| Sumario: | How stable are the public's assumptions about the legitimacy of contentious tactics? Previous studies show that the public hold a set of assumptions about what counts as legitimate and illegitimate tactics. We enrich this literature by studying the stability of these assumptions through the case of partisan protesting in the United States. Leveraging panel data collected during the 2020 Black Lives Matter and anti-lockdown protests as well as two preregistered survey experiments, we provide the first methodologically rigorous study of the short-term stability of these assumptions. We find that tactics are understood as inherently more legitimate when they are currently carried out by members of the partisan ingroup as opposed to its outgroup. However, although we do find an effect of contention, this is relatively moderate. The assumptions remain remarkably stable. This underscores the consolidated nature of the tactics in the United States and tempers fears of democratic decline in the realm of contention.
|
|---|