Mainstream Politicians' Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Erodes Tolerance More Than Radical Right

Why This Matters: Norms and Political Messaging

Democratic norms of tolerance are not only shaped by extremist voices; mainstream political actors can also change what people see as acceptable. Vicente Valentim asks whether anti-immigrant statements weaken norms of tolerance and whether the effect depends on who makes the statement—the mainstream or the radical right.

What Valentim Tests

The study compares reactions to comparable anti-immigrant remarks attributed either to mainstream politicians or to radical-right figures. The central concept is "norms of tolerance"—people's beliefs about what forms of exclusionary speech or behavior are socially acceptable—and whether political elites shift those beliefs.

How the Experiment Worked

• Respondents were exposed to statements framed as coming from either mainstream-right or radical-right politicians.
• After exposure, participants reported their perceptions of social norms around tolerance.
• Analyses split respondents by ideological leaning to see heterogeneous effects.

Key Findings

• Statements by mainstream politicians produced greater erosion of tolerance norms than the same statements attributed to radical-right politicians.
• Subsample analyses show this pattern is driven by the political right: mainstream-right statements reduce right-wing respondents' sense that tolerance is the norm.
• Statements from radical-right actors, by contrast, tend to provoke a backlash among left-wing respondents—making the left hold more tightly to tolerant norms in response.
• That left-wing backlash vanishes when similar statements are made by mainstream-right politicians.
• Valentim interprets these differences as stemming from the broader representative reach or higher status of mainstream politicians, which makes their statements more effective at changing perceived norms.

Implications for Democratic Politics

The paper highlights that mainstream actors play a pivotal role in either upholding or eroding democratic norms: identical exclusionary messages can have very different social effects depending on the speaker's political standing. The findings signal that analysts and practitioners should pay close attention to who delivers contentious rhetoric, not just the content itself, when assessing threats to civic tolerance.