Divisive and Unifying Campaign Messages: Do They Work? Why and on Whom?

• In Event: Countering Illiberalism in Liberal Democracies II: Norms and Political Behavior

Abstract

Aspiring autocrats thrive in polarized environments and attempt to push the process of polarization even further (Svolik 2019, 2020; Graham and Svolik 2020; McCoy et al. 2018). The scenario can easily lead to a downward spiral toward ever greater polarization, political violence, and the unravelling of democracy. Politicians who use polarized discourse know implicitly that anger is an approach emotion, and encourages participation (Aytaç and Stokes 2019). Yet presumably people dislike division and often pull away from polarizing messages, with a why can’t we all just get along? response (see Cella 2022). Furthermore, along with anger and moral outrage enthusiasm and optimism and also approach emotions and hence helpful to politicians. In recent U.S. politics, optimism and unifying messages have powered successful campaigns of Ronald Reagan (Morning in America) and Barack Obama (Yes We Can) message and tag lines about there being “no blue states or red states but only the United States.” In an on-going set of survey experiments, conducted in the United States, Turkey, and Mexico, we are studying the relative effectiveness of divisive and unifying political messages. Do they work? Do co-partisans of the political speaker have endless appetite for divisiveness, or do they eventually turn away from polarizing speech? What impact does each type of message have on people’s sense of belonging to their political party? What impact do they have on participation and turnout?

Authors

• Susan C. Stokes, University of Chicago

• S. Erdem Aytaç, Koç University

• Lautaro Cella, University of Chicago

• Ipek Cinar, University of Chicago