CAMPAIGN RHETORIC IN POLARIZED AMERICA: AN AUDIENCE-CHANNEL THEORY OF CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATION

Taewoo Kang

Does elite polarization serve American democracy by helping the electorate see the systematic differences between the two major political parties and their candidates? While the question has attracted much scholarly attention, the mechanism by which elite polarization clarifies partisan differences has not been systematically examined. Specifically, previous studies on the subject rarely consider the fact that different actors such as candidates, journalists, and interest groups have different incentives to highlight or hide where the two political parties/candidates stand on the issues of the day. This dissertation takes a step to open this black box by isolating the role of campaign rhetoric from other information sources in clarifying differences between the two parties and their candidates. Put simply, I theorize and empirically demonstrate that strategic campaigns do not reveal the similarities and differences between the two parties in any systematic manner—and that the nature and the degree of partisan rhetorical differences are different across the communication channels used to reach different voters. Using a combination of existing and original data as well as various research methods such as text analysis, content analysis, and experiment, I provide empirical evidence on the following three ideas. First, to the extent that they exist, partisan rhetorical differences take multiple forms, most of which do not present a focused comparison between competing candidates. Second, whether and how campaigns clarify partisan differences are contingent upon intended audience and communication channel. Third, these findings on varieties of partisan rhetorical difference and audience/channel-specific strategies matter because they cause voters to evaluate the same candidate differently. This dissertation improves upon the existing body of knowledge regarding the alleged benefits of elite polarization and the role various actors play in informing the public during campaign periods. I argue that those who want to learn about how competing candidates are systematically different from each other should look at information sources other than campaign messages. I also discuss what can be done to truly help the public learn about candidates’ issue positions in a systematic manner, which might be necessary not merely for vote choice but for healthy democratic governance.

CAMPAIGN RHETORIC IN POLARIZED AMERICA: AN AUDIENCE-CHANNEL THEORY OF CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATION

Files and links (1)

Abstract

Metrics

Details