Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T12:46:40.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Stealth Democrats Really Committed to Democracy? Process Preferences Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2022

Andrew J. Bloeser ,
Tarah Williams Open the ORCID record for Tarah Williams [Opens in a new window] ,
Candaisy Crawford  and
Brian M. Harward
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scholarship on “stealth democracy” finds that many citizens want to avoid the debate and conflict that often come with democratic governance. This scholarship has argued that citizens adopt this posture because they are uncomfortable with disagreement and desire a more expedient political process that enables leaders to make decisions without discussion or compromise. We revisit this argument in light of recent political developments that suggest another reason why citizens may desire a more expedient political process. We examine the possibility that some citizens are not merely uncomfortable with disagreement but also want leaders who will aggressively protect them and champion their interests. Using a nationally representative survey, we ask citizens about their preferences for stealth democracy. We also ask questions that tap into their willingness to support leaders who would “bend the rules for supporters” and take aggressive action against political opponents. We find that a substantial component of the electorate continues to prefer a stealth version of democracy. However, we also find that many “stealth democrats” are willing to support leadership practices that would threaten or even undermine democratic norms. We argue that this evidence indicates that, in recent years, many citizens who appear to desire “stealth democracy” pose a threat to democracy itself.

Information

Type
Special Section: Democracy
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 22 , Issue 1: Special Section: Women, Representation & Politics , March 2024 , pp. 116 - 130
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DQHSAW

References

Allen, Danielle. 2020. “A New Theory of Justice: Difference without Domination.” In Difference without Domination: Pursuing Justice in Diverse Democracies, eds. Allen, Danielle and Somanathan, Rohini, 27–58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altemeyer, Bob. 1996. The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Azevedo, Flávio, and Jost, John T.. 2021. “The Ideological Basis of Antiscientific Attitudes: Effects of Authoritarianism, Conservatism, Religiosity, Social Dominance, and System Justification.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 24(4): 518–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2020. “Ethnic Antagonism Erodes Republicans’ Commitment to Democracy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(37): 22752–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beavers, Olivia and Wu, Nicolas. 2021. “One Year Later, GOP Still Chained to Trump’s Baseless Election Fraud Claims.” Politico, November 3.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, Åsa, and Mattila, Mikko. 2009. “Direct Democracy and Its Critics: Support for Direct Democracy and ‘Stealth’ Democracy in Finland.” West European Politics 32: 1031–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J. 2000. “Creative Democracy—The Task Still before Us.” American Journal of Theology & Philosophy 21(3): 215–28.Google Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey M. and Sobieraj, Sarah. 2013. The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boutyline, Andrei, and Willer, Robb. 2017. “The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers: Variation in Ideological Homophily in Online Networks.” Political Psychology 38(3): 551–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14(1): 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bump, Phillip. 2021. “What Donald Trump Has Said about the Capitol Rioters.” Washington Post, July 22.Google Scholar
Carlson, Taylor N., and Settle, Jaime E.. 2016. “Political Chameleons: An Exploration of Conformity in Political Discussions.” Political Behavior 38(4): 817–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carothers, Thomas, and O’Donohue, Andrew. 2019. Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Caspary, William R. 2018. Dewey on Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Cizmar, Anne M., Layman, Geoffrey C., McTague, John, Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna, and Spivey, Michael. 2014. “Authoritarianism and American Political Behavior from 1952 to 2008.” Political Research Quarterly 67: 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffé, Hilde, and Michels, Ank. 2014. “Education and Support for Representative, Direct and Stealth Democracy.” Electoral Studies 35: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, David. 2021. “Trump on Jan. 6 Insurrection: ‘These Were Great People.’” Politico, July 11.Google Scholar
Cohen, Mollie J., and Smith, Amy Erica. 2016. “Do Authoritarians Vote for Authoritarians? Evidence from Latin America.” Research & Politics 3(4): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleoni, Elanor, Rozza, Alessandro, and Arvidsson, Adam. 2014. “Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data.” Journal of Communication 64(2): 317–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, Lucian Gideon III, Houck, Shannon C., Gornick, Laura Janelle, and Repke, Meredith A.. 2018. “Finding the Loch Ness Monster: Left‐Wing Authoritarianism in the United States.” Political Psychology 39(5): 1049–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corasanti, Nick, Epstein, Reid J., and Rutenberg, Jim. 2020. “The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud.” New York Times, November 10.Google Scholar
Crimston, Charlie R., Selvanathan, Hema Preya, and Jetten, Jolanda. 2022. “Moral Polarization Predicts Support for Authoritarian and Progressive Strong Leaders via the Perceived Breakdown of Society.” Political Psychology 43(4): 671–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, Andrew, Garro, Haritz, and Grimmer, Justin. 2021. “No Evidence for Systematic Voter Fraud: A Guide to Statistical Claims about the 2020 Election.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(45): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enders, Adam M., and Uscinski, Joseph E.. 2021. “The Role of Anti-Establishment Orientations during the Trump Presidency.” The Forum 19(1): 47–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley. 2003. “Enforcing Social Conformity: A Theory of Authoritarianism.” Political Psychology 24: 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Stenner, Karen. 1997. “Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism.” Political Psychology 18: 741–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Martínez, José Luis, and Fábregas, Joan Font. 2018. “The Devil Is in the Detail: What Do Citizens Mean When They Support Stealth or Participatory Democracy?” Politics 38(4): 458–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filindra, Alexandra, and Harbridge-Yong, Laurel. 2022. “How Do Partisans Navigate Elite Intra-Group Dissent? Leadership, Partisanship, and the Limits of Democratic Accountability.” Political Behavior 44: 1437–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, James. 2020. “On Deliberation against ‘Domination.’” The Good Society 28(1–2): 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, Frank, and Loving, Greg. 2007. “Competition and Cooperation: Evil Twins or Fated Lovers?” Philosophical Studies in Education 38: 83–93.Google Scholar
Font, Joan, Wojcieszak, Magdalena, and Navarro, Clemente J.. 2015. “Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes.” Political Studies 63: 153–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galston, William A. 2018. Anti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gauchat, Gordon W. 2012. “Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010.” American Sociological Review 77(2): 167–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Matthew H., and Svolik, Milan W.. 2020. “Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States.” American Political Science Review 114(2): 392–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartig, Hannah. 2018. “Few Americans See Nation’s Political Debate as ‘Respectful.’” Pew Research Center, May 1. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc, and Suhay, Elizabeth. 2011. “Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans’ Support for the War on Terror.” American Journal of Political Science 55: 546–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, Marc, and Weiler, Jonathan. 2018. Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 2020. The Securitarian Personality: What Really Motivates Trump’s Base and Why It Matters for the Post-Trump Era. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 2022. “Populists, Authoritarians, or Securitarians? Policy Preferences and Threats to Democratic Governance in the Modern Age.” Global Public Policy and Governance 2: 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2016. “A Surprising Number of Americans Dislike How Messy Democracy Is: They Like Trump.” Washington Post, May 2.Google Scholar
Ho, Arnold K., Sidanius, Jim, Kteily, Nour, Sheehy-Skeffington, Jennifer, Pratto, Felicia, Henkel, Kristin E., Foels, Rob, and Stewart, Andrew L.. 2015. “The Nature of Social Dominance Orientation: Theorizing and Measuring Preferences for Intergroup Inequality Using the New SDO7 Scale.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109(6): 1003–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ho, Arnold K., Sidanius, Jim, Pratto, Felicia, Levin, Shana, Thomsen, Lotte, Kteily, Nour, and Sheehy-Skeffington, Jennifer. 2012. “Social Dominance Orientation: Revisiting the Structure and Function of a Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38(5): 583–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huber, Gregory A., and Malhotra, Neil. 2017. “Political Homophily in Social Relationships: Evidence from Online Dating Behavior.” Journal of Politics 79(1): 269–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardina, Ashley. 2019. White Identity Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenne, Erin K., Hawkins, Kirk A., and Silva, Bruno Castanho. 2021. “Mapping Populism and Nationalism in Leader Rhetoric across North America and Europe.” Studies in Comparative International Development 56(2): 170–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T. 2020. The Theory of System Justification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kugler, Matthew B., Cooper, Joel, and Nosek, Brian A.. 2010. “Group-Based Dominance and Opposition to Equality Correspond to Different Psychological Motives.” Social Justice Research 23(2): 117–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavezzolo, Sebastián, and Ramiro, Luis. 2018. “Stealth Democracy and the Support for New and Challenger Parties.” European Political Science Review 10(2): 267–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lelkes, Yphtach, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2017. “The Limits of Partisan Prejudice.” Journal of Politics 79(2): 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitan, Lindsey C., and Verhulst, Brad. 2016. “Conformity in Groups: The Effects of Others’ Views on Expressed Attitudes and Attitude Change.” Political Behavior 38(2): 277–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Lyons, Jeffrey, and Sokhey, Anand E.. 2017. “Discussion Networks, Issues, and Perceptions of Polarization in the American Electorate.” Political Behavior 39(4): 967–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWilliams, Matthew C. 2016. “Who Decides When the Party Doesn’t? Authoritarian Voters and the Rise of Donald Trump.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49(4): 716–21.Google Scholar
Marchlewska, Marta, Cichocka, Aleksandra, Panayiotou, Orestis, Castellanos, Kevin, and Batayneh, Jude. 2018. “Populism as Identity Politics: Perceived In-Group Disadvantage, Collective Narcissism, and Support for Populism.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 9(2): 151–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medvic, Stephen K. 2019. “Explaining Support for Stealth Democracy.” Representation 55(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monmouth University Poll. 2021. “Senate’s Riot Report Inadequate.” Monmouth University Polling Institute. https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_061721/.Google Scholar
Moss, Dana M. 2018. “The Ties that Bind: Internet Communication Technologies, Networked Authoritarianism, and ‘Voice’ in the Syrian Diaspora.” Globalizations 15(2): 265–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mounk, Yascha. 2018. The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is Endangered & How to Save It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Jan-Werner. 2016. What Is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Inglehart, Ronald. 2019. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRRI Staff. 2021. “Competing Visions of America: An Evolving Identity or a Culture under Attack? Findings from the 2021 American Values Survey.” PRRI.org. https://www.prri.org/research/competing-visions-of-america-an-evolving-identity-or-a-culture-under-attack/.Google Scholar
Ragragio, Jefferson Lyndon D. 2021. “Strongman, Patronage and Fake News: Anti-Human Rights Discourses and Populism in the Philippines.” Journal of Language and Politics 20(6): 852–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, Robert C. 2019 “The Populist and Nationalist Roots of Trump’s Rhetoric.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 22(3): 343–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, Thomas. 2021. “Populist Anger, Donald Trump, and the 2016 Election.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 31(1): 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2016. Politics against Domination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Bruce James. 2018. The Sense of Injustice and Origin of Modern Democracy. Rochester, NY: Rochester University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Matthew, Ballard, Jamie, and Sanders, Linley. 2021. “Most Voters Say the Events at the US Capitol Are a Threat to Democracy.” YouGov Politics & Current Affairs, January 6.Google Scholar
Stenner, Karen. 2005. The Authoritarian Dynamic. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suhay, Elizabeth. 2015. “Explaining Group Influence: The Role of Identity and Emotion in Political Conformity and Polarization.” Political Behavior 37(1): 221–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taub, Amanda. 2016. “The Rise of American Authoritarianism.” Vox, March 1.Google Scholar
Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2002. “The Perils of Voice and the Desire for Stealth Democracy.” Maine Policy Review 11: 80–88.Google Scholar
Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2009. Who Counts as an American? The Boundaries of National Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulbig, Stacy G., and Funk, Carolyn L.. 1999. “Conflict Avoidance and Political Participation.” Political Behavior 21(3): 265–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanderMolen, Kathryn. 2017. “Stealth Democracy Revisited: Reconsidering Preferences for Less Visible Government.” Political Research Quarterly 70(3): 687–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Womick, Jake, Rothmund, Tobias, Azevedo, Flavio, King, Laura A., and Jost, John T.. 2019. “Group-Based Dominance and Authoritarian Aggression Predict Support for Donald Trump in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 10(50): 643–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Cara J. 2010. Boundaries of Obligation in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wronski, Julie, Bankert, Alexa, Amira, Karyn, Johnson, April A., and Levitan, Lindsey C.. 2018. “A Tale of Two Democrats: How Authoritarianism Divides the Democratic Party.” Journal of Politics 80(4): 1384–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Bloeser Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DQHSAW
Link