congratulations!! very excited to see what's coming next : )

If you do not have institutional access, feel free to message me for a copy or get the author's version on my website albertostefanelli.com

(7/7)

Freedom for all? Populism and the instrumental support of freedom of speech Populists often cast themselves as unwavering defenders of free speech. In practice, however, they tend to apply free speech instrumentally, denying it to those who hold opposing political views. W...

I show this dynamic in my WEP article "Freedom for All? Populism and the Instrumental Support of Freedom of Speech" — populists are strong supporters of free speech in abstract terms, but withdraw that support when it clashes with their political interests www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

(6/)

Populism exploits this tension by portraying liberal rights, like media freedom, as barriers to the true will of the people. Popular sovereignty is framed as the only genuine source of legitimacy, justifying restrictions on fundamental rights whenever they conflict with “the people’s will.”
(5/)

This reflects a core tension in democracy:

Liberal rights (pluralism, minority protection, checks and balances)

vs.

Popular sovereignty (rule of the majority, “the will of the people”)

(4/)

Trump’s recent warning that he would revoke broadcasting licenses if criticized is a clear example of this.

In populist terms free speech becomes a conditional right: upheld when it protects “the people’s voice,” yet quickly curtailed when it empowers critics.

(3/)

Populist leaders present themselves as the true defenders of free speech.

But support is often selective: speech is championed when it serves “the people” and suppressed when it threatens them.

(2/)

On Jan 20, 2025, Trump declared in his second inaugural address:

“I will … immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.”

How does this square with how populists actually treat free speech? A thread 👇
(1/)

Introduction to Conjoint Experiments Workshop European Consortium for Political Research

📢 Teaching at #ECPR in Thessaloniki this summer!
📅 Tues 26 August 2025
🎓 1-day intensive workshop on Conjoint Experiments
We'll cover the basics and more advanced topics in design, analysis & interpretation. Still a few days left to apply!
ecpr.eu/Events/Event... @ecpr.bsky.social

Freedom for all? Populism and the instrumental support of freedom of speech Populists often cast themselves as unwavering defenders of free speech. In practice, however, they tend to apply free speech instrumentally, denying it to those who hold opposing political views. W...

📄 Full out on West European Politics (since two months).
Let us know what you think — and feel free to share or challenge these findings. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
(14/14)

🧠 Why it matters:
Populism doesn’t just oppose liberal democracy — it reinterprets it instrumentally.
Not everyone deserves rights. Not everyone should be heard. Only those who belong to the “real people.”
(13/)

We call this the normative vs. instrumental gap:
People support democratic principles in theory, but bend them in practice.
Among populists, that gap widens sharply.
(12/)

This fits a broader pattern:
➡️ Many citizens claim to support and uphold democratic norms
➡️ But support fades when democracy is at stake with other relevant political issues or personal interests
(11/)

🔥 In short:
Populists support free speech as a general principle — but apply it selectively depending on whether it severs their cause or advances the interests of a rival group.
(10/)

💬 Results:
✅ Right-wing populists defended anti-immigrant speech, rejected anti-corporate speech.
✅ Left-wing populists defended anti-corporate speech, rejected anti-immigrant speech.
(9/)

📊 Our experiment:
Respondents saw a speech — either:
• Criticizing immigrants
• Criticizing multinational corporations

Then we asked: should this speech be allowed or stopped?
(8/)

Here’s why👇
Populists often endorse rights like free speech in the abstract, as a tool against the status quo.
But when those rights are applied in ways that challenge them, the "will of the people" should always take precedence.
(7/)

📚Healthy democracies balance both.
But populism distorts that balance.
It frames liberal rights — courts, civil liberties, minorities — as obstacles to popular sovereignty.
(6/)

📚 This taps into the classic tension between the two pillars of liberal democracy:

- Liberal rights — pluralism, minority rights, checks and balances
- Popular sovereignty — respect the will of the people as close as possible
(5/)

🧨 Crucially: This gap exists across the population.
But it's much wider among populist individuals.
(4/)

🧠 Main finding:
Populist individuals are more likely to support free speech in principle...
…but less likely to uphold it when the speech goes against their political views.
(3/)

Populist citizens often present themselves as strenuous defenders of free speech.
But is this support principled — or conditional?

We used a face-to-face survey + experiment in Belgium to investigate.
(2/)

🧵 Populists love free speech — until they don’t.

New(ish) research: “Freedom for All? Populism and the Instrumental Support of Freedom of Speech”

What happens when democratic ideals clash with populists' political interests? A thread👇
(1/)

A green divide? Climate policy support and its rural geography in Europe Opposition to the green transition is often attributed to the direct costs of climate policies, with particularly vulnerable individuals perceived as more resistant. While recent studies suggest ru...

Excited to share that my first single-authored article is now published in @wepsocial.bsky.social!

In light of the current backlash to climate policy, I explore the (rural) geography of support for climate policies in Europe.

🧵
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

Great work by some of my colleges on persuasion and durability of treatment effects!