Abstract
Prior to the 2016 race, Twitter was seen as a more Democratic than Republican campaign platform. In light of the extraordinary use of social media by the Trump campaign, this chapter examines how ideological communication by either faction can be advanced or limited within this medium. We argue that the simplest and most inciting aspects of each ideology can be communicated clearly, but not the more complex or mundane facets. This suggests that certain issues will be emphasized and others neglected on Twitter by each side. These hypotheses are borne out in the 2016 Twitter campaigns, in which Clinton and Trump focused on only specific aspects and issues of the competing ideologies, and followers retweeted in a similar pattern. In the Twitter campaign, less can indeed be more ideological when the ideologies are communicated in their reduced forms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Generalizing from a case in the Netherlands, Kessel and Castelein (2016) argue that “the format of tweets—which are limited to 140 characters—arguably offers more opportunities for politicians with a succinct and unambiguous message than for mainstream politicians whose positions are marked by more nuance and opacity” (596).
- 3.
On the propensity for negative attacks on Twitter—which seem correlated with negative campaign strategies in other media and to prolific tweeting—see Bode et al. (2016).
- 4.
Striving for attention may lead to the potential trade-off between authenticity and error. Tweeting in an unfiltered voice may be perceived as authentic and therefore trustworthy (see Lee and Lim 2016: “Trump’s unprecedented bold and controversial communication style, which was often framed as ‘authenticity,’ was clearly differentiated from Clinton’s traditional, and thus more predictable, communication style” (854)). The same tactic may lead to errors of judgment that hurt the candidate. Sometimes it is not easy to tell which has occurred. Four months into his presidency, Trump famously tweeted, “Despite the constant negative press covfefe” without further explanation. The next morning, he tweeted: “Who can figure out the true meaning of ‘covfefe’??? Enjoy!” When asked at the next press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said, “The President and a small group of people know exactly what he meant.” Spicer may or may not have been in that group. Perhaps it was in fact an inside joke. Or an error. We may never know. Did this make him look foolish or more like ordinary people who make authentic mistakes (the “have a beer” heuristic)?
- 5.
See Bode et al. (2016) on the successful generation of free media through reporting on tweets.
- 6.
Ideology is a contested concept, but mainstream political science generally understands it as a vision of a better society, grounded in a constellation of value predispositions and factual perceptions. See Marietta (2011) for a full discussion of the competing foundations of contemporary conservatism and liberalism.
- 7.
- 8.
LBJ invoked the threat of nuclear war (see the infamous “Daisy Girl” ad against Goldwater); Reagan invoked the threat from the Soviets (see his “Bear in the Woods” ad); George H.W. Bush invoked the threats of race and crime (see the infamous Willie Horton and “Revolving Door” ads); George W. Bush invoked the threat of terrorism (see the “Wolves” ad); and Hillary Clinton employed the Daisy Girl actor, now in her 50s, to accuse Trump of creating a current danger of nuclear war, but none have run the full spectrum of personal security , personal status, and group status threats as repeatedly and as bluntly as Trump.
- 9.
The tweets for the entire 2016 campaign have been collected and made available by the scholars at Syracuse University School of Information Studies at illuminating.ischool.syr.edu.
- 10.
These categories add up to more than 100% because Clinton sometimes invoked more than one identity group in the same tweet.
References
Albertson, Bethany, and Shana Kushner Gadarian. 2015. Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barker, David C. 2002. Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bobo, Lawrence. 1983. Whites’ Opposition to Busing: Symbolic Racism or Realistic Group Conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (6): 1196–1210.
Bode, Leticia, David Lassen, Young Mie Kim, Dhavan Shah, Erika Fowler, Travis Ridout, and Michael Franz. 2016. Coherent Campaigns? Campaign Broadcast and Social Messaging. Online Information Review 40 (5): 580–594.
Bokhari, Allum. 2016. Conservative Twitter Users Should Fight Back. Breitbart, February 17.
Boyer, Pascal, and Nora Parren. 2015. Threat-Related Information Suggests Competence: A Possible Factor in the Spread of Rumors. PloS One 10 (6): e0128421.
Conway, Lucien, Laura Gornick, Shannon Houck, Christopher Anderson, Jennifer Stockert, Diana Sessoms, and Kevin McCue. 2015. Are Conservatives Really More Simple-Minded Than Liberals? The Domain Specificity of Complex Thinking. Political Psychology 37 (6): 777–798.
Conway, Lucien, Shannon Houck, Laura Gornick, and Meredith Repke. 2016. Ideologically Motivated Perceptions of Complexity: Believing Those Who Agree with You Are More Complex Than They Are. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 35 (6): 708–718.
Feldman, Stanley, and Karen Stenner. 1997. Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism. Political Psychology 18 (4): 741–770.
Gadarian, Shana Kushner. 2010. The Politics of Threat: How Terrorism News Shapes Foreign Policy Attitudes. Journal of Politics 72 (2): 469–483.
Gross, Justin, and Kaylee Johnson. 2016. Twitter Taunts and Tirades: Negative Campaigning in the Age of Trump. PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (4): 748–754.
Jost, Jon, J. Glaser, A. Kruglanski, and F. Sulloway. 2003. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129 (3): 339–375.
Kessel, Stinj, and Remco Castelein. 2016. Shifting the Blame: Populist Politicians’ Use of Twitter as a Tool of Opposition. Journal of Contemporary European Research 12 (2): 594–614.
Landau, Mark, Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, et al. 2004. Deliver Us From Evil: The Effects of Mortality Salience and Reminders of 9/11 on Support for President George W. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (9): 1135–1150.
Lee, Jayeon, and Young-Shin Lim. 2016. Gendered Campaign Tweets: The Cases of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Public Relations Review 42 (5): 849–855.
Marietta, Morgan. 2011. A Citizen’s Guide to American Ideology: Conservatism and Liberalism in Contemporary Politics. New York: Routledge.
Merolla, Jennifer, and Elizabeth Zechmeister. 2013. Evaluating Political Leaders in Times of Terror and Economic Threat: The Conditioning Influence of Political Partisanship. Journal of Politics 75 (3): 599–612.
Onreat, Emma, Alain van Hiel, and Ilse Cornelius. 2013. Threat and Right-Wing Attitude: A Cross-National Approach. Political Psychology 34 (5): 791.
Petriglieri, Jennifer. 2011. Under Threat: Responses to and the Consequences of Threats to Individuals’ Identities. Academy of Management Review 36 (4): 641–662.
Petrocik, John. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40: 825–850.
Pyszczynski, Thomas, Sheldon Solomon, and Jeff Greenberg. 2003. In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schmid, Katharina, and Orla Muldoon. 2015. Perceived Threat, Social Identification, and Psychological Well-Being: The Effect of Political Conflict Exposure. Political Psychology 36 (1): 75–92.
Sobieski, Daniel. 2017. Twitter, Shadowbanning, and Conservatives. American Thinker, May 11.
Tetlock, Philip. 1986. A Value Pluralism Model of Ideological Reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 819–827.
Young, Cathy. 2016. How Facebook, Twitter Silence Conservative Voices Online. The Hill, October 28.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marietta, M., Cote, T., Farley, T., Murphy, P. (2018). Less Is More Ideological: Conservative and Liberal Communication on Twitter in the 2016 Race. In: Galdieri, C., Lucas, J., Sisco, T. (eds) The Role of Twitter in the 2016 US Election. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68981-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68981-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68980-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68981-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)