Discourse, Power, and Ideology: Analyzing the 2024 U.S. Presidential Debate through Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model

Abstract

This research conducted the critical discourse analysis of the 2024 US Presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris to analyze how lexical choice mechanics, source domain metaphors, and framing’s impact public perceptions of the United States’ foreign policy and leadership. This research aimed to compare how each candidate employed language to paint two different pictures of America’s role in international affairs, especially in foreign policy, and Afghanistan’s withdrawal from the United States. The research adopted Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) by Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model (1989, 1995) and framing theory by Entman (1993). The qualitative research methodology was utilized in this study. The primary data included the 90-minute televised debate from the official debate transcript from ABC News source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-updates/Trump-Harris-2024-presidential-debate/?id=113525682. This study selected purposive sampling to cover the whole of the debate as a significant political event. The study shows that Trump’s language, such as nationalism and unilateralist speech involving terms such as ‘America First’, 'weak', and ‘nuclear weapon', puts America as a powerful, self-serving actor. Starkly different is Harris’s framing of U.S. foreign policy as a more diplomatic, rights-oriented, multilateral project that presents the United States as a positive force for democracy and human rights in the world. The contributions underline how Trump’s basic metaphor system—America as a "strongman" and a “"guardian"—underpins his nationalist, transactional worldview and approach to foreign policy: Harris, by contrast, illustrates the basic metaphors that define the United States as a “shepherd” of global norms. These contrasting frames not only define their foreign policy narratives but also appeal to different voter bases. Trump appeals to the electorate disenchanted by globalism and calling for America’s isolation, while Harris offers the elite’s dream of diplomacy and worldwide cooperation in Harris’s vision of post-Trump America peace. Drawing from Robert Entman’s Framing Theory, the study explained how specific aspects of the candidate’s discourse—Trump’s aggressive individualism and crisis-oriented language on the one hand; Harris’s unity and diplomatic language on the other hand—are overemphasized by media outlets, contributing to the ideological polarization framing of the American political system. This research also adds to what is known about how politicians employ language to contribute to the contours of national and international position. It interests us in the social role that media play in influencing voters’ perceptions about leaders and outcomes of elections, and the communiqué about framing in political discourse.