Credible Prejudice? When and Why Mainstream Party Adoption of Far-Right Rhetoric Weakens Anti-Prejudice Norms

Abstract

Abstract This article examines whether mainstream political parties adopt prejudiced rhetoric from the far right and how such shifts shape anti-prejudice norms. Building on existing work, I argue that mainstream parties are particularly influential in weakening anti-prejudice norms because they possess greater normative credibility and legitimacy than far-right parties. Empirically, the article combines cross-national observational evidence with two preregistered survey experiments in Germany and Denmark. Using parliamentary speeches from six European countries between 1994 and 2022, I document rising mainstream party anti-Muslim rhetoric and its association with weaker norms against holding far-right views. The experiments provide causal evidence for the argument. In Germany, exposure to prejudiced rhetoric weakens anti-prejudice norms, but only when voiced by mainstream parties, rather than far right parties, likely due to their normative credibility and legitimacy. In Denmark, comparable effects are absent, consistent with decades of mainstream accommodation having already normalized such rhetoric. The experimental results also show that rhetoric targeting Muslims weakens anti-prejudice norms toward out-groups more broadly, suggesting spillover effects. These findings have important implications for future scholarship: when mainstream parties adopt prejudiced rhetoric from the far right, they affect not only electoral politics, but also the broader social norm environment.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Political Behavior, 2026 · DOI ↗