In last week’s post, we explored the linguistic figures of speech that political candidates may use to change public perception. However, these are not the only strategies at their disposal. Politicians use strategic language to frame issues to their advantage. From how economic policies are often branded in ways that make them more appealing to the need to distill issues into short thought pieces for social media, political messaging relies on two strategies: spin and simplification.
Spin
Linguistic “spin” refers to the practice of reinterpreting information such that it conveys a targeted feeling or concept, regardless of whether that concept is fully true. When candidates utilize spinning, they may sway public opinion for voters who either do not or cannot fact-check their claims, exerting greater power over some segments of the population. For instance, consider the differences in language utilized by The Daily Wire, a conservative news resource, compared to The New Yorker, a liberal news provider, when discussing the same topic.
“The Biden-Harris administration announced on Friday that it was filing a lawsuit against the state of Virginia for enforcing voter integrity laws in the state that aim to curb illegal voting in elections.” (The Daily Wire)
“How Trump hopes to exploit the myth of voter fraud in November: For years, the former President has claimed that undocumented immigrants vote illegally. That fiction is now the explicit position of the Party establishment.” (The New Yorker)
The linguistic spinning taking place in these two disparate sources demonstrates how each side is targeting the same issue differently by choosing different words. Trump suggests that some voters are breaking the law, and they should not be allowed to vote. Thus, Trump spins a claim that the Biden-Harris administration is supporting people who break the law, which does not demonstrate the standards of fairness, order, and responsibility that voters expect from a president.
However, the liberal news source challenges the concept of “illegal” voters, turning the focus to the alleged dishonesty of the opposing party in order to turn voters away from supporting a candidate whose moral character is questionable.
By selecting choice words when reporting on the same incident, each side may “spin” the event in a manner that reinforces existing party biases and attempts to devalue the other party’s ethics and actions.
Simplification
America is a diverse nation, and voters come from a range of backgrounds. From those who speak English as a second language to individuals with post-doctorate degrees, voters experience differing levels of comprehension ability. Thus, candidates must make their platform understandable to as many people as possible—which often requires breaking complex issues into concepts that are easier to digest. This is called simplification.
The process of simplification has become even more fraught in recent years with the growth of social media. Distilling concepts into accessible ideas is more stringent than ever, as candidates often attempt to fall within the character or length limits of platforms such as X or TikTok. This can result in linguistic maneuvers that misrepresent an issue or rely on oversimplification, obscuring the real meaning of a post.
Studies indicate that both Biden and Trump used fewer academic words than past presidential candidates. Consider that the White House’s own Twitter account was created in May of 2015—the end of Barack Obama’s term and the beginning of the contention between Trump and, eventually, Biden. This may be one causal factor in the gradual decrease in the complexity of politicians’ written and spoken content. (While Barack Obama’s own Twitter account was created in 2007, Obama himself did not use this account to post, instead opting to use the new White House account and entrusting @BarackObama to his campaign staff.)
Consider the differences in tone between a speech offered by George Bush and one provided by former president Donald Trump:
“It is the American story—a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals. The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born. Americans are called to enact this promise in our lives and in our laws. And though our nation has sometimes halted, and sometimes delayed, we must follow no other course.” (Bush)
“As you already know, the assassin’s bullet came within a quarter of an inch of taking my life. So many people have asked me what happened. ‘Tell us what happened, please.’ And therefore, I will tell you exactly what happened, and you’ll never hear it from me a second time, because it’s actually too painful to tell.
It was a warm, beautiful day in the early evening in Butler Township in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Music was loudly playing, and the campaign was doing really well. I went to the stage and the crowd was cheering wildly. Everybody was happy. I began speaking very strongly, powerfully and happily. Because I was discussing the great job my administration did on immigration at the southern border. We were very proud of it.” (Trump)
Consider Bush’s use of terminology such as “enduring,” “insignificant,” and “enact.” Compare this with Trump’s “really well,” “cheering wildly,” and “great job.” These are just some examples of the gradual shift toward simplification politicians have experienced as a result of social media growth and the need to reach a wider, more diverse audience.
While simplification and spinning can create powerful results, they are not the only linguistic techniques politicians may employ. Discover more political wordplay in the other parts of this three-part series on rhetoric and its impact on voters.
