Polarization in Modern Political Discourse
By Josephina Trebing
Edited by Anshika Dwivedi and Lara Lamie
For the PDF verson, click here
Abstract
This paper examines how contemporary political discourse relies on fear mongering tactics that intensify polarization and distort public understanding. Drawing on Aristotelian rhetoric, affect theory, and political communication scholarship, it argues that emotional appeals are not inherently irrational but constitute a necessary component of moral judgment. Modern debate culture, however, selectively delegitimizes emotional expression from marginalized groups while normalizing fear-based narratives promoted by those in power. Through analysis of right-wing rhetorical strategies, including moral panic framing and scapegoating, and the left’s overreliance on logos-based rebuttals, this paper shows how both sides contribute to a degraded communicative environment. The essay contends that fostering good faith, emotionally literate political dialogue is essential for countering extremist narratives, restoring democratic trust, and advancing constructive solutions across ideological divides.
Keywords: Political Discourse, Polarization, Logos- appeal to logic, Pathos- appeal to emotion, Ethos- appeal to authority