Theories ascribing democracy to inclusive contestation imply that the speech of authoritarianrulers will differ from the speech of electoral politicians. Authoritarian rulers will use an officiallanguage that insulates them from populations under their control. This official language insultssubject populations by implying that the vernacular in which they formulate their thoughts isinadequate for the discussion of political ideas. Electoral politicians, praising the competence ofcitizens to decide political questions, take care to frame their ideas in ordinary language, asotherwise the politicians would contradict their message that bearers of ordinary language arepolitically competent. If rulers implicitly insult and politicians flatter, citizens should respondwith disaffiliation to rulers' language and affiliation to the language of politicians, at least of thosepoliticians whom the citizens favour. This hypothesis is tested using an experimental paradigmin three Russian cities at the end of 1993. The prediction that Russians will affiliate to the textsof some electoral politicians contrasts with the claim that Russians evaluate political ideas mainlyby contemplating change in their standard of living, since Russia represents an unusual case inwhich authoritarian speech is associated with greater affluence, while electoral speech isassociated with increasing impoverishment for most people.