'The rhetoric of fear was effective': How language reflects & impacts presidential campaigns

As analysis continues of the results of the 2024 election, one thing to be reviewed is how each candidate’s campaign and the rhetoric surrounding it impacted the outcome.

Former President Donald Trump delivered dark and volatile campaign language that was centered on fear, while Vice President Kamala Harris had an approach centered on optimism and hope.

Allison Prasch is an associate professor of rhetoric, politics and culture at UW-Madison. Her research seeks to understand how political leaders create and sustain a particular vision of the U.S. through their words and actions. She believes that one major theme of presidential rhetoric that has persisted over the last few campaigns is the tension between viewing the U.S. presidency as an institution versus an individual.

"I think the thing that is important to keep in mind is that throughout history, the majority of the time the individuals who are occupying the institution of the presidency have demonstrated in some way, shape or form that they value that institution," Prasch explains. "And regardless of how the individuals are or speaking or acting, it's always been in the service of the institution and I think that's something that we really need to pay attention to in our current moment."

Prasch notes that we are currently living in a different era of Republican rhetoric, specifically. "Really prior to [John F.] Kennedy or, you know, a little bit even after that, it was hard often to say this is a 'Republican brand' of rhetoric or this is a 'Democratic brand' of rhetoric," she explains. "Now, to be clear people might take issues with particular policies or proposals, but this idea of rhetoric of being politicized is more of a new phenomenon — or the way that it has been weaponized by particular individuals."

“What is striking to me as someone who studies this is to see the dark or feel fearful narrative of a nation that Trump has really utilized, and he's utilized it in very effective ways. But it's in stark contrast to what [Ronald] Reagan did — where Reagan would offer this hopeful vision of the nation, Trump is doing the opposite," Prasch adds. "He's essentially saying, ‘You don't have reason to hope, you have every reason to be afraid, and I'm the one who can save you from that fear and that's why you should support me.’”

When Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee, she had the challenge of leaning into her gender, but not celebrate it too explicitly, Prasch says.

"If we want to talk about the multiple binds that [Harris] finds herself in, those would be them thinking about gender, thinking about race, thinking about this very gendered and at times sexist political contest, and that she is still serving as a sitting vice president [under Joe Biden]. And that's a really tall order," notes Prasch.

While language about foreign policy, the economy, reproductive rights and more differed between the campaigns, ultimately Trump's rhetoric centered on attacks and fear while Harris tried to deliver on optimism and hope in a 107-day campaign. With Trump winning both the electorate and popular vote, does it show that a rhetoric of fear more effective?

"The more specific answer in the context of [2024] is yes, the rhetoric of fear was effective," says Prasch. She says this, combined with Trump's ability to capture voter's feelings of anger, distrust and dissatisfaction made individuals feel seen.

"Kamala Harris absolutely attempted to brand her campaign and her approach in an opposite way of offering a narrative of hope, of optimism, belief in the future, in the promise of America. ... And I think one of the reasons that the campaign probably made that choice is we saw how successful that was for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And yet we see what happens, right?" adds Prasch.

She does add a more philosophical answer: "Plato would break this down and say that there is this good rhetoric that is directed towards what is best for the populace or the citizenry, and there's this rhetoric that is used to flatter and make people feel good in the immediate moment and not with the concern for the future," she explains. "And I really think that the 2024 presidential contest gives us a really clear picture of those two different approaches."

Prasch says it's now time for the citizenry to model the type of behavior that we should expect to see from officials in the highest offices of our government.

“I think it is an opportunity for all of us to consider what motivates us, to consider how we think about and talk about the issues facing our individual lives and a broader electorate," she says. "How do we seek to understand and empathize with people with whom we might disagree? Because we have a choice: Are we going to devolve into name calling and stocking fear and division, or are we going to try to choose to see the humanity and other people, and to cultivate empathy and compassion?"