Constructing ‘Us’ vs. ‘Them’ in the 2024 US Presidential Campaign: An Analysis of Persuasive Targeting and Van Dijk’s Ideological Square in Democratic and Republican Discourse
محورهای موضوعی : Journal of Teaching English Language Studies
Sabaa Zaid Jawad Witwit
1
,
Fatemeh Karimi
2
,
salih Mahdi Adai Al-Mamoory
3
,
Sahar Najarzadegan
4
1 - Department of English, Isf.C, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Department of English, Isf.C, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, College of Education for Human Sciences, University of Babylon, Hilla, Iraq
4 - Department of English, Isf.C, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
کلید واژه: Critical Discourse Analysis, Ideological Square, Persuasive Political Targeting (PPT), 2024 US Presidential Election,
چکیده مقاله :
This study examined the strategic construction of ‘Us vs. Them’ narratives in the 2024 US presidential election, analyzing how Democratic (Biden/Harris) and Republican (Trump) campaigns employed persuasive political targeting (PPT) to operationalize Teun A. van Dijk’s ideological square. A corpus of eight key rally speeches and two pivotal debate transcripts (early 2023 - Oct 2024) was analyzed using qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The methodology integrated Van Dijk’s ideological square (emphasize Our good/Their bad; de-emphasize Our bad/Their good) with Druckman’s PPT framework, systematically coding for these elements and specific persuasive techniques (message, source, setting matching) linked to recipient characteristics like identity, values, and issue priorities. Findings reveal distinct approaches. The Republican campaign, via Trump, predominantly used explicit, emotionally charged messages matching a core base, constructing ‘Us’ as “patriots” against a demonized ‘Them’ (e.g., “incompetent” opponents, “invader” immigrants), leveraging fear and ad hominem attacks. Conversely, the Democratic campaign aimed for a broader, inclusive ‘Us’ united by democratic values, framing ‘Them’ (Trump and “MAGA extremists”) as a threat to democratic institutions, often using policy-focused arguments and appeals to empathy. The study demonstrates significant differentiation in targeting and appeal explicitness. Ultimately, both campaigns strategically utilized sophisticated ‘Us vs. Them’ constructions, intertwining advanced targeting techniques with fundamental ideological positioning. This research illuminates the polarized dynamics of contemporary American political discourse and the discursive struggle for power.
This study examined the strategic construction of ‘Us vs. Them’ narratives in the 2024 US presidential election, analyzing how Democratic (Biden/Harris) and Republican (Trump) campaigns employed persuasive political targeting (PPT) to operationalize Teun A. van Dijk’s ideological square. A corpus of eight key rally speeches and two pivotal debate transcripts (early 2023 - Oct 2024) was analyzed using qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The methodology integrated Van Dijk’s ideological square (emphasize Our good/Their bad; de-emphasize Our bad/Their good) with Druckman’s PPT framework, systematically coding for these elements and specific persuasive techniques (message, source, setting matching) linked to recipient characteristics like identity, values, and issue priorities. Findings reveal distinct approaches. The Republican campaign, via Trump, predominantly used explicit, emotionally charged messages matching a core base, constructing ‘Us’ as “patriots” against a demonized ‘Them’ (e.g., “incompetent” opponents, “invader” immigrants), leveraging fear and ad hominem attacks. Conversely, the Democratic campaign aimed for a broader, inclusive ‘Us’ united by democratic values, framing ‘Them’ (Trump and “MAGA extremists”) as a threat to democratic institutions, often using policy-focused arguments and appeals to empathy. The study demonstrates significant differentiation in targeting and appeal explicitness. Ultimately, both campaigns strategically utilized sophisticated ‘Us vs. Them’ constructions, intertwining advanced targeting techniques with fundamental ideological positioning. This research illuminates the polarized dynamics of contemporary American political discourse and the discursive struggle for power.
Adegoju, A., & Oyebode, O. O. (2015). Humour as discursive practice in Nigeria’s 2015 presidential election online campaign discourse. Discourse Studies, 17(6), 643-662. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615602378
Alizadeh, M., Saeidabadi, M., & Khajeheian, D. (2021). How to compose a media mix to win an electoral campaign? Proposing a framework for political marketing. Ad-Minister, (39), 163-194. https://doi.org/10.17230/ad-minister.39.8
Bartels, L. M. (2020). Ethnic antagonism erodes Republicans’ commitment to democracy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(37), 22752-22759. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2007747117
Barton, J., Castillo, M., & Petrie, R. (2016). Negative campaigning, fundraising, and voter turnout: a field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 121, 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.10.007
Baviera, T., Sampietro, A., & García-Ull, F. J. (2019). Political conversations on Twitter in a disruptive scenario: The role of “party evangelists” during the 2015 Spanish general elections. The Communication Review, 22(2), 117-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2019.1599642
Bil-Jaruzelska, A., & Monzer, C. (2022). All about feelings? Emotional appeals as drivers of user engagement with Facebook posts. Politics and Governance, 10(1), 172-184. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i1.4758
Bordia, P., Jones, E., Gallois, C., Callan, V. J., & Diers, L. (2007). Management communication satisfaction and its impact on organizational identification. Communication Quarterly, 52(4), 439-460.
Caiani, M., & Cocco, J. D. (2023). Populism and emotions: A comparative study using machine learning. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica, 53(3), 351-366. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2023.8
Cerón, A. and D’Adda, G. (2016). E-campaigning on twitter: the effectiveness of distributive promises and negative campaign in the 2013 Italian election. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1935-1955. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815571915
Charteris-Black, J. (2018). Analysing political speeches. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Chen, L. J., & Reeves, A. (2011). Turning out the base or appealing to the periphery? An analysis of county-level candidate appearances in the 2008 presidential campaign. American Politics Research, 39(3), 534-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X10385286
Crawford, N. C. (2014). Institutionalizing passion in world politics: Fear and empathy. International Theory, 6(3), 535-557. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1752971914000256
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dobber, T., Metoui, N., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., & de Vreese, C. H. (2021). Do (microtargeted) deepfakes have real effects on political attitudes? The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(1), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220944364
Druckman, J. N. (2023). Persuasive political targeting: A remarkably understudied dynamic (IPR Working Paper WP-23-31). Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University. https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/documents/working-papers/2023/wp-23-31.pdf
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Finlayson, A. (2012). Rhetoric and the political theory of ideologies. Political Studies, 60(4), 751-767. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00948.x
Ford, B. Q., Feinberg, M., Thai, S., Gatchpazian, A., & Lassetter, B. (2020). The political is personal: The costs of daily politics. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hdz97
Gazarek, A., & Uhrecký, B. (2023). Populist radical right parties and the rhetoric of emotions. The Slovak case study. Slovak Journal of Political Sciences, 56-84. https://doi.org/10.34135/sjps.230103
Gee, J.P. (2014). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315819679
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.
Hirsh, M. (2024, September 9). Is 2024 really the most important election in history? Democracy—and the global system—might not be so easily dismantled. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/09/09/2024-us-election-harris-trump-democracy/
Irvine, J. T., Gal, S., & Kroskrity, P. V. (2009). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader, 1, 402-434.
Johnson, K., Jin, D., & Goldwasser, D. (2017). Leveraging behavioral and social information for weakly supervised collective classification of political discourse on twitter. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association For Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/p17-1069
Kaftan, L. (2024). Party competition over democracy: Democracy as electoral issue in Germany. Politics and Governance, 12. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.8502
Kahn, K. and Kenney, P. (1999). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress turnout? clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 877-889. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586118
Kinnvall, C. (2019). Populism, ontological insecurity and Hindutva: Modi and the masculinization of Indian politics. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(3), 283-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1588851
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Maceyko, M. (2021). Political campaigns, voter outreach, and American democracy: Socializing effective participation and citizen agency in the United States. American Anthropologist, 123(3), 539-551. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13608
Malka, A. and Costello, T. H. (2023). Professed democracy support and openness to politically congenial authoritarian actions within the American public. American Politics Research, 51(3), 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x221109532
Marschall, M. and McKee, R. (2002). From campaign promises to presidential policy: education reform in the 2000 election. Educational Policy, 16(1), 96-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904802016001006
Meeks, L. (2022). When two become one? Examining Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s campaign themes from primary to general election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 52(2), 313–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12759
Nguyen, C. (2019). Emotions and populist support. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/e2wm6
Odzuck, E. & Günther, S. (2021). Digital campaigning as a policy of democracy promotion: applying deliberative theories of democracy to political parties. Zeitschrift Für Politikwissenschaft, 32(2), 507-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-021-00308-w
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Reisigl, M. (2008). 11. Rhetoric of political speeches. Handbook of communication in the public sphere, 4, 243. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198980.3.243
Reiter, F. & Matthes, J. (2021). “The good, the bad, and the ugly”: a panel study on the reciprocal effects of negative, dirty, and positive campaigning on political distrust. Mass Communication and Society, 25(5), 649-672. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2021.1934702
Rico, G., Guinjoan, M., & Anduiza, E. (2017). The emotional underpinnings of populism: how anger and fear affect populist attitudes. Swiss Political Science Review, 23(4), 444-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12261
Rogers, T., & Nickerson, D. W. (2013). Can inaccurate beliefs about incumbents be changed? and can reframing change votes? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2271654
Savolainen, L., Trilling, D., & Liotsiou, D. (2020). Delighting and detesting engagement: Emotional politics of junk news. Social Media + Society, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120972037
Schutz, W. (2002). The Human Element: Productivity, Self-Esteem, and the Bottom Line. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Sharndama, E. C. (2015). Political discourse: A critical discourse analysis of President Muhammadu Buhari’s inaugural speech. European Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 3(3), 12-24.
Silverman, D. (2016). Qualitative research. Sage.
Supadhiloke, B. (2015). Framing Thailand’s political crisis. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 25(2), 319-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1326365x15604964
Teeny, J.D., Siev, J.J., Briñol, P., & Petty, R.E. (2021). A review and conceptual framework for understanding personalized matching effects in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(2), 382–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1198
Vaccari, C. (2012). From echo chamber to persuasive device? rethinking the role of the internet in campaigns. New Media & Society, 15(1), 109-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812457336
Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press. Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction. Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, 1025-1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00722-7
Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). New racism: A discourse analytical approach. Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 359-383.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, Ideology, and Discourse. 728-740.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Discourse and ideology. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 379-407. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446289068.n18
Van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 466-485). Wiley.
Voelkel, J. and Brandt, M. (2018). The effect of ideological identification on the endorsement of moral values depends on the target group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(6), 851-863. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218798822
Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699-719. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12164
Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (Eds.). (2005). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wuttke, A., & Foos, F. (2025). Making the case for democracy: A field-experiment on democratic persuasion. European Journal of Political Research, 64(2), 559–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12705
