Pocketbook realities reshape Americans’ commitment to democratic ideals

• Advanced behavioral experiment involved more than 600 U.S. residents  

• What voters say about democracy does not reliably predict what they actually choose when forced to decide between democratic ideals and financial interests 

• Trade-offs are not confined to one political party 

EVANSTON, IL --- Money talks, and new research from Northwestern University suggests it often speaks louder than an American voter’s commitment to democratic norms. The new study from the Center for Communication & Public Policy (CCPP) examined how U.S. residents conceptualize democracy and whether their support for democratic principles remains consistent when financial issues and other trade-offs are considered. Results are published in the journal Perspectives on Politics.  

Erik Nisbet, Owen L. Coon Endowed Professor of Policy Analysis & Communication and founder of CCPP, along with doctoral candidate Chloe Mortenson, used an advanced behavioral experiment involving more than 600 U.S. residents to examine how voters trade democratic principles against economic security. They found that support for democratic principles is far more conditional than traditional surveys suggest and declines substantially when economic hardship is taken into account. 

“Traditional surveys typically ask people whether they support democracy or value free expression,” Nisbet explains. “Decades of research show that Americans overwhelmingly say ‘yes,’ but these self-reported attitudes often do not predict actual political behavior.” 

Instead of relying on abstract poll questions, Nisbet and Mortenson employed a conjoint design, a method increasingly used in political science that reveals real-world preferences by forcing participants to make explicit trade-offs among competing values.  

“The results offer a more accurate picture of how Americans actually weigh democratic norms when faced with economic pressure,” Nisbet said. “This helps explain why ‘democracy is on the ballot’ messaging employed by Democrats underperformed in the 2024 election.” 

How the study worked 

Participants were presented with pairs of hypothetical countries and asked which democracy they would prefer to live in. Each country profile varied across four core dimensions of democratic governance: 

• Rule of law 
• Political equality 
• Freedom of expression 
• Economic well-being 

For each dimension, respondents were shown either a normative democratic condition (such as equal treatment under the law) or an illiberal alternative (such as courts favoring people like the respondent). Participants made multiple forced choices, requiring them to prioritize specific values over others –– mirroring the complex trade-offs voters might face in real political decision-making. 

Key findings 

1. Economic insecurity undermines democratic support. 
Across the sample, respondents strongly preferred democratic norms when personal economic conditions were good. Under economic insecurity, support for rule of law, political equality and free expression declined markedly across all three dimensions, with economic conditions exerting a larger influence than ideology.  

2. What Americans say about democracy doesn’t match what they choose. 
Respondents who professed strong support for democracy were often willing to abandon those principles when faced with economic disadvantages. 

3. Economic well-being is the strongest driver of democratic trade-offs. 
When respondents were financially secure, support for liberal democratic principles increased. When respondents were economically disadvantaged, they became more tolerant of illiberal conditions, including biased media, weakened checks on leaders and unequal treatment under the law. 

4. Age and education, not ideology, predict democratic resilience. 
The study found that age and education were far stronger predictors of commitment to democratic norms than political ideology. Ideology played a surprisingly minor role in determining willingness to sacrifice democratic principles –– suggesting that these trade-offs are not confined to one political party. 

Nisbet said the study’s findings suggest that responses from traditional surveys alone provide an incomplete, often misleading picture of a voter's commitment to democratic norms. 

Implications for the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election 

“The research suggests that messaging focused solely on abstract democratic ideals is unlikely to resonate with voters unless it is tied to their economic concerns,” Nisbet said. “While a small segment of voters responds to moral and egalitarian appeals, broader electorates require democracy narratives grounded in pocketbook realities.”  

Nisbet says this disconnect hurt democratic messaging in the 2024 U.S. election cycle and warns Democrats against repeating the mistake in 2026 and 2028.