In this three-part series, we have been exploring how politicians can use language to sway support for their causes, devalue the stances of the opposition, and change voter perception surrounding key issues. While strategies ranging from metaphor to simplification are effective at turning the tide of voter turnout, few linguistic moves are as potent as โ€œus vs. themโ€ rhetoric.

Politicians use the concept of an in-group (and subsequent out-group) to rally supporters and draw distinctions between political groups. When an individual sees another person as inherently incorrect due to their position in the out-group, dialogue that may shift either personโ€™s political position is less productive.

The We vs. They Dichotomy

The power of in- and out-groups is prevalent in many countries, but few are as ubiquitous as the current struggle between Democrats and Republicans in the United States. Studies repeatedly show that both sides view the other as inherently flawed, regardless of that individualโ€™s position on specific issues. Simply belonging to the other group is sufficient. Consider broad research that indicates the ways in which Republicans and Democrats think of each other, respectively:

  • They are immoral (72% to 63%)
  • They are dishonest (72% to 64%)
  • They are closed-minded (69% to 83%)
  • They are lazy (62% to 26%)
  • They are unpatriotic (63% to 23%)
  • They are unintelligent (36% to 38%)

How do political candidates accomplish such divisive attitudes? Their linguistic choices play a large role. The use of the words โ€œtheyโ€ and โ€œusโ€ or โ€œweโ€ can move mountains when it comes to othering political rivals; consider how the ambiguity introduced by these terms helps to bolster claims because candidates do not have to be specific in order to support their position:

โ€œThey’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets.โ€ (Trump)

โ€œWhen I am President, we will pass the PRO Act and end union-busting once and for all.โ€ (Harris)

To whom do โ€œweโ€ and โ€œtheyโ€ refer? Immigrants? Residents of a specific place? A specific group of politicians? Candidates do not need to support their claims or specify their plans in detail if they rely on broad terms such as these.

However, even more divisive is the use of such pronouns to objectify members of the opposing party. By making broad statements, such as โ€œthey wantโ€ versus โ€œwe will,โ€ politicians encourage voters to strictly pick one side rather than evaluating issues using a critical foundation and well-researched thought balanced from both sides. โ€œTheyโ€ are the problem. โ€œWeโ€ are the solution.

Solidarity Through Word Choice

Candidates can create a sense of solidarity, community, and โ€œusโ€ through more than just their choice of pronouns. Words and phrases that evoke patriotism or common ground with the in-group reinforce hard lines between parties, further encouraging voters entrenched in their position to align with the candidate of their party, regardless of that partyโ€™s position.

Presidential candidates understand how essential their wording is for demonstrating their commitment to American patriotism. Without this facet of their platform, as many as 35% of voters typically choose the other candidate. Even outside of the US, a voterโ€™s impression of a politicianโ€™s patriotism is a direct predictor of not only their willingness to vote, but who they vote for. Approximately 94.2% of all political candidate speeches contain direct patriotic appeals:

โ€œThe awesome responsibility that comes with the greatest privilege on Earth: the privilege and pride of being an American.โ€ (Harris)

โ€œWe will make America strong again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And we will make America great again.โ€ (Trump)

Intentional Ambiguity

The final primary facet in candidatesโ€™ repertoire of public control is their linguistic propensity to obscure the truth presented by the other party through intentional ambiguity. Strategic ambiguity has been shown to result in more positive voter outcomes than either presenting a view that voters dislike or flip-flopping on an issue.

โ€œAs president, [I] will finish implementing the IRA and the bipartisan infrastructure law and build on their successes.โ€ (Harris)

โ€œMy Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights.โ€ (Trump)

In the case of Harris, she understands that directly rejecting policies such as fracking will turn away undecided voters; thus, she masks her inclusion of significant clean energy subsidy programs under the vague guise of mentioning previous โ€œsuccessesโ€ and an unspecified โ€œinfrastructure law.โ€

In Trumpโ€™s case, he does not clarify why his administration will benefit women. He has not clarified his stance on key issues that could sway large portions of the voter base, such as abortion and IVF. His ambiguity is intentional to avoid souring the impressions of some or all of the approximately 35% of women who currently stand to vote for him.

By being deliberately ambiguous, candidates can propel a positive message without the risk of upsetting their most important constituents: those who are undecided or single-issue voters who may pivot based on the candidateโ€™s stance. However, this ambiguity can also backfire. Candidates who remain ambiguous lose credibility and authority when their opponent comes out directly with a stance that agrees with the voter.

No matter which linguistic strategies candidates choose to useโ€”and they often use multiple at onceโ€”voters who understand these maneuvers are more likely to be able to discern the truth behind their words. This, in turn, allows for more informed decisions and the selection of candidates that most closely represent voter values. To learn more about the many uses of rhetoric that politicians may leverage to sway public opinion, be sure to explore the rest of this series on political language.

About the author
Carrie Ott

Carrie Ott

Carrie Ott is a multilingual business writer, editor, and herpetoculture enthusiast.