The Paranoid Style in American Political Communication: “Antiestablishment” Discourse and Contemporary GOP Spin

• In Event: Populism, Voters, and the Media

Abstract

The prominence and meaning of the phrase “anti-establishment” has witnessed a revealing rise and evolution in recent American political discourse. Combining textual analysis of newspaper articles and in-depth interviews with dozens of consultants involved in the encoding and production of political communication, this research critiques its significance and deployment in Republican campaign messaging. Mapping the contours of this rhetorical strategy, a typology of four instructive dimensions of tension emerges: insurrection-versus-order; populism-versus-undemocratic means; real America-versus-elitism; and purity-versus-compromise. The paper concludes by arguing that “anti-establishment” represents a hegemonic co-optation of the grammar and themes of the 1960s New Left, now in the service of right-wing ideology. Such discourse offers candidates a crusading socio-cultural performance that channels paranoia, angst, and resentment at wealth inequality, reduced social mobility, and broader institutional failure, while diverting attention from economic power and privilege – it is how the GOP talks about class, without actually talking about class.

Author

• Michael James Serazio, Fairfield University