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 “us vs. them” 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 person’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 individual’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 “they” and “us” or “we” 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:
“They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets.” (Trump)
“When I am President, we will pass the PRO Act and end union-busting once and for all.” (Harris)
To whom do “we” and “they” 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 “they want” versus “we will,” politicians encourage voters to strictly pick one side rather than evaluating issues using a critical foundation and well-researched thought balanced from both sides. “They” are the problem. “We” are the solution.
Solidarity Through Word Choice
Candidates can create a sense of solidarity, community, and “us” 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 party’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 voter’s impression of a politician’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:
“The awesome responsibility that comes with the greatest privilege on Earth: the privilege and pride of being an American.” (Harris)
“We will make America strong again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And we will make America great again.” (Trump)
Intentional Ambiguity
The final primary facet in candidates’ 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.
“As president, [I] will finish implementing the IRA and the bipartisan infrastructure law and build on their successes.” (Harris)
“My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights.” (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 “successes” and an unspecified “infrastructure law.”
In Trump’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 candidate’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 use—and they often use multiple at once—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.
