Abstract
In what is frequently referred to as the post-truth era, where appeals to emotion take
center stage, polarization in public debates is at an all time high. In fact, some say it is the
defining feature of 21st century politics (Doherty, 2014). People like US President Donald
Trump regularly get their message across by keeping rhetoric polarized and emotionally
persuasive (Hansen, 2017:n.p.). In many ways, and especially as regards his immigration
policies, Trump has “turned public discourse into ‘discoarse’ [...] with his free,
unchecked speech” (Stiehm, 2017:1) and has crossed a line that is alarming many. Yet
free speech in the West has always been characterized by a level of discord and
persuasion. And it is only in light of these more extreme manifestions that we begin to
see the limitations of and question what is essentially an adversarial approach to
communication, cultivated systemically within Western liberal democracies.
In this article I take a closer look at this approach and suggest that by framing issues in
divisive ways and employing a chiefly persuasive rhetoric we can but reduce
complexities, sideline ‘truth’ and obstruct the pursuit of cooperation, where this is
possible and very possibly desirable. Considering these challenges, I then ask in what
ways discourses can be reshaped and evolved to promote shared ends. This question is
not so much about our response to any single public figure but rather about how we ought
to talk about issues and what we could be cultivating in terms of democratic discourses.