By understanding the psychological and rhetorical mechanisms at play, we can engage more thoughtfully in political discussions and resist manipulation.
In politics, words are weapons, tools, and instruments of persuasion. Political narratives are carefully crafted to evoke emotions that can influence public opinion, shape ideologies, and mobilize action.
Whether through speeches, debates, social media posts, or policy discussions, politicians and their strategists use emotionally charged language to craft compelling messages that voters easily and quickly absorb. But why are emotionally charged words so effective? And how do they shape the political discourse?
The psychology behind emotionally charged words
Emotionally charged words, or words with emotional burdens, are those that evoke strong feelings – whether positive or negative. These words can trigger reactions based on personal values, fears, hopes, and experiences. Psychologists suggest that a language laden with emotions involves the amygdala, which is the brain's emotional processing center and which makes information less likely to be forgotten and more persuasive.
Daniel Kahneman explains in Thinking, Fast and Slow that emotionally charged words tap into "System 1" thinking – our fast, instinctive, and emotional mode of data processing – instead of "System 2," which is slower and more analytical. Political messages often attempt to circumvent critical scrutiny by directly appealing to emotions, thus making emotions a powerful rhetorical device.
The use of fear, hope, and anger in political narratives
Fear as a tool for mobilization
Fear is one of the most commonly used emotions in political communication. Politicians often highlight threats – real or perceived – to create urgency and mobilize support. For example, the "Daisy" commercial of President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 depicted a nuclear explosion and was warning the voters of the dangers of electing his opponent, Barry Goldwater. The ad successfully exploited fear to influence voter perceptions.
More recently, political leaders around the world have used fear-based rhetoric to deal with immigration, terrorism and economic instability. Terms like "invasion", "criminals" and "radical extremists" have been used to shape public attitudes toward national security and immigration policies.
Hope as a unifying force
While fear often prompts immediate action, hope provides a vision for the future. Politicians use optimistic language to inspire and unite people around a cause. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign slogan "Yes We Can" is a great example of using positive, emotionally charged words to evoke feelings of emancipation and collective progress. Similarly, the famous Franklin Roosevelt's assurance during the Great Depression – "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" – used rousing rhetoric to instill hope and resilience in the Americans.
Anger as a catalyst for change
Anger can be a powerful motivator, especially in populist movements. Political leaders use anger-filled words to rally supporters against perceived injustices. The Occupy Wall Street movement, for example, used the phrase "We are the 99%" to highlight economic inequality, sparking widespread frustration against corporate elites and government policies. Donald Trump's rhetoric about "fake news" has also fueled distrust in institutions, mobilizing a base that feels alienated from mainstream politics.
"Framing" and emotionally charged words
The way political issues are “framed” – or presented – influences how people perceive them. Framing involves selecting certain aspects of reality and emphasizing them through specific linguistic formulations. Emotionally charged words play a key role in this process. For example, when taxation is described as a “burden” or a “job killer,” it is viewed negatively. In contrast, calling it an “investment in our future” or a “contribution to society” frames it in a positive light. This linguistic frame influences how the public interprets policy proposals and political decisions.
Source: unsplash.com
Similarly, in the abortion debate, opposing sides use contrasting emotionally charged terms: “pro-life” emphasizes the moral imperative to protect life, while “pro-choice” emphasizes individual rights and autonomy. These word choices shape the broader narrative and the emotional resonance of the debate.
Media amplification of emotional rhetoric
The media plays a significant role in amplifying emotionally charged words, often shaping public perception through selective coverage and sensationalism. News, especially in the digital age, prioritizes emotionally appealing content to drive clicks and viewership. Studies suggest that emotionally intense headlines – especially those that evoke anger or fear – are more likely to be shared on social media.
Politicians and interest groups use this media dynamic to spread their messages. Social media platforms, in particular, allow the rapid spread of emotionally "charged" rhetoric, reinforcing echo chambers where people are exposed primarily to viewpoints that align with their pre-existing beliefs.
Ethical considerations and manipulation
Emotionally charged words can inspire and mobilize, but they can also be used for manipulative and divisive purposes. The strategic use of fear-mongering, scapegoating, and spreading disinformation is leading to increased polarization in many societies. The rise of "post-truth" politics – where emotional appeal often outweighs factual accuracy – raises ethical concerns about political communication.
For example, the use of dehumanizing language in political discourse has historically contributed to violence and discrimination: Nazi propaganda depicted the Jewish people in derogatory and emotionally charged terms, inciting widespread hatred and persecution. More recently, political leaders around the world have used inflammatory rhetoric against minority groups, exacerbating social divisions.
Macedonian political context – a hotbed of emotionally charged vocabulary
The Macedonian political stage abounds with the presence of emotionally charged words. A research carried out by HARM-TIVE showed that, in the communication of politicians with citizens, trust in both central and local government is often undermined, and this is most often done with emotionally charged words.
The words "misery", "poverty", "scandals", "they ruin everything", "incompetent", "crime(s)", "corruption", "panic", "chaos", "profiteers", "false promises"... carry a large emotional subcontext, i.e. an emotional charge that can incite negative feelings such as rage, anger, fear, insecurity, a feeling of being manipulated, tricked, resignation, and it is through them that manipulation is attempted to incite and/or strengthen lack of trust in the government institutions, but also in local government, in a political party...
The research also showed that political actors direct personal insults at each other, and the vocabulary used in doing so abounds with words with a negative emotional charge. Words such as "schizo", "retard", "runaway", "schizophrenic", "kleptomaniac"..., indicate a certain mental state in people and can cause feelings of fear, insecurity, and perhaps even pity – feelings that result in distrust towards a particular person. Words such as "coward", "regretful pilgrim", "deserter"..., indicate the morality and will of a person and can cause feelings of contempt and anger in people, which can lead to low respect toward a person, aggression, belittling, etc. Feelings of fear are the subcontext of the words "violence", "tyrant", "terrorist", "bloodsuckers", etc.
SHTET-NA also showed that political actors very often create narratives aimed at inciting divisions. In addition, the most commonly used words such as "Macedonia", "government", "people" and "citizens" have an emotional charge and encourage patriotic feelings, belonging, and collective identity and thus easily manipulate the emotions of citizens.
In the context of the harmful narrative of "inciting divisions", the manipulation is aimed at dividing between us – patriots and them – unpatriotic; us – for the people and citizens and them – to the detriment of the people and citizens. The words "isolation", "backward", "hopelessness" evoke feelings of loneliness, of inadequacy, as opposed to the words "future", "prosperity", "hope", whose emotional potential inspires hope and action. On the one hand, some "care" for people and "respect" them, while others "insult" and "belittle" them. By choosing words with an emotional charge that inspires contradictory feelings (positive for some, negative for others), division is also incited among the very citizens who choose different political options, and not only between political parties.
Harmful narratives can divide, but they can also unite us
Emotionally charged words are central to political narratives, shaping public opinion, influencing policy debates, and mobilizing action. Fear, hope, and anger serve as powerful tools in the hands of politicians and the media, capable of both uniting and dividing societies.
As stakeholders in the political discourse, it is crucial to recognize the role of emotionally charged language and critically assess its impact. By understanding the psychological and rhetorical mechanisms at play, we can engage more thoughtfully in political discussions and resist manipulation.
Cultivating a political culture that values reasoned debate about emotional exploitation is, ultimately, essential to the health of democratic societies.
