Why an attack on the Supreme Court by Donald Trump could hurt its reputation in the eyes of his supporters

During the 2016 election campaign and the early stages of his presidency, Donald Trump made repeated attacks on the integrity of federal judges. If his belligerence were to turn to the US Supreme Court, would the trust that Americans feel in that institution protect its reputation? In new research which examines how people's views of the Court are affected by partisan attacks and praise, Miles T. Armaly finds that, in the face of such attacks, the reputation of the Court could be undermined among those who already support Donald Trump. People’s feelings about a particular politician who makes negative statements – not about the Court itself – he writes, are the main determinant of how effective these statements are

When the Senate plays politics with Supreme Court vacancies this hurts the public’s perceptions of the Court

The recent US Senate confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court has shown how politicized such hearings have become. But how do these more contentious hearings influence how the American public thinks about the Supreme Court itself? In new survey research, Miles T. Armaly and Elizabeth A. Lane examine reactions to the US Senate’s approach to filling Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat. They find that respondents who were told about the politicization of a past vacancy were less likely to express support for the Supreme Court and to favor reforms which would reduce its power

Authoritarian populist Americans who feel a sense of victimhood and white identity are most likely to support political violence

The capitol insurrection of January 6, 2021 brought the rise of political violence in America into sharp focus. But who supports the use of violence to achieve their political goals? In new survey research, Miles T. Armaly and Adam M. Enders find that feelings of victimhood, authoritarian and populist sentiments and white identity have the strongest link to support for political violence. They also find that support for political violence is not closely linked to support for a political party, nor is it widespread, with only 13 percent of respondents supporting it

Who Supports Political Violence?

The last few years have witnessed an increase in democratic “backsliding” in the United States—a decline in the quality of democracy, typically accompanied by an influx of non-normative behavior, such as political violence. Despite the real consequences of support for violence, fairly little is known about such an extremist attitude outside studies of terrorism or aggression. Using a unique survey containing many psychological, political, and social characteristics, we find that perceived victimhood, authoritarianism, populism, and white identity are the most powerful predictors of support for violence, though military service, conspiratorial thinking, anxiety, and feelings of powerlessness are also related. These patterns suggest that subjective feelings about being unjustly victimized—irrespective of the truth of the matter—and the psychological baggage that accompanies such feelings lie at the heart of support for violence. We use these results to build a profile of characteristics that explain support for violence; the predictive validity of this profile is then tested by examining its relationship with support for the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot, with which it is strongly associated, even accounting for support for Donald Trump. Our findings have implications for the detection of extremist attitudes and our understanding of the non-partisan/ideological foundations of anti-social political behavior

‘Why Me?’ The Role of Perceived Victimhood in American Politics

Despite growing recognition among journalists and political pundits, the concept of victimhood has been largely ignored in empirical social science research. In this article, we develop a theory about, and use unique nationally-representative survey data to estimate, two manifestations of victimhood: an egocentric one entailing only perceptions of one’s own victimhood, and one focused on blaming “the system.” We find that these manifestations of victimhood cut across partisan, ideological, and sociodemographic lines, suggesting that feelings of victimhood are confined to neither “actual” victims nor those partisans on the losing side of elections. Moreover, both manifestations of victimhood, while related to candidate support and various racial attitudes, prove to be distinct from related psychological constructs, such as (collective) narcissism, system justification, and relative deprivation. Finally, an experiment based on candidate rhetoric demonstrates that some political messaging can make supporters feel like victims, which has consequences for subsequent attitudes and behavior

No home court advantage: The trump impeachment trial and attitudes toward the U.S. Supreme Court

Although the U.S. Supreme Court goes to great lengths to avoid the “political thicket,” it is sometimes unwittingly pulled in. We employ several experimental treatments—each of which is composed of real behaviors that took place during the Trump impeachment trial—to understand the impact of the trial on attitudes about the Court. We find that Chief Justice Roberts’ presence and behaviors during the trial failed to legitimize the proceeding and may have even harmed views of the Court. Treatments involving Roberts’ actions decreased willingness to accept Court decisions and, in some cases, negatively impacted perceived legitimacy. We also find that criticisms of the Chief Justice by Senators decreased decision acceptance. These findings clarify both the bounds of the institution’s legitimizing power and the tenuous nature of public support in times of greater Court politicization by outside actors