Interview with Aimee Pavia Meader and Matthew Wood Hayes: ‘Presidential’ is in the ear of the beholder

Aimee Pavia Meader and Matthew Wood Hayes tell us about their recent Journal of Language and Politics article, '‘Presidential’ is in the ear of the beholder: The impact of rhetorical style, message tone, and voters’ ideological outlook on political perception'.

Photo by History in HD on Unsplash

the political divide starts with fundamental differences in perception; liberals and conservatives literally don’t see the same message, and without a similar starting point, the very foundation of their arguments cannot be shared, keeping consensus out of reach.

Why did you decide to write this piece?

Is Donald Trump America’s saviour or is the nation imploding? The answer depends upon who you ask. America is divided, but for unexpected reasons.

When we started the study in 2017, trust in government was plummeting, media trust reached historic lows, and deeply rooted resentment inflamed divisions between partisans. There was a staggering divide between Trump supporters, who fear the erosion of American values, a loss in wealth and threats to national security, and those who find Trump in contempt, fearing he will create a nation-state that steals citizens’ freedoms.

Scholars often cite partisans’ ideological preferences and priorities to explain these fundamental differences in perception. However, perceptual differences begin before voters gaze through a partisan lens and prior to any political debate. Truth takes a unique spin because belief formation starts before interpretation. Liberals and conservatives do not interpret the same message – even if that message is the exact same statement made by the same politician.

What are the key takeaways?

We found that conservative voters can’t tell the difference between statements made by Trump and Obama or Bush – to them, presidential rhetoric is indistinguishable. Trump sounds no more or less presidential than his predecessors. Prior studies reveal that Trump is an outlier. For example, he is the least analytical president in American history; however, only half the nation can tell, and what seems evident to scholars may not be evident to the public. Just because researchers identify differences in rhetoric or style doesn’t mean those differences impact or are even noticed by voters.

Liberals and moderates compared the same unattributed statements, noting a clear difference between Trump and his predecessors, especially when Trump’s tone indicated that the world is a dangerous or threatening place. These findings indicate that the political divide starts with fundamental differences in perception; liberals and conservatives literally don’t see the same message, and without a similar starting point, the very foundation of their arguments cannot be shared, keeping consensus out of reach. Closing the divide must move beyond simple strategies that target an imbalance in partisans’ reasoning abilities and factor differences in basic perception.

While scholars cite countless instances of vulgarity during the Trump era, millions of voters don’t register an assault against women, immigrants and minorities. Language that was once a political death sentence for candidates, such as calling someone “retarded” (Trump, Sept. 29,2024), is now cheered as American norms continue to erode. Scholars must ask if this acceptance of indecency is unique to Trump or if America’s tendency to embrace what was previously considered offensive signifies a broader trend towards intolerance.

Where do you plan to go next in your research?

As American political discourse shifts, so do understandings of what it means to be “truly American.” Our next project examines notions of patriotism. If only “real” Americans are eligible to vote or granted freedoms of speech, then anyone who doesn’t fit the restrictive mould stands to lose their voice, freedom and power.