2026/07/29 by James L. Gibson, Michael J. Nelson
paper · doi:10.1177/10659129261470544
Infelicitous political talk is now a routine feature of American politics, with scholars debating the extent to which it meaningfully shapes citizens’ democratic attitudes. We seek to contribute to this body of work by showing that the degree of inappropriateness of a criticism is continuous and subjective; that rhetorical denigration of democratic institutions is more likely to influence evaluations of the speaker than to erode broader commitments to democracy; and that criticisms that “cross the line” of appropriateness can create backlashes that actually wind up increasing support for democratic institutions and values. Using an experiment embedded in a national survey, we evaluate the effects of inappropriate attacks on the U.S. judiciary. Perceived rhetorical denigration does not weaken democratic values; instead, it produces a small but consistent backlash that slightly increases support for democratic institutions. Our various findings strongly challenge the assumption that rising infelicitous talk poses a serious threat to democratic stability in the U.S.