Conventional thinking about the two sides of the political spectrum in the United States has always held that both sides, liberals and conservatives alike, basically respect the democratic institutions of government, they just have different ideas about the policies that government should enact. In other words, both support the vehicle of the democratic state, they just have different preferences about the direction that vehicle should be heading. Recent evidence, however, suggests that this assumption of democrat support across the spectrum might be too optimistic, and analysts may need to add a new ideology to the conventional right-left spectrum: straight-up authoritarianism. The notion bears on the way we understand jurors, and “the authoritarian juror” has been well-researched. Typically, however, that has been thought of as a personality dimension, suggesting a dogmatic mindset, but not necessarily outright support for an authoritarian government. The new research, however, indicates that for a substantial slice of the American citizenry, that mindset is now bending toward greater acceptance of authoritarian rule.
So maybe we can no longer take it for granted that our jurors like democratic institutions. The research in support of that sobering claim comes from Steven Miller and Nicholas Davis of Clemson and Texas Q&M respectively who released a working paper looking at the nexus between tolerance and support for authoritarian governance. As discussed in an NBC News article by Noah Berlatsky, the thesis is that the more democratic institutions are seen as being used to protect or advance the interests of perceived outgroups like immigrants or racial minorities, the more those who are intolerant will weaken their adherence to those democratic institutions. “In other words,” Berlatsky writes, “when intolerant white people fear democracy may benefit marginalized people, they abandon their commitment to democracy.” And, unfortunately, it is not an opinion piece: The researchers look at data through several years of data and find that consistent correlation between intolerance and support for authoritarianism. This relationship has implications for the ways we frame political leanings, and the ways we understand and adapt to jurors. It should also serve as a check on what we might assume regarding tolerance and support for those legal institutions, like courts, that guarantee rights.
The Research: When Democracy Benefits the Minority, Then the Intolerant Don’t Like Democracy
The researchers based their analysis on data from the World Values Survey, a global research network that aggregates polls from a number of countries including the United States. In evaluating attitudes toward nondemocratic authoritarianism, the questions do not pussyfoot around. The dependent variables they looked at were attitudes ranging from “very good” to “very bad for the U.S.” in reaction to each of the following:
1. Having a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections
2. Having the army rule the government
3. Having a democratic political system
Citing research showing that generally, support for democracy appears to be eroding, they also note that there seems to also be evidence of greater intolerance as well as a desensitization to exclusionary rhetoric. But what is new is the connection between the two, and the finding that intolerance breeds authoritarianism. “White Americans who do not welcome the presence of immigrants/foreign workers, people who speak a different language, or people from a different race, are much more likely to value an institutional alternative to democracy in the United States.” Of course, this doesn’t suggest that all or most white Americans are intolerant (that threshold was met by a little over 17 percent in the sample). The real take-away is that this intolerance, among those who hold it, is not a stand-alone attitude, but is one that is connected to greater support for authoritarianism.
The reason for the connection is that those who are least tolerant are likely to adjust their opinions of democracy if they fear becoming a minority themselves through immigration or shifting demographics, or if they see democracy as otherwise benefitting their enemies. The authors explain, “Democracy – by design – places a premium on the opportunity of access to power and politics for all citizens, irrespective of race, creed, and status as majority or minority. This leads to negative evaluations of democracy from white Americans who view these minority outgroups as unwelcome.”
It’s Not New
The NBC article about the research is headlined as: “The Trump effect: New study connects white American intolerance and support for authoritarianism.” The research article is new, but the survey data actually predates Trump (having been collected between 1995 and 2011). Still, the connection is relevant to interpreting the current political movement. As Noah Berlatsky writes, “It suggests, though, that Trump’s bigotry and his authoritarianism are not separate problems, but are intertwined. When Trump calls Mexicans “rapists,” and when he praises authoritarian leaders, he is appealing to the same voters.” Of course, even that kind of grandstanding is not entirely new. Past nativist politicians have led movements aimed at Catholics, or Chinese, or Japanese Americans, and there have been generations-long efforts to prop up racial segregation. We have thought of our democratic institutions and courts as cures for that kind of thinking. But what the research suggests is that the forces opposing tolerance are also the forces who support weakening those democratic institutions. The authors write, “The new scholarly concern with American democracy’s trajectory in the age of Trump belies that these trends have been hiding in plain sight in the World Value Survey data for over 20 years.”
It’s Not Just a Matter of Not Enough Education
We might be tempted to treat both intolerance and authoritarianism as the refuge of the uneducated, and those who just aren’t strong enough in their critical thinking. And indeed, generally at least, higher education correlates highly with both tolerance and support for democratic institutions. However, the authors found that “the effect of white-outgroup intolerance may be even stronger on the better, rather than the least, educated.” Specifically, they observed that intolerance was even more strongly associated with antidemocratic attitudes for individuals with undergraduate or advanced degrees. So it may be the case that education tends to increase tolerance and democratic support. But those who retain intolerant and authoritarian tendencies despite their higher education, are likely to be even stronger in that intolerance and authoritarian support precisely because they’ve intellectualized it, and they are able to generate reasons to support it.
These results hold a scholarly interest for those who follow social attitudes and political trends. They also hold a practical interest for those who stand before juries and try to deliver justice. Your case might be perceived as benefitting an outgroup; your clients or witnesses might be immigrants, people from another country, or others who speak a different language; and your bedrock call to action might assume support of the jury as a basic tool of democracy. The message? Don’t assume everyone in this current American ship of state supports these values. They might not. When intolerance or authoritarianism risks bringing a bias to the evaluation of your case, ask your potential juror what they think about it.
____________________
Image credit: 123rf.com, used under license, edited
