This study critically examines the rhetoric of 2024 U.S. presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in relation to major international conflicts, including the Gaza war, the war in Ukraine, U.S.-Iran tensions, U.S.-China relations, and the Taiwan issue. Employing a dual-method approach, the analysis integrates structural critical discourse analysis to uncover ideological and power structures embedded in the texts, alongside pragmatic discourse analysis to assess the socio-political contexts influencing these narratives. Findings reveal that Trump’s rhetoric is marked by a confrontational tone, employing strategies such as fear appeal, nationalistic assertions, and authority reinforcement. In contrast, Harris’s rhetoric utilizes diplomatic and conciliatory rhetoric, foregrounding themes of multilateralism, global cooperation, and social justice. While Trump frames international engagement through a lens of unilateralism and national security, Harris emphasizes inclusive global alliances and humanitarian responsibility. The analysis also uncovers both candidates’ strategic use of symbolic language and emotionally charged appeals to shape public opinion and electoral identity. These rhetorical divergences reflect broader ideological cleavages in American political discourse and offer insights into the discursive construction of foreign policy agendas during electoral campaigns.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed Samir Hammad (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: