When Affective Polarization Fails: Political Ideology and the Roots of Intolerance

A substantial body of research contends that affective polarization threatens democratic stability by eroding tolerance for political opponents. However, evidence from multiparty systems reveals a pattern that contradicts this assumption. Far-right voters tend to be among the least politically tolerant and most disliked, yet they express comparatively less hostility toward political opponents. How can this apparent paradox be explained? We argue that the relationship between affective polarization and political tolerance depends on ideology. For left-leaning voters, commitment to democratic norms often constrains partisan animosity, but for right-leaning voters, a preference for law and order may weaken such constraints. We test this relationship using unique survey data from Switzerland, Denmark, Israel, Canada, Australia, and Wallonia. Our analyses reveal that political intolerance is negatively associated with affective polarization. Among left-wing and centrist citizens, affective polarization does not predict intolerance. Among right-wing citizens, however, intolerance is highest among those with low affective polarization. These findings suggest that their intolerance is not primarily a consequence of partisan animosity but rather reflects authoritarian orientations or skepticism toward democratic procedures. These findings have important implications. Left-wing voters do not respond to far-right political intolerance with exclusionary behavior. Instead, they uphold democratic rights despite their dislike of outgroups. This asymmetry indicates that out-group hostility does not automatically generate reciprocal intolerance. More broadly, the results indicate that threats to political tolerance arise not from affective polarization itself, but rather from authoritarian orientations operating independently of partisan sentiment.