How the Trump Campaign Targeted a "Legitimate" Enemy to Win the Presidency

• In Event: Populist Communication

Abstract

Following the resurgence of radical populism in Europe, the politically-correct and multicultural politics of Barak Obama gave way in the 2016 presidential election to one of the most taboo-breaking campaigns in American history. Growing weary of foreign military
interventions, free-trade policy implications, uncontrolled immigration, increasing national debt and a corrupt political establishment, the American pe ople looked for an alternative. Trump offered them a national-populist vision that put their interests and those of America first and a hope to make America great again. However, we argue that what really made his improbable victory possible was the ability of his campaign to target a new "legitimate" enemy that symbolized all of their discontents. To achieve electoral success, modern radical populists have embraced the politics of conflict to create an enemy in the minds of voters. The enemy becomes "legitimate" when it is held responsible for their concerns and problems. We test this hypothesis by using a high-frequency discourse analysis of the 2016 election party platforms and key campaign speeches of the nominees. The results demonstrate striking similarities between the
American and the European styles of radical populism. Moreover, the branding of a "legitimate" enemy-i.e. the immigrant-was traced only in the Republican manifestos, while the Democrats retained their politically-correct" stance in favor of expansionist immigration policies.

Authors

• Karen Umansky, Tel Aviv University

• Joel A. Lieske, Cleveland State University