With the 2024 U.S. presidential election right around the corner, the campaign strategies of candidates are taking center stage, and no one is commanding attention quite like former President Donald Trump. Trump has ramped up his rhetoric, mixing anger, fear, and divisive language aimed at galvanizing his supporters. This newfound intensity has experts worrying about the broader impacts of Trump’s increasingly aggressive speech style on American democracy.
Recently, at Madison Square Garden, Trump warned of illegal immigrants “occupying” America, pledging to start the largest deportation program if elected. His words were not just hyperbole; they were calculated to stir emotions and provoke fervor among his base. Political analysts have noted this shift toward harsher rhetoric marks a notable change since his presidency. For them, these speeches are becoming darker, increasingly peppered with violent imagery and imposing threats against political rivals, such as calling out Liz Cheney for purportedly needing “guns of war” trained on her, as reported by the Daily Montanan.
Robert C. Rowland, a political rhetoric scholar at the University of Kansas, emphasizes how Trump’s language is now more overtly filled with themes of grievance and aggression. “The things he’s saying are unmistakably worse than before. He emits messages of fear, claiming, ‘We won’t have a country left,’ which echo sentiments from the tail end of the 2020 campaign but now feel even more amplified,” Rowland detailed.
Backing up this analysis, researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles conducted extensive studies on Trump's speeches, finding alarming trends. The researchers recorded increasingly frequent use of violent vocabulary since Trump first took the political stage. They analyzed nearly 100 speeches and uncovered what they termed “an obvious, upward trend” in his use of violent language. This stark evolution highlights how deeply entrenched aggression has become within Trump’s communication style as he pushes forward toward the election.
Fans of Trump have shown resilience amid such escalated rhetoric. At rallies, supportive crowds often shrug off divisive comments from President Joe Biden, who recently characterized Trump’s supporters as “garbage.” Many Trump backers, interviewed outside rallies, dismissed Biden’s remarks, characterizing them as unnecessary or simply indicative of their opponents’ concerns. For example, Naralyn Durbin from De Pere commented, “We were called deplorable before. Now we’re called garbage. That’s fine; it’s just words. I’ll take it,” reflecting the defiance among his supporters.
At the heart of this dialogue lies the narrative around women’s rights. Harris sharply criticized Trump at her rallies, highlighting his statements on women—that he would “protect” women whether they liked it or not. She called these remarks “offensive,” arguing they reflect a dangerous misunderstanding of women’s autonomy. Harris emphasized how under Trump's leadership, the freedom of women to make their own choices about their bodies is at risk, citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which she connected directly to Trump’s influence.
During this same time, the dynamics within Latino communities are shifting, as Trump attempts to appeal to Hispanic voters by discussing crime and immigration. Despite his traditional conservative base, polls suggest this demographic is increasingly wary of Trump's polarizing rhetoric and the links he draws between crime and immigration. Many polls indicate Latinos view Trump more negatively as he veers toward inflammatory comments about migrants—asserting they’re responsible for crime without citing factual bases.
Despite the rising tension, Democrats continue pushing back vehemently against Trump’s claims and strategies. Harris’s rallies, like one held on Nevada Day, become platforms for reenforcing her vision for democracy, contrasting it with what she characterizes as Trump’s destructive policies and rhetoric. She exhorts voters to push back and unite against the purported chaos Trump’s return to power could wreak, asserting, “We’re done with it. We’re exhausted with it.”
Beyond the polls and campaign rallies, there’s evidence showing Trump’s language could be aliening not just undecided voters, but some traditional Republicans as well. Former Trump ally Ian Sams spoke during Morning Joe, explaining how Trump is alienizing moderates. Even as he energizes his base with divisive rhetoric, he risks driving away those with more moderate views within his party, highlighting how opinions are shifting at this pivotal moment.
Meanwhile, his social media presence remains impactful. Researchers analyzed Trump’s recent posts, identifying several recurrent themes and phrases. Words like “radical” and “fake” dominate his narratives about opponents, and his messaging often reflects underlying conspiratorial tones about government influence and “enemies within”—directly targeting political adversaries as threats. Examining 238 of his posts, the analysis revealed how these themes serve as rallying cries for his base, framing the election battle not just as political competition but as cultural war.
This potent mix of fear-inducing language and inflammatory comments appears to fulfill its purpose: keeping his supporters mobilized and engaged. His messaging style not only speaks to deep-seated fears within segments of the electorate but also seeks to empower them against perceived threats—a tactic evident throughout his political career.
But analysts remain vigilant and concerned about the longer-term consequences of such aggressive communication strategies. Their apprehension stems from the risk posed not only to election integrity but also to the social fabric of the nation. The combination of language and rhetoric can easily frame opponents and entire communities as existential threats, fostering real-world consequences.
Even as Trump looks to rally his troops, Kamala Harris works firmly to paint herself as the antidote to the “hateful rhetoric” she claims defines Trump’s campaign. By emphasizing unity and respectful discourse, she positions herself and her administration as proactive choices for voters weary of divisive finger-pointing.
Nonetheless, as the election date creeps closer, the question remains: will Trump’s incendiary rhetoric pay off at the ballot box or alienate voters who may be turned off by the vitriol? With polls indicating tight races across key battleground states, both candidates are poised for the final sprint—one hoping to maintain enthusiasm and the other to channel exasperation toward the voting booths. The clash between these two competing narratives sets the stage for one of the most contentious elections the nation has seen, leaving observers to bracingly await the outcome of this real-time political theater.
