Rewriting the Rules of Democratic Legitimacy: Elite Discourse and the Dynamics of Polarization in the United States and Germany

Petersen, Zarrias Møller

4. semester

International Relations, MSc.

2026

2026-02-16

65

Denne afhandling undersøger, hvordan politisk polarisering blev eskaleret gennem elitesprog i USA og Tyskland i perioden 2020–2022. I stedet for at forstå polarisering som en fast indstilling eller et strukturelt forhold betragtes den som en dynamisk proces formet af offentlig politisk kommunikation. Med afsæt i litteratur om affektiv polarisering, udhuling af demokratiske normer og udvidelse af konflikt på tværs af samfundsområder udvikler afhandlingen en ramme for at analysere, hvordan politiske konflikter bliver mere moraliserede, identitetsbaserede og delegitimerende. Empirisk anvendes en fortolkende nærlæsning af elitespeeches, offentlige udtalelser og anden synlig politisk kommunikation på tværs af tre sammenhængende episoder: delegitimering af valghandlinger, institutionel forankring af mistanke mod demokratiske processer samt udvidelse af moraliserede legitimitetskonflikter til fx uddannelse og kultur. I stedet for at måle publikumsreaktioner direkte kortlægger analysen, hvordan politiske aktører i begge lande konstruerer ekskluderende fortællinger, der gør intensiveret konflikt offentligt forståelig og politisk handlingsorienteret. Resultaterne peger på, at eskalering sker via en gradvis omdefinering af, hvad der opfattes som legitim demokratisk strid, hvor procedurekonflikter omdannes til moraliserede kampe om autoritet, tilhørighed og institutionel tillid. Ved at fremhæve de diskursive mekanismer, der udvider og stabiliserer konflikter, bidrager afhandlingen til forskningen i polarisering og demokratisk robusthed ved at vise, hvordan elitekommunikation kan flytte de normative grænser for demokratisk politik på tværs af nationale kontekster.

This thesis examines how political polarization was escalated through elite discourse in the United States and Germany between 2020 and 2022. Rather than treating polarization as a fixed attitude or structural state, it is approached as a dynamic process shaped by public political communication. Drawing on research on affective polarization, democratic norm erosion, and the cross-domain expansion of conflict, the thesis develops a framework for analyzing how political disputes become increasingly moralized, identity-based, and delegitimizing. Empirically, it applies an interpretive close reading of elite speeches, public statements, and other highly visible political communication across three connected episodes: the delegitimization of electoral procedures, the institutional embedding of suspicion toward democratic processes, and the expansion of moralized legitimacy conflicts into areas such as education and culture. Rather than measuring audience responses directly, the analysis traces how political actors in both countries construct exclusionary narratives that make intensified conflict publicly intelligible and politically actionable. The findings suggest that escalation proceeds through a gradual redefinition of what counts as legitimate democratic contestation, as procedural disputes are reframed as moral struggles over authority, belonging, and institutional trust. By foregrounding the discursive mechanisms that expand and stabilize conflict, the thesis contributes to research on polarization and democratic resilience by showing how elite communication can shift the normative boundaries of democratic politics across different national contexts.

[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]

Download
View record in AAU Student Projects