The language an individual chooses matters—and for politicians, the power of words goes beyond simple literal meaning. In every part of the world, politicians use specific language techniques, such as slogans, metaphors, and emotional appeals, to influence voters’ perceptions and create strong impressions.
With the American presidential election on the horizon, voters should be equipped to understand how each candidate may leverage language to accomplish specific purposes. From swaying a voter’s impressions of either party to misrepresenting issues in order to create digestible content, presidential candidates have plenty of power when it comes to the spoken (and written) word.
Influencing Voter Perception
In order to win voters to their cause, candidates often try to sway the perception of both the involved parties and the issues they champion. Two simple ways of doing this are through slogans and euphemisms.
Slogans
Two prevalent slogans currently dominating US media are Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” and Kamala Harris’ “We’re Not Going Back.” Both of these simple phrases encapsulate the entirety of each candidate’s platform in a manner that can make it easy for a voter to choose a side. “Make America Great Again” posits the perception that America is currently not great, while “We’re Not Going Back” champions forward progress. Both of these slogans can sway voter perception by making a claim about the current state of America—which the voter may then take as their own opinion.
Euphemisms
Another method that candidates may use to change how voters perceive them is through euphemisms. A euphemism is an alternate way of saying something, often to avoid discomfort. For instance, during his presidency, Donald Trump noted on January 3, 2020 that “Last night, at my direction, the United States military successfully executed a flawless precision strike.” His choice of wording as a “military strike” intentionally avoided the use of words such as “killed” or “assassinated.” This encourages a perception that he is powerful and effective rather than violent or cruel.
Similarly, Kamala Harris noted “the gravity of what has happened since he [Donald Trump] lost the last election in her convention speech. This euphemism encapsulates more serious and uncomfortable claims, such as sexual abuse allegations, terrorism, and extremist violence.
Simplifying Complex Issues
When politicians try to share their platforms with voters, one of the biggest challenges they face is helping voters to understand the details of their platform so that they make a compelling case for themselves. Overexplaining or simplifying concepts can lead to a candidate seeming less intelligent themselves or even condescending. Thus, many opt for the use of metaphors.
Metaphor
A metaphor is a comparison between two things, not literally, but in concept. Kamala Harris’ statement that “none of us just live in a silo” is not meant to be taken literally, that human beings do or do not live in a farm storage unit for grain. Instead, she was drawing a comparison between how a silo keeps things contained, separate from the outside world, and how humans are not, by nature, isolated in the same way. Instead, humans are communal and need to look out for each other, because no one is truly alone; a person’s actions affect others.
Creating the In-Group
One of the most powerful strategies any politician can employ to rally voters to their side is to make voters feel that they “belong” inside an in-group. This is highly visible in Trump supporters, who have formed a strong identity based on their sense of belonging to a community by voting for Trump. Two methods stand out as language options for establishing this loyal in-group.
Emotional Appeals
An emotional appeal is a way of using language that provokes the listener or reader to feel a strong emotion. For instance, in Trump’s description of “attacks on our police and the terrorism in our cities,” he is inciting a fear response that may override a voter’s logical awareness of the events being described—were they terrorism? Were they a peaceful protest that disagreed with the party’s perspective? An emotional appeal claims that this distinction does not matter; it simply compels voters to feel a certain way, which may then spur a certain type of action, e.g., bonding with the community whose emotional descriptions of these events match the listener’s perceptions.
Framing
In order to create an in-group, there must by necessity be an out-group. Framing, or changing the way one speaks when discussing “them” and “us,” can build loyalty, polarize, or both. Trump’s framing of “Sleepy Joe” or “Crazy Kamala” seeks to undermine the Democrat’s authority to be president, while Kamala’s description of Trump as “increasingly unstable and unhinged” frames him as an unreliable Republican candidate. By drawing attention to the flaws of the other side and shoring up the positives of the in-group, candidates can frame even their opponent’s positive contributions as negative.
Voters who are equipped to understand how each candidate leverages language are able to think more critically and make more informed decisions about who to vote for. The linguistic strategies mentioned above are just the tip of the iceberg; be sure to read the rest of the series as we break down the power of words during this presidential season.
