Current News

/

ArcaMax

Large numbers of Americans want a strong, rough, anti-democratic leader

Tarah Williams, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Allegheny College, Andrew Bloeser, Associate Professor of Political Science; Director, Center for Political Participation, Allegheny College, and Brian Harward, Professor of Political Science, Allegheny College, The Conversation on

Published in News & Features

By design, some of these questions allow citizens to use their own interpretations of actions like “crackdowns” and “bending the rules.” These types of practices can take a number of different specific forms, as the cases of Venezuela, Turkey and Hungary illustrate. Our aim was to determine whether citizens were inclined toward leaders who seek power by promising retribution toward some groups and benefits for others, because this rhetorical strategy is often a precursor to explicit violations of democratic institutions.

Likewise, the phrasing of our questions is designed to allow respondents to rely on their own ideas about the meaning of “American values,” and “people like you.” Our interest was in what people would enable leaders to do to protect their idea of America and the Americans with whom they identify.

We found that people who want this type of protective but anti-democratic style of leadership were by far the most inclined to want leaders who would take uncompromising, decisive action. These people did not merely want their side to win a political competition for power. They were literally willing to say they would “bend the rules” to do it, a clear violation of the democratic ideal that everyone must follow the same rules.

For each item, we found that at least a third of the people we polled agreed or strongly agreed with these subtle or explicit violations of democratic norms.

Anti-democratic statements are embraced by members of both U.S. parties, but more commonly by Republicans.

For example, around 90% of Republicans would support tough leaders who crack down on groups that “undermine American values” – however the survey respondents define those values. More than half of Democrats take the same position. Perhaps even more notably, nearly half of citizens who strongly support the Republican Party and over a third of those who strongly support the Democratic Party endorse the view that it is acceptable to “bend the rules” for people like themselves to achieve political goals.

This echoes other research that has found Americans, on both sides of the political aisle, are willing to sacrifice democratic principles and practices if it means their political party wins elections.

The key to understanding these views, we believe, is a desire for protection.

 

Many Americans view those in the other party as existential threats to the country – and closed-minded, dishonest, immoral and unintelligent too. All this coexists with growing evidence that more people are willing to support political violence under certain circumstances.

Many citizens prefer leaders who are willing to undermine democracy if it means protecting people like themselves from groups that threaten their values or status. Although most Americans do not subscribe to these beliefs, a substantial portion of the country does.

Leaders who actively promise anti-democratic action may come and go, but we fear the appetite of many Americans for such actions may always be a persistent threat.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. If you found it interesting, you could subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

Read more:
How a divided America, including the 15% who are ‘MAGA Republicans,’ splits on QAnon, racism and armed patrols at polling places

Venezuela has lost its democratic facade

Tarah Williams receives funding from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) as a Public Fellow.

Andrew Bloeser and Brian Harward do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.


Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus