When it’s election time, the internet suddenly feels like a marketplace full of voices – loud, excited, and contradictory. During the German federal elections in February 2025 we experienced how difficult it is to keep track. Between loud promises and emotional appeals, facts quickly become blurred. In this blog post, we take a closer look: How do rhetoric and framing influence our perception?
Rhetoric as a tool of political influence
Election campaigns are not just a political competition – they are a rhetorical showdown. Those who want to convince must be able to speak. Those who want to mobilize must evoke emotions. And those who want to polarize must dramatize. Political language, therefore, is much more than mere information. It is a tool of persuasion.
In his introduction to “Politik und Rhetorik”, author Josef Klein explains that political rhetoric does not only aim to convince people of new views but also serves to reinforce existing beliefs and unsettle political opponents. In other words, language aims to have an impact – ideally through arguments, but at worst through fear.
Political language in the 2025 election campaign
This is clearly evident in two current examples from the 2025 election campaign to the German Bundestag. First, Robert Habeck’s statement in the Green party’s campaign video: “In 2023, there was as little coal power as there has been since the 1960s.” (at minute 2:28) And second, Alice Weidel’s (AfD) speech, where she claims: “Look at Hessen, where under the CDU government, the more than 200-year-old Reinhardswald was cleared for 240-meter-high wind turbines, thereby desecrating a unique natural and cultural landscape, […] that is the truth, and it belongs in this election campaign.” (1:47) Although the content and strategy of these two statements differ, they both demonstrate how deliberately rhetoric is used in politics.
Dr. Melanie Hellwig, political scientist, recognizes in Habeck’s statement both factual information and a strategic direction. She emphasizes: “If it’s true, it’s certainly factual information, and strategically clear. Because it directly addresses the goal of the green party.” The statement is simple, easily verifiable, and has a positive effect: a narrative of progress that generates hope. The historical reference to the 1960s is no coincidence. It gives present-day events significance, making what is said seem larger and more meaningful. Hellwig adds: “Perhaps this historical comparison addresses the feeling that things were better in the past or that they are even getting better today than what we remember.” Historical references, therefore, not only activate knowledge but also emotional resonance.
In contrast, Weidel’s speech uses highly charged terms like “cleared,” “desecrating,” or “unique natural and cultural landscape.” In this case, the intent is not explanation, but scandalization. The conservative party CDU is accused of contributing to the destruction of a natural heritage, thus undermining its public image as a representative of conservative values. Hellwig interprets this as a rhetorical trick: “One has to think carefully to realize that she is essentially accusing the CDU of being woke and left-wing.” It is a deliberate framing that creates enemy images, distorts connections, and aims for quick outrage.
The responsibility of political actors
This type of political communication is not new, but it is more effective today than ever before. Klein writes that election campaigns are not based on facts but are literally a competition for approval, attention, and ultimately power. Statements like those of Habeck and Weidel are not random; they are part of a campaign rhetoric that deliberately works with recognition, simplification, and emotion. “Superlatives are always so simple,” says Hellwig, “they make something appear clear and unambiguous.”
The limits of rhetoric
However, rhetoric in election campaigns is not arbitrary. There are limits, and these limits are set by communication ethics. Klein distinguishes between two types of rationality: communicative rationality, which is based on honesty and understanding, and goal-oriented rationality, which aims at personal advantage. When politicians choose the latter and ignore honesty or important information, ethical problems arise in communication.
Weidel’s statement clearly illustrates how easily these ethical principles can be violated. Framing replaces facts, emotions overpower objectivity, and oversimplified interpretations replace nuanced explanations. Such violations of truthfulness and relevance norms are particularly common among right-wing populist actors, and public outrage is often deliberately turned by these actors into an image of “brave taboo-breakers.”
Hellwig also sees this as a dangerous development. She notes that for many politicians, the impact of a statement is more important than its factual accuracy. It’s enough that something sounds credible. And therein lies the challenge: Many voters struggle to assess whether a statement is based on reliable data or mere outrage. Especially in social media, where quick, sharp statements often go viral, differentiation is difficult.
Fact evaluation in the election campaign
This makes the role of journalism and education even more important. Hellwig calls for: “Fact-checks should run alongside debates as they air – not only afterwards.” Schools also need to teach media literacy much more intensively. As Hellwig states, “We live in an age where facts are no longer taken for granted. There is no longer consensus on what constitutes a fact.”
So, what can voters do? Hellwig advises evaluating political statements based on whether they are verifiable. Those who make claims must be able to substantiate them. And those who generalize must be critically questioned. This is where fact-checkers like Correctiv or the ARD fact-checking service come in, but also a trained eye for language.
Our conclusion
Our research shows that election campaign rhetoric is rarely accidental. It deliberately employs emotional images, historical comparisons, or clear enemy images – depending on the effect that is desired. And even seemingly factual statements like those of Robert Habeck can be interpreted differently depending on the data used and the context considered.
Therefore, our appeal: Be critical. Ask questions. As voters, we bear responsibility – not just when marking the ballot, but also in how we handle information.
RESEARCH | ARTICLE © Annalena Meyer and Lea Manger | Jade University of Applied Sciences Wilhelmshaven, Germany
Leave your comments, thoughts and suggestions in the box below. Take note: your response is moderated.
