A newly released study from Northwestern University challenges prevailing assumptions about the unwavering nature of partisan loyalty in contemporary American politics. The research investigates whether voters approve of politicians who retaliate against companies that criticise their actions—a particularly timely question given the increasing frequency with which political leaders engage in public confrontations with private entities. Specifically, the study tests whether such retaliatory actions are seen as an abuse of power and whether voters’ reactions depend on whether they share the same political affiliation as the politician. In an era often defined by fierce political tribalism, the findings offer a nuanced perspective on voters’ tolerance for vindictive governance.
To explore this dynamic, the research team surveyed 1,000 American adults during two waves of data collection in February and April of 2024. Participants were presented with a mock news article describing a hypothetical situation where a state governor responds to public criticism from a large, in-state business. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of three scenarios: one in which the governor does nothing in response to the criticism (“no attack”), another in which the governor issues a verbal rebuke but takes no concrete steps (“verbal rebuke”), and a third in which the governor engages in retributive action, including stripping the business of tax incentives and calling for a statewide boycott. This design allowed researchers to test whether escalating retaliation would alter public support.
The results were both surprising and revealing. In the first two scenarios—non-response and verbal criticism—partisanship strongly shaped voter opinions. Participants were inclined to support the governor if they shared the same political party, regardless of whether the governor had ignored or lightly criticised the company. However, partisan support significantly declined when the scenario escalated to include active retaliation. Even among voters aligned with the governor’s party, support fell sharply enough to shift the majority from expressing a positive vote intention to a negative one. This drop suggests that voters draw a distinct line between political posturing and the abuse of official power.
The open-ended responses provided by participants reinforced this trend. Many expressed discomfort or outright disapproval of the retaliatory measures described in the most severe scenario. Comments included phrases such as “this is more like what a tyrant would do” and “the governor shouldn’t be acting like a dictator,” indicating a profound unease with elected officials using state power to punish dissent. Notably, these criticisms did not appear to be driven by ideological opponents alone; members of the same party also voiced concerns, signalling a potential cross-partisan consensus on the limits of acceptable political conduct.
Mary McGrath, the study’s principal investigator and an assistant professor of political science at Northwestern, acknowledged that the findings upended the research team’s initial expectations. “We anticipated that voters’ responses would mirror partisan alignment almost entirely,” she said. “But what we saw instead was a more principled reaction—voters weren’t willing to condone retribution simply because it came from someone in their own party.” This observation suggests that while partisan loyalty remains a strong force in American political behaviour, it is not entirely impervious to moral or procedural boundaries.
Evan Myers, the lead author and undergraduate honours student who spearheaded the project, echoed this cautious optimism. “I assumed that given the climate we’re in, voters would overlook almost anything if it were their side doing it,” he explained. “But they didn’t. That gives me some hope that people can still distinguish between party loyalty and democratic norms.” Myers noted that although the findings were drawn from a controlled experiment, they hint at an enduring public expectation that leaders act within the bounds of fairness—even when engaging in conflict with private industry.
Ultimately, while the researchers caution against extrapolating too broadly without further fieldwork, the study underscores a critical insight: partisan voters are not uniformly permissive of retributive political behaviour. Even in a deeply polarised landscape, there appears to be a line voters are unwilling to let their elected officials cross. This has significant implications for democratic accountability in the United States. If leaders believe they can freely punish dissent without electoral consequences, this study suggests otherwise—voters, regardless of party, may push back when power is wielded vindictively.
More information: Mary McGrath et al, Electoral costs of political retaliation: bipartisan rejection of attacks on corporate speech, Business and Politics. DOI: 10.1017/bap.2025.10
Journal information: Business and Politics Provided by Northwestern University