Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
Crisis, Rhetoric and Right-Wing Populist
Incumbency: An Analysis of Donald Trump’s
Tweets and Press Briefings
Corina Lacatus1†and Gustav Meibauer2*†
1
School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK and
2
Department of Political Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands
*Corresponding author. Email: gustav.meibauer@ru.nl
(Received 11 January 2021; revised 26 April 2021; accepted 28 June 2021)
Abstract
How do right-wing-populist incumbents navigate rhetorical strategic choices when they
seek to manage external crises? Relevant literature has paid increasing attention to the
role of ‘crisis’in boosting the electoral success of right-wing populist candidates. We
know a lot less about the rhetorical strategies used by right-wing populist incumbents
seeking re-election. We draw on literatures on populism, crisis management and political
rhetoric to conceptualize the rhetorical strategic choices of right-wing populist incum-
bents in times of crisis. We propose a framework for the choice of rhetorical strategy
available to right-wing populist incumbents and illustrate it with a qualitative content ana-
lysis of Trump’s tweets and White House press briefings during the first months of the
COVID-19 pandemic. We find limited rhetorical adaptation to crisis and high degrees
of continuity with previous rhetoric grounded in right-wing populism. This challenges
prevalent assumptions regarding the likelihood of incumbent rhetorical flexibility in the
face of crisis.
Keywords: elections; political rhetoric; crisis; populism; COVID-19; Donald Trump; Twitter
Recent research on right-wing populists has often focused on their paths to power
and the causes and consequences of their electoral success. We know a lot less
about the rhetorical strategies used by right-wing populists once they are in
power and seek re-election (Kaltwasser and Taggart 2016; Verbeek et al. 2017).
One of the greatest challenges for incumbents, including for right-wing populist
incumbents, is the management of large-scale, external crises. When such crises
occur during an electoral campaign, they are often consequential for election out-
comes. Crisis, whether real or perceived, is central to populist rhetoric across the
political spectrum (Agerberg 2017; Brubaker 2017; Caiani and Graziano 2019;
†
The authors contributed equally to this article.
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Government and Opposition Limited. This
is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecom-
mons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
Government and Opposition (2021), 1–19
doi:10.1017/gov.2021.34
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Carreras 2017; Handlin 2018; Homolar and Scholz 2019; Moffitt 2015; Stavrakakis
et al. 2018). However, large-scale, external crises need not fit with what populist
incumbents offer and may adversely affect their electoral chances (Ahlquist et al.
2020; Brubaker 2017).
How do right-wing populist incumbents react to such crises? How is their rhet-
orical strategy affected by them? Following Arjen Boin et al. (2016:5–6), we
define crises as situations that combine (perceptions of) threat to key values,
institutions and everyday life with an urgency to ‘do something’quickly and
unpredictability about how the threatening situation evolves and is supposed to
be handled. By rhetorical strategy we mean ‘the purposeful assemblage of argu-
ments for a particular occasion and setting in light of its anticipated effects
and by means of available techniques’(Martin 2015: 29). We focus on crisis com-
munication and the required rhetorical strategic choices as the backbone of overall
crisis management. When crisis occurs during an electoral campaign, incum-
bents’rhetorical strategies play a central role in balancing crisis response with
managing electoral expectations. Finally, following an ideational approach, we
understand populism as a type of discourse in which particular ideas, especially
anti-elitism, are combined with transgressive rhetorical styles (Canovan 1999;
Hawkins et al. 2019; Maurer and Diehl 2020; Mudde 2004; Rooduijn 2014). In
right-wing populism, anti-elitism and transgressive rhetorical style are com-
plemented with ‘thicker’political ideas focused on the exclusion of cultural, reli-
gious, linguistic and/or racial minorities (Bonikowski 2017; Mudde and
Kaltwasser 2013).
Our analysis is based on two generalizable assumptions: that, first, like other
incumbents, right-wing populist incumbents try to maximize their chances for
re-election and that, second, they choose their rhetorical strategies accordingly.
Based on literatures on political rhetoric and incumbent electoral behaviour, we
may expect right-wing populist incumbents to adapt their rhetorical strategy to a
crisis to mitigate mid- to longer-term electoral risks (Ahlquist et al. 2020; Boyne
et al. 2009; Cheibub and Przeworski 1999; Hager and Hilbig 2020). However, we
suggest that rhetorical adaptation may be constrained by two interconnected factors
–the existing electoral platform and voters’expectations of consistency –which
incentivize right-wing populist incumbents to continue previous rhetoric even if
this damages their electoral prospects. This can explain fine-grained movement
between adaptation and continuity as leaders navigate concurrent and contrasting
incentives.
How did Donald Trump navigate these incentives in the USA? Standard crisis
response rhetoric, focused on precision, cooperation, science and empathy, contra-
dicted Trump’s right-wing populism, which had been dominated by anti-elitist,
anti-science positions, exceptionalist and exclusionary rhetoric, and aggressive criti-
cism of his political opponents. Based on a qualitative content analysis of tweets
and White House press briefings from March to May 2020, we find limited evi-
dence of initial rhetorical adaptation. While Trump reluctantly acknowledged the
crisis, his rhetorical strategy quickly centred on wishing it away, on discursively
replacing its dire material consequences with increasingly over-the-top optimism
and outright lies while allocating blame for failures of crisis management elsewhere.
This indicates the pervasiveness of tried and tested political ideas and style in
2 Corina Lacatus and Gustav Meibauer
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
shaping a right-wing populist incumbent’s rhetorical strategy. It suggests that
expectations of adaptation to crisis based on accountability concerns and electoral
risk may be misplaced for right-wing populist incumbents.
Right-wing populism and rhetorical strategy
Different authors disagree whether populism is best understood as a strategy of
political mobilization (Weyland 2001), a thin-centred ideology (Mudde 2004;
Stanley 2008) or a type of discursive, sociocultural frame (Aslanidis 2015;
Bonikowski and Gidron 2016; Rooduijn 2014). Despite differences in approach,
scholars usually identify shared features –that is, that populism is a type of dis-
course which combines ‘thin’ideational commitments with a particular type of
rhetoric (Hawkins et al. 2019; Mudde 2004). This approach is well suited to
empirical analysis because it is easily operationalizable (Mudde et al. 2017:39)
and allows a combining of the ‘thin’veneer of populism, especially its anti-elitism,
with context-specific, ‘thick’political ideas (Mudde et al. 2017: 30). Populists
claim to promote the interest of a virtuous ‘people’by curbing a dangerous
‘other’, especially corrupt elites, which constitutes a threat to the people’s sover-
eignty. Populists challenge the dominant order, give voice to the collective will
and promise a new order that resonates with the longings of the ‘people’
(Moffitt 2015; Oliver and Rahn 2016; Rooduijn 2014). Populists use a transgres-
sive rhetorical style that allows them to portray themselves as ‘authentic’outsi-
ders, and that is often direct, emotional and indelicate (Bonikowski and Gidron
2016; McDonnell and Ondelli 2020;Montgomery2017). To supporters, this
style signals a commitment to protect their interests even when it requires break-
ing rules (Oliver and Rahn 2016).
We focus on populists on the (far) right of the political spectrum (hereafter:
right-wing populists) who complement this ‘thin’veneer with a set of exclusionary
political ideas. They advance a racialized, nativist view of the ‘people’that perceives
cultural, religious, linguistic and racial minorities as threatening (Bonikowski 2017;
Canovan 1999; Mudde and Kaltwasser 2013). They attack ‘out-of-control’govern-
ment while maintaining economically interventionist and authoritarian, socially
conservative positions (Lacatus 2019; Mudde 2007). Some right-wing populists
reject mainstream scientific expertise as part of their opposition to an establishment
that includes supposedly liberal-leaning scientists and technocrats (Callahan et al.
2021; Mede and Schäfer 2020; Rutledge 2020).
The effects of external crisis on right-wing populist rhetorical strategy
How does the advent of a crisis affect the rhetorical strategy of populist incum-
bents? Contrary to literatures on political rhetoric and crisis management, we sug-
gest that populist incumbents cannot simply flexibly adapt their rhetorical strategy
to large-scale, external crises. Instead, we argue below that populist incumbents
may be limited by two factors: underlying political ideas and voter expectations
that incentivize a ‘homestyle’rhetorical strategy (Druckman et al. 2020: 24). This
creates a problem if appropriate responses to the crisis contradict the populist’spre-
vious positions.
Government and Opposition 3
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
The concept of ‘crisis’is contested (Ansell et al. 2014;Gundel2005). As we
described above, our definition of crisis has three components: (perceptions of)
threat to key values, institutions and everyday life; the urgency to ‘do something’
quickly against this (perceived) threat; and pervasive uncertainty about how it evolves
and should be handled (Boin et al. 2016:5–6). These three elements combine mater-
ial factors with rhetorical ‘levers’that actors can pull for strategic purposes. Crises
exert pressure on incumbents to frame and manage them, but they may also provide
opportunities for political gain. They can disrupt ‘politics as usual’to directly affect
what voters need and want –that is, their interests, livelihoods and primary concerns
(Ahlquist et al. 2020: 2; Carstensen 2017: 140). As Ansell et al. (2014:9)write,ina
crisis, ‘people expect their leaders to …provide an authoritative account’of what is
going on, why it is happening and what is being done to avert negative effects. Thus,
crisis management consists of ‘actual’response policies as well as, and interwoven
with, crisis ‘meaning-making’through rhetoric (Masters and t’Hart 2012:762).
Communicating crises ‘constitutes a crucial battleground for stakeholders in the
political and policy struggles that major disruptions elicit’(Masters and t’Hart
2012: 759). What the incumbent says makes up a considerable part of overall cri-
sis management and is consequential for voter evaluations of the incumbent’s
performance (Hatcher 2020), especially as the responsibility for crisis-response
policies often remains shared among several actors across government, even as
media and voter attention is focused on political leaders (Boin and t’Hart
2003:547).
It is often suggested that populists thrive on crisis and crisis narratives (Brubaker
2017; Caiani and Graziano 2019; Homolar and Scholz 2019; Moffitt 2015; Rooduijn
2014; Stavrakakis et al. 2018), as crises bring urgency to their diagnoses (Aslanidis
2015: 99; Pirro and Taggart 2018: 257). Once in office, populists may, rather than
address whatever crisis (narrative) brought them electoral success, seek to per-
petuate it to sustain their appeal. This may be done by switching the identified
‘crisis’, or by extending its domain and scope (Moffitt 2015: 207). However,
this is challenging in a crisis not of their own making, especially if the nature
of the crisis and/or required responses do not match with the incumbents’polit-
ical positions (Brubaker 2017: 374). Importantly, with the COVID-19 pandemic,
we focus on a large-scale, external crisis, more comparable with natural disasters
than with, for example, Trump’s self-made ‘Access Hollywood’crisis (Edwards
2011).
Like other political actors, populist incumbents in principle have considerable
leeway in flexibly choosing and changing their rhetorical strategy. Faced with
expectations to offer an authoritative crisis narrative, they may therefore choose
to (re)frame the crisis, justify, claim credit for or otherwise communicate ideas
and policies in hopes of garnering sufficient public support (Ansell et al. 2014;
Boin et al. 2009; Condor et al. 2013: 2; Rogowski and Stone 2020: 328). They
may tailor their rhetoric to a specific audience or context, side with one audience,
appeal to unity or remain ambiguous (Condor et al. 2013: 18; Tomz and Houweling
2009). Given this range of options, adapting rhetorical strategy to crisis may be
expected to mitigate electoral risks and pursue opportunities for political gain.
In the short term, incumbency advantages may offset ineffective crisis manage-
ment as citizens look to their leaders for compelling crisis narratives and/or
4 Corina Lacatus and Gustav Meibauer
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
response policies (Ansell et al. 2014; Druckman et al. 2020; Mueller 1973).
However, crises do not consistently make it easier for incumbents to convince
voters of their interpretations of events (Masters and t’Hart 2012: 760). In the
longer term, popular support for incumbents depends on the (perceived) quality
of crisis management, of which, as outlined above, rhetoric is a crucial part. This
presumably holds more to the extent that the crisis (increasingly) affects material,
economic conditions, livelihoods and voter preferences (Ahlquist et al. 2020;
Cheibub and Przeworski 1999; Hager and Hilbig 2020). When things go badly,
incumbents are obvious targets of blame for failures of crisis management
(Masters and t’Hart 2012: 760).
If rhetorical adaptation increases the overall quality of crisis management, and
thereby mitigates electoral risks and presents political opportunities, we might
expect populist incumbents to seek a fit between the nature of the crisis, their crisis
response policy and their rhetoric. Indicators for rhetorical adaptation might
include relying on experts and bureaucrats to guide crisis communication, promot-
ing non-partisan solutions and expert taskforces, stressing togetherness and social
cohesion, signalling empathy for the weak and the sick, praising the bravery of first
responders and essential workers, or focusing on practical problems and solutions
(Boin and t’Hart 2003; Hatcher 2020; Jong and Dückers 2019). Citizens would be
‘framed as statutorily responsible for the nation’, which ‘contrasts rather sharply to
campaigns, where politicians appeal to voters’quotidian needs (as private persons)
or cast them as observers’(Hart et al. 2002: 425).
However, we suggest that populist incumbents are limited in their flexibility to
adapt their rhetorical strategy to external crisis by two factors. First, to specify their
rhetoric, incumbents use underlying ideas that define their platforms and presum-
ably speak to voters (Billig 1991:43–44; Finlayson 2007: 552; Martin 2015: 26). For
right-wing populists, underlying ideas involve the anti-elitist, anti-science and
exclusionary positions that brought them electoral success in the first place.
Depending on the degree or depth to which the incumbent believes in these
ideas, we may formulate two slightly different expectations. On the one hand,
because they fully believe in these ideas, they may be unwilling to abandon them
even when faced with information to the contrary (Ansell et al. 2014: 6). This
would imply consistent continuity with previous rhetoric –even large-scale, exter-
nal crisis does not change the message. On the other hand, incumbents may also
simply prefer these ideas to different degrees –for example, because they have
already once survived the electoral test (Jerit 2004). This suggests that limited
forms of adaptation may be possible depending on the crisis’s scale and impact.
In either case, populist incumbents may not adapt their rhetorical strategy to crisis
although doing so would produce electoral benefits.
Second, the populist incumbent’s flexibility to adapt is also limited by voters’
expectations of consistency. Inconsistency has negative electoral effects on approval,
trust and leadership perceptions (Sorek et al. 2018). Inconsistent incumbents have a
harder time convincing the electorate of their authority, character or suitability for
the presidency, including at an emotional level (Jerit 2004: 568). This is problematic
for populist incumbents whose electoral strategy hinges on continued supporter
mobilization. Consistency expectations can be conceptualized differently: some
focus on the alignment of political rhetoric, and public and private personas,
Government and Opposition 5
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
which was particularly the case for Trump (Hahl et al. 2018). For incumbents, con-
sistency can also relate to the (mis)match between rhetoric and governmental pol-
icy. We may expect rhetoric to match response policies to increase crisis
management effectiveness, for example (Hatcher 2020). However, mixed strategies,
such as saying and doing different things while seeking to obfuscate inconsistencies,
may also be possible to some extent (Ismail et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2011; Stier et al.
2018). Finally, the candidate’s previously held positions matter for voter assess-
ments of consistency (Ahlquist et al. 2020: 2; Luebke 2020). High thresholds are
associated with switching core positions even when crisis hits (Hummel 2010;
Sorek et al. 2018: 660–661). The populist incumbent might therefore favour consist-
ency with past rhetoric and explain the crisis in familiar terms –for example, by
blaming elites for its onset or (mis-)management.
Trump’s rhetorical strategy and crisis
COVID-19 presented the Trump campaign with a challenge –the crisis and the
government’s response did not easily match Trump’s tried and tested right-wing
populism. Given concurrent incentives to adapt and continue existing rhetoric,
what effects would we expect a large-scale, external crisis to have on Trump’s rhet-
orical strategy?
In the USA, the rise in support for right-wing populism, and Trump’s variant in
particular, is often understood as a ‘Jacksonian’revolt against supposedly mis-
guided, corrupt elites, and linked to the Tea Party movement (Lacatus 2020).
‘Jacksonianism’is motivated by ‘resentment of the well-bred, the well-connected,
and the well-paid’, by mistrust in the motives and methods of government and
revolt against the political order (Bonikowski and Gidron 2016; Lowndes et al.
2017). As a candidate, Trump railed against what he characterized as morally
flawed, ‘liberal’ideas (Jamieson and Taussig 2017; Oliver and Rahn 2016). He
spoke of the ‘American people’having everything to lose from trusting corrupt
elites who had led them into crisis (Hawkins and Kaltwasser 2018; Lacatus
2019). He opposed ‘big government’and helping ‘freeloaders’–including immi-
grants, lower-income earners and the young (Skocpol and Williamson 2016). He
promised to establish a new order that resonated with the ‘true people’(Tucker
et al. 2019; Weyland and Madrid 2019). Importantly, Trump’s populism has
been characterized by a disregard for scientific processes and results contradicting
his positions, in favour of blanket scepticism vis-à-vis mainstream experts perceived
as part of the elite (Callahan et al. 2021; Mede and Schäfer 2020; Rutledge 2020;
Ylä-Anttila 2018).
Trump’s rhetoric has been marked by an idiosyncratic delivery style and aggres-
sive language (Lacatus 2020; Wang and Liu 2018). He has preferred to score polit-
ical points rather than appeal across the aisle even when doing so might have
benefited his agenda (Jamieson and Taussig 2017). Once in office, Trump contin-
ued this rhetorical strategy, which reflects a populist tendency of governing as per-
manent campaigning (Müller 2017: 43). This proved successful with key supporters
(Tucker et al. 2019). It kept his polling numbers steady at rates that meant renewed
electoral victory was within reach, and presumably therefore also dominated his
re-election campaign (Lacatus 2020).
6 Corina Lacatus and Gustav Meibauer
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
We might expect Trump to adapt this baseline rhetorical strategy insofar as his
electoral support depends on the (perceived) quality of crisis management, of
which rhetoric is an important part. While it is possible that Trump may not
have been willing or able to choose strategically what he says –because of his
worldview or mental disposition (Drezner 2020), for example –we assume that
Trump was capable of considering what might best serve his electoral interests.
The Trump administration was focused on campaigning, and Trump consistently
considered his choices in terms of electoral gain, seeing himself as uniquely flexible
in approach (Woodward 2020). This upholds Trump’s personal responsibility for
these choices. It facilitates generalization and comparison to other political leaders
who, while they may not share Trump’s beliefs or character, are grappling with
similar incentives for adaptation and/or continuity in the face of crisis.
Evidence of adaptation could be seen in the extent to which the standard crisis
script replaced Trump’s rhetoric, or other ways in which he demonstrated respon-
siveness or directly engaged with the crisis and its management –for example, the
rhetorical promotion of taskforces consisting of bipartisan or non-political experts
(Hatcher 2020; Traber et al. 2020: 48). Such adaptation was inconsistent with the
ideas underlying Trump’s tried and tested rhetorical strategy, however, which
might demobilize supporters. He had endorsed conspiracy theories and ‘alternative
facts’, and interpreted research-based opposition as partisan and biased. Crisis
communication relying on exactly those political opponents, experts and scientists
he had previously derided would betray his populist ethos. Key supporters might be
alienated because they could no longer distinguish Trump’s anti-elite, anti-science
opposition from the political establishment (Heinisch 2003:102).
Methods and data
To examine Trump’s rhetorical strategic choices, we offer a case study centred on
the first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, from 2 March to 3 May 2020. This
timeframe captures the transition from electoral campaigning in early March,
immediately prior to the recognition of COVID-19 as a pandemic, to the realization
that a response was necessary and the choice of what this response would be. Given
the pandemic’s impact on US voters across all regions and social strata, it presents a
least-likely case for continuity with rhetoric that runs counter to effective crisis
management. It allows us to probe into the conditions limiting the right-wing
populist incumbent’s rhetorical flexibility. The case is useful to investigate rhet-
orical choice dynamics, not least because the US political system incentivizes
incumbents to prioritize them (Stuckey 2010). Notably, despite its idiosyncrasies,
the case may be illustrative of rhetorical strategic choice dynamics of right-wing
populist incumbents elsewhere. COVID-19 will continue to impact political, social
and economic life, and thus challenge incumbents to integrate it in their rhetorical
strategies in ways that do not impede their re-election chances.
We perform qualitative content analysis on tweets from @realDonaldTrump and
Trump administration press briefings (Table 1; for similar approaches: Lacatus
2019; Stier et al. 2018). The inclusion of two types of textual data increases confi-
dence in our analyses of Trump’s rhetoric. Coding was carried out using NVIVO, a
computer-based content analysis software that generates qualitative and quantitative
Government and Opposition 7
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
data after coding text (QSR International 1999). The Online Appendix includes
details on coding schemes, frequency tables and inter-coder reliability.
Press briefings consist of daily updates on the administration’s policy in response
to the pandemic, intended for traditional media. We selected nine press briefings
distributed equally across the period under investigation and focused on Trump’s
remarks. By contrast, Twitter has become a tool for politicians to communicate
directly with the public, which populists tend to favour over ‘corrupt’mainstream
media (Clarke and Grieve 2019; Ernst et al. 2019; Stier et al. 2018). Through his
personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, Trump targeted not only other
Twitter users, but also traditional media reporting his Twitter activity. Until the
account’s suspension in 2021, it proved a rich source on presidential decision-
making, policy views and personal opinions.
COVID-19 and Trump’s rhetorical strategic choices
Trump’s press briefing statements and his Twitter account demonstrated a
rhetorical strategy that grappled to take a position on COVID-19 consistent with
both (1) the administration’s overall crisis management and (2) Trump’s interest
to advance his electoral campaign (Figures 1 and 2). These incentives might not
appear contradictory –an appropriate, policy-consistent rhetoric could decrease
electoral risks because it contributes to effective crisis management (Traber et al.
2020: 48). However, as outlined, rhetorical strategic choice might be limited by
incentives to consistency with previous rhetoric.
Trump’s rhetorical strategy was dominated by the same four themes, although
their relative prevalence differs depending on the channel (Figures 1 and 2):
COVID-19 and presidential crisis management, campaigning, media reporting
and exceptionalist-nationalist rhetoric. Indeed, how these themes were presented
was largely consistent with previous rhetoric both in content and style. Press brief-
ings contain more evidence of discontinuity –that is, rhetorical adaptation –than
Trump’s Twitter activity. This may indicate a bifurcated rhetorical strategy as
pressures to adapt are answered only in some settings.
COVID-19 and crisis management
As president, Trump had to lead on crisis management. To benefit overall crisis
management in the face of a large-scale public health crisis, he would have had
Table 1. Characteristics of Sources for Textual Data
Press briefings Twitter
Time frame 2 March 2020–3 May 2020 2 March 2020–3 May 2020
Identified themes (nodes) 279 264
Coded items 245 paragraphs 582 tweets
Total units 258 paragraphs delivered by
Trump in 9 press briefings
590 tweets from
@realDonaldTrump
8 Corina Lacatus and Gustav Meibauer
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
to rely on the advice of public health specialists, scientists and medical researchers
to support and propose response policies, relay them to the population and offer
guidance on following them. However, this required promoting messages that con-
tradicted the right-wing populist ideas underlying his previous rhetoric, particularly
Figure 1. Main Clusters of Themes, @realDonaldTrump (aggregated values of coded nodes), March–May
2020
Figure 2. Main Clusters of Themes in White House Press Briefings (aggregated coded nodes), March–May
2020
Government and Opposition 9
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
his anti-elitist and anti-science positions. To mitigate this tension, Trump oscillated
between consistency with his tried and tested rhetoric while projecting personal
competence based on selected medical and pseudo-scientific advice.
The pandemic’s increasing impact fuelled public demand for competent
response policies, which exerted pressure on the administration. Correspondingly,
in addition to introducing policies, press briefings in early March started to contain
messages of sympathy to the American people in the common fight against an ‘invis-
ible enemy’. Trump also sought to provide encouragement regarding the country’s
later recovery:
We ask every American to maintain vigilance and hygiene, social distancing
and voluntary use of face coverings. We’re opening our country. It’s very excit-
ing to see. We have a lot of talent involved, from governors down to people
that just stand there and help you with the doors. There’s been tremendous
talent involved and tremendous spirit from our country. The country is a
great place, and it’s going to be greater than ever before. I really believe
that. I think there’s going to be a tremendous upward shift. (Administration
of Donald J. Trump 2020)
With such responsibility came the risk of attributing failure to the administra-
tion and, therefore, diminishing Trump’s chances for a second term. Therefore,
the actions taken by the federal government, such as closing borders, were por-
trayed as exceptional and overwhelmingly successful. Trump’s communication
also often focused on a unified, apolitical effort. Press briefings even indicated
favourable views of the involvement of representatives on both sides of the aisle,
and at the federal and state levels. Indeed, lauding other politicians was part of
highlighting the administration’s ability to encourage unity across party lines. In
these regards, Trump’s rhetorical strategy confirms our expectation of rhetorical
adaptation, albeit sometimes using excessive praise and centring on Trump’s per-
sonal leadership. It was also consistent with the Trump administration’s attempts
to manage some elements of the crisis competently (Woodward 2020).
Trump used conflicting information to balance this adaptation with continuity.
This was evident in his selective treatment of public health information on
COVID-19. He advanced policy based on medical experts and, in the same breath,
made recommendations which would appeal more to his anti-science and anti-elite
base. Given the president’s political position and the importance of clear commu-
nication to overall crisis management, this type of obfuscation effectively thwarted
his official crisis response policy. On 3 April he stated, ‘In light of these studies, the
CDC is advising the use of non-medical cloth face covering as an additional volun-
tary public health measure. So it’s voluntary; you don’t have to do it. They sug-
gested for a period of time. But this is voluntary. I don’t think I’m going to be
doing it.’Trump selectively used medical expertise where it aligned with his rhet-
oric or legitimized his competence and leadership. There is evidence to suggest this
was a conscious choice, as Trump demonstrated reasonable understanding of pan-
demic dynamics in private conversations (Woodward 2020). Evidence that he
behaved as recommended by experts, bureaucrats or even political opponents, or
that he contained himself rhetorically, could indicate to his followers his own
10 Corina Lacatus and Gustav Meibauer
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
corruption and co-optation by political rules and elites he promised to disrupt. This
would risk losing their continued electoral support.
Where advice contradicted his rhetoric, it was subsumed as evidence of the ‘deep
state’working against him; as illustrated by his unhappiness with several scientific
advisers who contradicted him publicly (D’Antonio 2020; Rutledge 2020). For
example, he started characterizing Anthony Fauci, who was not aligned with a pol-
itical party, as a ‘Democrat’(Woodward 2020). Jared Kushner described this strat-
egy as ‘getting the country back from the doctors’(Warren et al. 2020). It did not
prevent Trump from integrating scientific advancements to combat the virus into a
personal badge of honour to substantiate his rhetoric of American exceptionalism.
On 17 April, he tweeted,
Ultimate victory in this war will be made possible by America’s scientific bril-
liance. There is nothing like us. There is nobody like us. Not even close. I wish
I could tell you stories –what other countries, even powerful countries, say to
me –the leaders. They say it quietly and they say it off the record, but they
have great respect for what we can do.
Campaigning and personal leadership
The choice of continuity with previous rhetoric, particularly the underlying ideas
driving his tried and tested electoral agenda, is also evident in how Trump dis-
cussed the politics of crisis management and leadership. He focused on presenting
his administration’s crisis management in a positive light irrespective of the crisis’s
aggravation. In press briefings and tweets, Trump described a federal government
both leading and not responsible for the eventual impact of COVID-19, with the
responsibility for crisis management resting with individual governors and states.
The federal government’s role was to assist with protective equipment, such as ven-
tilators, tests and masks, to mobilize the military to build hospitals, or to secure
materials from abroad. On 15 March (17:54), Trump tweeted, ‘The individual
Governors of States, and local officials, must step up their efforts on drive up testing
and testing sights, working in conjunction with @CDCgov and the Federal
Government!’By placing the burden on the states and positioning the federal gov-
ernment in a supporting role, he absolved his administration of any possible
culpability.
This approach led to inconsistency. Part of Trump’s right-wing populist appeal
required stressing his personal authority. It was not enough, however, to suggest
that the federal government did a good job of supporting the states. It was necessary
to demonstrate Trump’s successful leadership. Trump himself had to be presented
as a well-respected leader who could bring together many strategic actors –politi-
cians from across the aisle, researchers and private corporations –to personally lead
successful pandemic management. Press briefings also presented a positive view of
the Trump administration and its crisis management. More unexpectedly, he ‘spun’
all policy responses as a personal victory due to his capacity to unify political will
and galvanize efforts to protect the American people and their economic interest. In
Trump’s eyes, the pandemic hit the US at a moment of exceptional economic
growth attributable to his skilful leadership. He promised his electorate a return
Government and Opposition 11
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
to prosperity once the pandemic ended, a triumph rooted in Trump’s personal
qualities. Although intended for crisis communication with the public, press brief-
ings became a campaigning tool.
Trump’s attacks on mainstream media
The last two themes –media and exceptionalism –appear less frequently across
Twitter and press briefings but are crucial to Trump’s populist appeal and continu-
ity with previous rhetoric. Trump’s criticism was directed at ‘lamestream media’or
‘fake news media’, usually in reference to the New York Times, CNN or the
Washington Post. This was problematic to the extent that a successful crisis
response relies on the effective spread of information. He accused the outlets that
his own administration had to rely on, if reluctantly, to share relevant crisis-related
information and policy, of misinterpreting facts and using unreliable sources. This
is a common theme for populists who may feed off (negative) media reporting to
supplement outsider status. On 29 March (17:50), he tweeted, ‘Polls are showing
tremendous disapproval of Lamestream Media coverage of the Virus crisis. The
Fake News just hasn’t figured that out yet!’Perhaps surprisingly, he also criticized
Fox News and encouraged his followers to watch news from more clearly
Trump-supporting far-right outlets, such as One America News Network.
While Trump oscillated between adaptation and continuity, he showed a clear
preference for the latter. On Twitter, Trump presented his interpretation of the
pandemic as an alternative to the biased views presented in mainstream media
or by political opponents. He renounced the objectivity of facts to advance a posi-
tive image of his administration’s response and his effective leadership in times of
global crisis. To ‘expose corruption and dishonesty in the Lamestream Media’,
Trump interpreted reporting on his crisis response as a conspiratorial pursuit of
misinformation. Trump claimed to hold mainstream media accountable by divul-
ging that their intention was to sabotage his re-election, as in a tweet from 25
March (20:05): ‘LameStream Media is the dominant force in trying to get me to
keep our Country closed as long as possible in the hope that it will be detrimental
to my election success. The real people want to get back to work ASAP. We will be
stronger than ever before!’
American exceptionalism and COVID-19 as national ‘enemy’
Trump’s rhetorical response to COVID-19 was interspersed with martial analogies,
nationalism and American exceptionalism. This links with right-wing rhetorical
elements. Trump depicted COVID-19 as the ‘invisible enemy’originating in
China and waging war on the USA. Facing this foreign threat, Trump encouraged
Americans to turn to patriotism and religion, finding reassurance in the promise of
a great future for the country. On 18 March (14:16), he tweeted, ‘I want all
Americans to understand: we are at war with an invisible enemy, but that enemy
is no match for the spirit and resolve of the American people.’
Trump reassured his electorate of his administration’s exceptional crisis manage-
ment strategy and of the admiration the USA commands in the international arena.
In his view, the USA not only worked bilaterally with other nations but was also
12 Corina Lacatus and Gustav Meibauer
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
well prepared to ‘defeat the virus’and come out stronger. On 12 March (23:34), he
tweeted, ‘We have the greatest healthcare system, experts, scientists and doctors
anywhere in the world. Together, we will PREVAIL!’He linked American excep-
tionalism with his personal success: ‘The whole world is watching us. You have
184 countries out there that have been hit, and now it’s probably higher than
that. But they’re all watching us. They’re all watching and they’re calling, and
they respect what we’re doing, so much.’Trump’s interpretation of the crisis was
increasingly at odds with the pandemic’s scale and his actual crisis response.
Similarly, foreign policy served right-wing populist goals of controlling migra-
tion to protect the American people from additional exposure to the ‘foreign’
virus. In line with his previous rhetoric in 2016 and ahead of the 2018 mid-term
elections, he highlighted his administration’s successful crisis management on bor-
der control and migration-curbing. The populist rhetoric that drove his successful
presidential campaign in 2016 was grounded in an ‘us versus them’attitude towards
immigrants, viewed as a threat to America’s economic growth and security. In the
context of COVID-19, he reverted to vilifying migration not only as a threat to post-
pandemic economic recovery, but also as a source of cross-border viral transmis-
sion (Figure 3).
Adaptation and continuity over time
During the pandemic’s first months, Trump oscillated between limited adaptation
to the crisis and continuity with previous rhetoric, measured in terms of variation
over time of the four themes’prevalence. He integrated crisis management into his
campaign by tying his administration’s pandemic response to voter expectations
and the ideas underlying his previous platform: right-wing, exclusionary populism
combined with a focus on individual leadership, permanent mobilization and anti-
science, anti-expertise positions. Below, we focus on Trump’s Twitter output to
highlight these dynamics, but they are also visible in the press briefings.
In February and early March, Trump downplayed the possibility of COVID-19
spreading, ostensibly not to create a ‘panic’, as he later explained (Woodward 2020),
and continued his previous rhetoric (Figure 4). He opined on the elections and cri-
ticized Democratic primary candidates. Trump focused on a positive image of him-
self and his administration’s domestic and foreign policies, promoting his ‘Make
America Great’campaign, highlighting his supposedly impressive economic record
and stressing his delivery on prior promises.
By mid-March, Trump’s Twitter account integrated more references to
COVID-19. The pandemic had become a reality not easily narrated away as ‘alter-
native fact’. Trump showed some willingness to adapt in aligning his rhetoric with
crisis management efforts. On 11 March (20:48), he tweeted, ‘Our CoronaVirus
Team has been doing a great job. Even Democrat governors have been VERY com-
plimentary!’Despite his idiosyncratic delivery style, this limited rhetorical adapta-
tion coincided with Trump closing in on parity regarding general approval, which
he had not achieved in years (Silver 2017). But his administration’s crisis manage-
ment was not presented simply as appropriate to the pandemic’s impact. Rather, all
policies were made possible by Trump’s efforts to mobilize against flawed policies
promoted by the Democrats. Here, we see evidence of continuity: Trump
Government and Opposition 13
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
downplayed unity across the political spectrum in the crisis response. Similarly,
Trump started to shift blame for the pandemic to China in mid-March to underline
its otherness (Woodward 2020).
By April, Trump’s rhetorical strategy was fully back to business-as-usual. Rather
than adapt to the impact COVID-19 was having on American society (millions of
newly unemployed by late March, 10,000 deaths by 5 April), he politicized the crisis
and attributed it to Democratic congressmen unwilling to do their jobs, and
Figure 3. Disaggregated Categories of Nodes in White House Press Briefings, March–May 2020
Figure 4. Disaggregated Categories of Nodes by Theme, @realDonaldTrump, March–May 2020
14 Corina Lacatus and Gustav Meibauer
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
incompetent Democratic governors portrayed as a threat to freedom. On 17 April
(14:54), Trump tweeted, ‘Today people started losing their jobs because of Crazy
Nancy Pelosi, Cryin’Chuck Schumer, and the Radical Left, Do Nothing
Democrats, who should immediately come back to Washington and approve legis-
lation to help families in America. End your ENDLESS VACATION!’Around the
same time, Trump fully pivoted to oppose lockdowns he had previously tentatively
supported (Woodward 2020). Although the period covered by our data ends before
the mass demonstrations in response to George Floyd’s death, these tweets fore-
shadowed Trump’s reaction to the ‘Black Lives Matter’protests.
Trump was limited by the ideas underlying his previous rhetoric and by voter
expectations of consistency. Given his crisis management’s ineffectiveness, Trump
could not profit electorally from it in the longer term and did not try. Once his
support fell to the 35–40 % he held for most of his presidency, he shifted
back to mobilizing supporters with the same rhetoric employed previously. This
reversal to right-wing populism was remarkable precisely because the crisis was
not over –the effects of the pandemic worsened throughout April. This rhetorical
strategy gambled on the sustainability of partisan mobilization even as the crisis
continues to have pervasive material effects on Trump’s supporters. It gambled
that a large enough percentage of voters valued consistency with right-wing
populist ideas more than competent crisis management.
Conclusion
We draw on literatures on populism, crisis management, electoral behaviour and pol-
itical rhetoric to conceptualize the rhetorical strategic choices of right-wing populist
incumbents in times of crisis. We argue that, contrary to expectations from literatures
on political rhetoric and crisis management, right-wing populist incumbents’flexibil-
ity to adapt rhetorically to crisis is limited by their homestyle rhetorical strategy and
voter expectations of consistency. To illustrate how right-wing populist incumbents
navigate concurrent incentives to adapt and continue their rhetoric, and make rhet-
orical strategic choices, we examine President Donald Trump’s early response to
COVID-19. We find that, despite incentives to adapt his rhetorical strategy to the cri-
sis and contrary to expectations from relevant literature, Trump largely opted for con-
tinuity with previous right-wing populist rhetoric. This included anti-elitism and
anti-science positions, personalized authority and criticism of media, as well as
exceptionalist language. Our analysis shows the pervasiveness of tried and tested pol-
itical ideas and style in shaping a right-wing populist incumbent’s rhetorical strategy,
suggesting that expectations of adaptation to crisis based on accountability concerns
and electoral risk may be misplaced for right-wing populist incumbents. This pro-
duces new propositions for comparative research into the rhetorical strategic choices
of right-wing populist leaders elsewhere as they seek to shape compelling narratives
of their in-office performances in the face of crisis.
Supplementary material. The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.
1017/gov.2021.34.
Acknowledgements. For careful readings of earlier versions of this article and for thoughtful feedback on
our research, we would like to thank Emmanuelle Blanc, Jonny Hall, Maurits Meijers, Jörg Meibauer,
Government and Opposition 15
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Andrew Payne, Peter Trubowitz, Bertjan Verbeek and the anonymous reviewers of Government and
Opposition.
References
Administration of Donald J. Trump (2020). Remarks at a White House Coronavirus Task Force Press
Briefing. 24 April. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202000289/html/DCPD-202000289.htm.
Agerberg M (2017) Failed Expectations: Quality of Government and Support for Populist Parties in
Europe. European Journal of Political Research 56(3), 578–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12203.
Ahlquist J, Copelovitch M and Walter S (2020) The Political Consequences of External Economic Shocks:
Evidence from Poland. American Journal of Political Science 64(4), 904–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ajps.12503.
Ansell C, Boin A and t’Hart P (2014) Political Leadership in Times of Crisis. In Rhodes RAW and t’Hart P
(eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 418–438.
Aslanidis P (2015) Is Populism an Ideology? A Refutation and a New Perspective. Political Studies 64(1),
88–104. https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9248.12224.
Billig M (1991) Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London: SAGE.
Boin A and t’Hart P (2003) Public Leadership in Times of Crisis: Mission Impossible? Public
Administration Review 63(5), 544–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00318.
Boin A, t’Hart P and McConnell A (2009) Crisis Exploitation: Political and Policy Impacts of Framing
Contests. Journal of European Public Policy 16(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760802453221.
Boin A et al. (2016) The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bonikowski B (2017) Ethno-Nationalist Populism and the Mobilization of Collective Resentment. British
Journal of Sociology 68(S1), S181–S213. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12325.
Bonikowski B and Gidron N (2016) The Populist Style in American Politics: Presidential Campaign
Discourse, 1952–1996. Social Forces 94(4), 1593–1621. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov120.
Boyne GA et al. (2009) Democracy and Government Performance: Holding Incumbents Accountable
in English Local Governments. Journal of Politics 71(4), 1273–1284. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s0022381609990089.
Brubaker R (2017) Why Populism? Theory and Society 46(5), 357–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186–
017–9301–7.
Caiani M and Graziano P (2019) Understanding Varieties of Populism in Times of Crises. West European
Politics 42(6), 1141–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2019.1598062.
Callahan JM et al. (2021) The United States: Politics versus Science? In Lilleker D (ed.), Political
Communication and Covid-19. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, pp. 67–78.
Canovan M (1999) Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy. Political Studies 47(1), 2–
16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00184.
Carreras M (2017) Institutions, Governmental Performance and the Rise of Political Newcomers. European
Journal of Political Research 56(2), 364–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12181.
Carstensen MB (2017) Institutional Bricolage in Times of Crisis. European Political Science Review 9(1),
139–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773915000338.
Cheibub JA and Przeworski A (1999) Democracy, Elections, and Accountability for Economic Outcomes.
In Przeworski A, Manin B and Stokes SC (eds), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 222–250.
Clarke I and Grieve J (2019) Stylistic Variation on the Donald Trump Twitter Account: A Linguistic
Analysis of Tweets Posted between 2009 and 2018. PLoS One 14(9), e0222062. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0222062.
Condor S, TileagăC, and Billig M (2013) Political Rhetoric. In Huddy, Sears DO and Levy JS (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 262–300.
D’Antonio M (2020) Fire Fauci? What a Disaster that Would Be for Trump and US. CNN, 13 April. www.
cnn.com/2020/04/13/opinions/firing-fauci-disaster-for-trump-americans-dantonio/index.html.
Drezner DW (2020) The Toddler in Chief: What Donald Trump Teaches Us about the Modern Presidency.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16 Corina Lacatus and Gustav Meibauer
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Druckman JN, Kifer MJ and Parkin M (2020) Campaign Rhetoric and the Incumbency Advantage.
American Politics Research 48(1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18822314.
Edwards F (2011) From Katrina to Sandy: Comparative Analysis of Crisis Communication during a
Natural Disaster. Language & Communication Quarterly 2(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pub-
rev.2018.10.009.
Ernst N et al. (2019) Populists Prefer Social Media over Talk Shows: An Analysis of Populist Messages
and Stylistic Elements across Six Countries. Social Media + Society.https://doi.org/10.1177/
2056305118823358.
Finlayson A (2007) From Beliefs to Arguments: Interpretive Methodology and Rhetorical Political
Analysis. British Journal of Politics & International Relations 9(4), 545–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-856X.2007.00269.x.
Gundel S (2005) Towards a New Typology of Crises. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 13
(3), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2005.00465.x.
Hager A and Hilbig H (2020) Does Public Opinion Affect Political Speech? American Journal of Political
Science.https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12516.
Hahl O, Kim M and Zuckerman Sivan EW (2018) The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue:
Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy. American Sociological Review 83(1), 1–33.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417749632.
Handlin S (2018) The Logic of Polarizing Populism: State Crises and Polarization in South America.
American Behavioral Scientist 62(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218756922.
Hart RP, Jarvis SE and Lim ET (2002) The American People in Crisis: A Content Analysis. Political
Psychology 23(3), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162–895X.00292.
Hatcher W (2020) A Failure of Political Communication Not a Failure of Bureaucracy: The Danger of
Presidential Misinformation during the COVID-19 Pandemic. American Review of Public
Administration 50(6–7), 614–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020941734.
Hawkins KA and Kaltwasser CR (2018) Measuring Populist Discourse in the United States and Beyond.
Nature Human Behaviour 2(4), 241–242. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0339-y.
Hawkins KA et al. (2019) The Ideational Approach to Populism: Concept, Theory, and Analysis. London:
Routledge.
Heinisch R (2003) Success in Opposition –Failure in Government: Explaining the Performance of
Right-Wing Populist Parties in Public Office. West European Politics 26(3), 91–130. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01402380312331280608.
Homolar A and Scholz R (2019) The Power of Trump-Speak: Populist Crisis Narratives and Ontological
Security. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32(3), 344–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.
2019.1575796.
Hummel P (2010) Flip-Flopping from Primaries to General Elections. Journal of Public Economics 94(11),
1020–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.08.006.
Ismail NBM et al. (2019) Communicating in the Post-Truth Era: Analyses of Crisis Response Strategies of
Presidents Donald Trump and Rodrigo Duterte. Journal of Public Affairs 19(1), e1883. https://doi.org/
10.1002/pa.1883.
Jamieson KH and Taussig D (2017) Disruption, Demonization, Deliverance, and Norm Destruction: The
Rhetorical Signature of Donald J. Trump. Political Science Quarterly 132(4), 619–650. https://doi.org/10.
1002/polq.12699.
Jerit J (2004) Survival of the Fittest: Rhetoric during the Course of an Election Campaign. Political
Psychology 25(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00387.x.
Jong W and Dückers MLA (2019) The Perspective of the Affected: What People Confronted with Disasters
Expect from Government Officials and Public Leaders. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 10(1), 14–
31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12150.
Kaltwasser CR and Taggart P (2016) Dealing with Populists in Government: A Framework for Analysis.
Democratization 23(2), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2015.1058785.
Lacatus C (2019) Populism and the 2016 American Election: Evidence from Official Press Releases and
Twitter. P&S: Political Science & Politics 52(2), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909651800183X.
Lacatus C (2020) Populism and President Trump’s Approach to Foreign Policy: An Analysis of Tweets and
Rally Speeches. Politics 14(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395720935380.
Government and Opposition 17
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Liu BF, Austin L and Jin Y (2011) How Publics Respond to Crisis Communication Strategies: The
Interplay of Information Form and Source. Public Relations Review 37(4), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.004.
Lowndes J et al. (2017) Populism in the United States. In Kaltwasser CR (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Populism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 232–247.
Luebke SM (2020) Political Authenticity: Conceptualization of a Popular Term. International Journal of
Press/Politics 26(3), 635–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220948013.
Martin J (2015) Situating Speech: A Rhetorical Approach to Political Strategy. Political Studies 63(1), 25–
42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12039.
Masters A and t’Hart P (2012) Prime Ministerial Rhetoric and Recession Politics: Meaning Making in
Economic Crisis Management. Public Administration 90(3), 759–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9299.2011.01966.x.
Maurer P and Diehl T (2020) What Kind of Populism? Tone and Targets in the Twitter Discourse of
French and American Presidential Candidates. European Journal of Communication 35(5), 453–468.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120909288.
McDonnell D and Ondelli S (2020) The Language of Right-Wing Populist Leaders: Not So Simple.
Perspectives on Politics, published early online, August. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720002418.
Mede NG and Schäfer MS (2020) Science-Related Populism: Conceptualizing Populist Demands toward
Science. Public Understanding of Science 29(5), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520924259.
Moffitt B (2015) How to Perform Crisis: A Model for Understanding the Key Role of Crisis in Contemporary
Populism. Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics 50(2), 189–217.
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2014.13.
Montgomery M (2017) Post-Truth Politics? Authenticity, Populism and the Electoral Discourses of Donald
Trump. Journal of Language and Politics 16(4), 619–639. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17023.mon.
Mudde C (2004) The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition: An International Journal of
Comparative Politics 39(4), 541–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x.
Mudde C (2007) Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mudde C and Kaltwasser CR (2013) Exclusionary vs. Inclusionary Populism: Comparing Contemporary
Europe and Latin America. Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative
Politics 48(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2012.11.
Mudde C et al. (2017) Populism: An Ideational Approach. In Kaltwasser CR (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Populism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 27–47.
Mueller J (1973) War, Presidents and Public Opinion. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Müller J-W (2017) What Is Populism? London: Penguin.
Oliver JE and Rahn WM (2016) Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 Election. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 667(1), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0002716216662639.
Pirro AL and Taggart P (2018) The Populist Politics of Euroscepticism in Times of Crisis: A Framework
for Analysis. Politics 38(3), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395718770579.
QSR International (1999) NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software (Version 12). QSR International.
https://qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products/.
Rogowski JC and Stone AR (2020) Words Speak Louder than Actions: Public Responsiveness to Elite
Communication. Political Behavior 42(2), 327–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9497-x.
Rooduijn M (2014) The Nucleus of Populism: In Search of the Lowest Common Denominator.
Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics 49(4), 573–599. https://
doi.org/10.1017/gov.2013.30.
Rutledge PE (2020) Trump, COVID-19, and the War on Expertise. American Review of Public
Administration 50(6–7), 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020941683.
Silver N (2017) How Popular Is Donald Trump? FiveThirtyEight, 2 March. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.
com/trump-approval-ratings.
Skocpol T and Williamson V (2016) The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.New
York: Oxford University Press.
Sorek AY, Haglin K and Geva N (2018) In Capable Hands: An Experimental Study of the Effects of
Competence and Consistency on Leadership Approval. Political Behavior 40(3), 659–679. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11109-017-9417-5.
18 Corina Lacatus and Gustav Meibauer
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Stanley B (2008) The Thin Ideology of Populism. Journal of Political Ideologies 13(1), 95–110. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13569310701822289.
Stavrakakis Y et al. (2018) Populism, Anti-Populism and Crisis. Contemporary Political Theory 17(1), 4–
27. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-017-0142-y.
Stier S et al. (2018) Election Campaigning on Social Media: Politicians, Audiences, and the Mediation of
Political Communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political Communication 35(1), 50–74. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728.
Stuckey ME (2010) Rethinking the Rhetorical Presidency and Presidential Rhetoric. Review of
Communication 10(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358590903248744.
Tomz M and Houweling RPV (2009) The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity. American
Political Science Review 103(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409090066.
Traber D, Schoonvelde M and Schumacher G (2020) Errors Have Been Made, Others Will Be Blamed:
Issue Engagement and Blame Shifting in Prime Minister Speeches during the Economic Crisis in
Europe. European Journal of Political Research 59(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12340.
Tucker PD et al. (2019) Pathways to Trump: Republican Voters in 2016. Electoral Studies 61, 102035.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2019.03.011.
Verbeek B, Zaslove A et al. (2017) Populism and Foreign Policy. In Kaltwasser CR (ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Populism. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 384–405.
Wang Y and Liu H (2018) Is Trump Always Rambling like a Fourth-Grade Student? An Analysis of
Stylistic Features of Donald Trump’s Political Discourse during the 2016 Election. Discourse &
Society 29(3), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517734659.
Warren M, Gangel J and Stuart E (2020) Jared Kushner Bragged in April that Trump Was Taking the
Country ‘Back from the Doctors’. CNN, 29 October. www.cnn.com/2020/10/28/politics/woodward-
kushner-coronavirus-doctors/index.html.
Weyland K (2001) Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics.
Comparative Politics 34(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/422412.
Weyland K and Madrid RL (2019) Donald Trump’s Populism: What Are the Prospects for US Democracy?
In Weyland K and Madrid RL (eds), When Democracy Trumps Populism: European and Latin American
Lessons for the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–34.
Woodward B (2020) Rage. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ylä-Anttila T (2018) Populist Knowledge: ‘Post-Truth’Repertoires of Contesting Epistemic Authorities.
European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 5(4), 356–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.
2017.1414620.
Cite this article: Lacatus C, Meibauer G (2021). Crisis, Rhetoric and Right-Wing Populist Incumbency: An
Analysis of Donald Trump’s Tweets and Press Briefings. Government and Opposition: An International
Journal of Comparative Politics 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Government and Opposition 19
https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.23.41, on 08 Sep 2021 at 19:33:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
