Moral Reframing Increases Support for Economically Progressive Candidates

While most Americans perceive current levels of inequality in the US as too high, economically progressive candidates who champion redistributive policies designed to reduce inequality rarely win elections. Here we propose that progressive candidates achieve greater support by framing their policy platforms in terms of values that resonate beyond their progressive base. In two experiments (total N = 4,138), including one pre-registered experiment conducted on a national probability sample, we found that a presidential candidate who framed his progressive economic platform using values consistent with the “binding” moral foundations – e.g., patriotism, family, and respect for tradition – as opposed to values consistent with the “individualizing” foundations – e.g., equality and social justice – received significantly stronger support. This effect was driven by increased support among conservatives and, unexpectedly, among moderates as well. By comparison, a manipulation of how progressive the candidate’s platform was had small and inconsistent effects. Despite the potential gains associated with binding framing, analyses using (a) text-based analysis of every word spoken in a presidential debate since 2000, and (b) machine learning-based measures of recent presidential candidates’ economic views, reveal that appeals to binding values are least common among economically progressive candidates. These findings show, however, that the alignment between values and economic policies is malleable, suggesting economically progressive candidates can build broader coalitions by reframing the values they associate with their platforms.