What role does political rhetoric about immigrants and national identity play in historical cases of democratic breakdown?
Executive summary
Political rhetoric that frames immigrants as threats to national identity has repeatedly served as both a catalyst and accelerant in episodes of democratic erosion: it mobilizes partisan bases, normalizes exclusionary policies, and corrodes institutional norms, while also provoking counter-reactions that can recalibrate public opinion [1] [2] [3]. Scholars and commentators warn that when anti‑immigrant narratives become central to partisan strategy they not only shape immigration policy but also weaken democratic accountability and pluralist norms [4] [5].
1. Rhetoric as recruitment — turning cultural anxiety into political power
Political actors convert anxieties about immigration and national identity into mass mobilization by portraying newcomers as competitors for resources or as cultural invaders, a tactic documented across the United States and Europe that has helped illiberal forces gain traction [6] [1]. Empirical work shows that media frames about immigrants shift partisanship and voting behavior — negative coverage of Latino immigrants, for example, was followed by a measurable increase in white identification with the Republican Party in subsequent quarters [6]. That recruitment function explains why party platforms and elite messaging increasingly weaponize immigration: the payoff is higher turnout and clearer coalition realignment [7] [8].
2. Normalization of exclusionary policy — rhetoric follows into law
Rhetoric that dehumanizes or delegitimizes immigrants often precedes legal changes that restrict rights or bypass norms; commentators argue that anti‑migrant policy in the U.S. has both reflected and reinforced fear‑based public discourse, producing practices—from border militarization to expedited expulsions—that weaken rule‑bound processes [4] [9]. Party platforms and elite consensus on “border security” have further institutionalized restrictive approaches, with policy shifts tracked across state and national platforms since the 1980s as parties polarized on immigration [7] [8].
3. Ethnic antagonism and the erosion of democratic commitment
Survey‑based research links ethnic antagonism—concern about immigrant political power and competition for resources—to greater tolerance for antidemocratic ideas among certain groups, making democratic norms themselves vulnerable when identity threats are salient [3]. Studies find that ethnic antagonism is among the strongest predictors of willingness to countenance violations of democratic rules, suggesting rhetoric that heightens perceived threat can directly translate into weakened normative commitments to pluralism and the “rules of the game” [3].
4. The “thermostat” effect and partisan feedbacks
Rhetoric does not act in a vacuum; elites across parties respond to one another and to public sentiment, producing feedback loops that can either dampen or amplify polarizing frames. Evidence suggests a thermostatic dynamic in which elite rhetoric and events push public attitudes in countervailing directions, but polarization remains deep and rhetoric about immigration continues to drive partisan identity and policy stances [10] [2]. This means anti‑immigrant rhetoric can provoke both hardening among opponents and backlash that shifts some attitudes leftward, complicating linear narratives about rhetorical effects [10].
5. Competing narratives and democratic resilience
Analysts and advocates argue that inclusive or civic narratives about national identity can counteract exclusionary frames and help preserve democratic norms, but progress is uneven; some institutions and parties have embraced multiculturalist arguments while others have doubled down on nativist appeals, producing a contested terrain where democratic resilience depends on political choices and civil society responses [11] [12]. Where anti‑immigrant rhetoric dominates public discourse and policy—as critics document in recent U.S. debates—democratic backsliding risk rises because legal and administrative shortcuts become easier to justify [4].
6. A caution on causality and competing explanations
The literature cautions against monocausal explanations: immigration‑focused rhetoric is a powerful amplifier of democratic strain but typically interacts with economic dislocation, institutional weaknesses, elite incentives, and prior polarization to produce breakdowns [13] [5]. Comparative accounts urge analyzing how particular rhetorical strategies intersect with party incentives and institutional safeguards, rather than treating immigration talk as a sole cause [5] [1].