A recent article in Salon spotlights new research by CCPP Director Erik Nisbet and CCPP graduate affiliate Chloe Mortenson, whose study in Perspectives on Politics examines a difficult question for contemporary democracies: How strongly do citizens hold democratic principles when those principles conflict with economic self-interest?
The Salon piece, “Why many Americans would trade democracy for more money,” explores findings from Nisbet and Mortenson’s study showing that Americans’ commitment to democratic norms can weaken when they face economic hardship.
Economic insecurity and democratic commitment
Drawing on an original behavioral survey experiment, the study investigates how Americans evaluate political candidates when confronted with trade-offs between democratic principles and economic benefits. While respondents overwhelmingly express support for democratic norms in the abstract, their choices change when those norms are paired with material costs or benefits.
Across the experiment, participants were asked to evaluate hypothetical political candidates who varied in their support for democratic institutions, such as free expression, the rule of law, and checks on executive power, alongside promises of economic improvement.
The findings reveal an important pattern: economic security strongly shapes democratic commitment. When respondents faced economic hardship or financial disadvantage, their support for democratic norms declined. Conversely, when economic conditions were favorable, support for democratic principles was substantially stronger.
A gap between democratic ideals and political choices
One of the study’s most striking insights is the disconnect between what people say about democracy and what they choose when faced with difficult trade-offs. Many respondents who profess strong support for democratic values were still willing to support candidates who weakened those norms if doing so promised economic benefits.
This gap highlights a central tension in democratic politics. Citizens may endorse democratic principles in principle, yet those commitments can become conditional when economic pressures intensify.
Why this matters for contemporary politics
The Salon article situates these findings within broader debates about economic inequality, populism, and democratic backsliding. If voters become more tolerant of illiberal policies during periods of economic stress, economic insecurity may create conditions that allow leaders to erode democratic institutions while maintaining public support.
Importantly, the study does not suggest that Americans reject democracy outright. Rather, it shows that democratic commitment can be contingent, especially when citizens perceive a trade-off between economic well-being and institutional safeguards.
Research at the intersection of economics and democratic values
The study by Mortenson and Nisbet contributes to a growing body of research examining how economic conditions shape political attitudes and democratic stability. By experimentally testing how citizens respond to realistic political trade-offs, the research provides new evidence on the conditions under which democratic norms remain resilient—or become vulnerable.
The Salon coverage brings these findings to a broader public, highlighting the importance of understanding how economic experiences shape citizens’ democratic commitments.
The full Salon article is available here:
https://www.salon.com/2026/03/08/why-many-americans-would-trade-democracy-for-more-money/
And the research article by Chloe Mortenson and Erik Nisbet, “Benefit Seekers or Principle Holders? Experimental Evidence on Americans’ Democratic Trade-Offs,” appears in Perspectives on Politics.