.2003. “Foundations of Contrast: The United States and Latin America.” In The Soul of Latin America: The Cultural and Political Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
54.
ZallerJohn. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
