Dillion, D., et al. (2024).
PNAS Nexus, 3(9).
Abstract
Politics and the media in the United States are increasingly nationalized, and this changes how we talk about politics. Instead of reading the local news and discussing local events, people are more often consuming national media and discussing national issues. Unlike local politics, which can rely on shared concrete knowledge about the region, national politics must coordinate large groups of people with little in common. To provide this coordination, we find that national-level political discussions rely upon different themes than local-level discussions, using more abstract, moralized, and power-centric language. The higher prevalence of abstract, moralized, and power-centric language in national vs. local politics was found in political speeches, politician Tweets, and Reddit discussions. These national-level linguistic features lead to broader engagement with political messages, but they also foster more anger and negativity. These findings suggest that the nationalization of politics and the media may contribute to rising partisan animosity.
Here are some thoughts:
In recent years, American politics has undergone a significant transformation, becoming increasingly divisive and focused on national issues at the expense of local concerns. Researchers have identified a key factor contributing to this shift: the reliance on moral, power-centric, and abstract language in national politics. This linguistic style serves as a unifying framework, capturing attention and coordinating opinions across broad and diverse audiences.
Studies have revealed striking differences in language styles between national and local politics. Across various mediums, including politician speeches, Twitter, and Reddit, national politics consistently employs more moral, power-centric, and abstract language. Furthermore, this language style fosters widespread engagement, but also cultivates anger and negativity. Notably, politicians and individuals adapt their language depending on the context, using more moralized language in national settings than local ones.
These findings have significant implications for our understanding of the nationalization of politics and its consequences. The shift towards national politics may contribute to increased polarization and division, highlighting the need for further research into the effectiveness of abstract, moralized, and power-centric language in different contexts. Additionally, exploring how these dynamics play out in more homogeneous societies could provide valuable insights.
Ultimately, recognizing the benefits and drawbacks of national politics' reliance on moral, power-centric language is crucial. While it unites people and encourages participation, it also diverts attention from important local issues and fosters animosity. By understanding these complexities, we can work towards more effective coordination and communication in diverse groups, minimizing conflict and promoting constructive engagement.
