The Public Consequences of Presidential Legitimacy Rhetoric.

Objective: Three extant theories alternatively argue that presidential legitimacy rhetoric is highly effective among co‐partisans, largely ineffective due to inattention or misunderstanding, or most likely to backfire and produce a counter‐message effect due to its radicalism. This study explores these theories and extends previous work on the Supreme Court to consider public support for Congress and democratic norms. Methods: An original survey experiment with 1368 participants is employed. Results: Presidential legitimacy rhetoric on Congress is largely ineffective but produces a mild backlash effect, particularly among independents. Democratic norm attitudes are distinct from attitudes on the legitimacy of Congress. Conclusion: The results attenuate claims about the power of presidents to upend the legitimacy of major US institutions through rhetoric alone. Support for democratic norms and support for particular US institutions may be distinct attitudes and should not be conflated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]