Overview
This lesson plan is designed for advanced high school or undergraduate students studying political science, linguistics, or media studies. It centers on the analysis of a significant shift in U.S. political rhetoric from evidence-based to intuition-based language over the past 140 years, as detailed in the article from Science Focus. Students will engage with the article, explore supplementary materials, and critically assess the implications of this linguistic evolution on political discourse and democratic processes.
Scientists have uncovered a stark drop in the evidence-based language used in US political speeches since the 1970s, with significant implications for citizens in the country.
The results, published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, are born out of an analysis of more than 8 million speeches made in the US Congress over the last 140 years.
“We wanted to know why some politicians who lie quite a lot are often thought of as honest,” Dr Segun Aroyehun, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Konstanz, Germany, and first author of the study, told BBC Science Focus. “Often it’s because they speak about what they believe in, and they sound authentic in that sense.” BBC Science focus
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
- Comprehend the historical shift in U.S. political rhetoric from evidence-based to intuition-based language.
- Analyze the potential causes and consequences of this linguistic transition.
- Evaluate the impact of rhetorical strategies on political polarization and public trust.
- Develop critical thinking skills through comparative analysis and essay writing.
Core Reading:
BBC Science Focus:
Scientists analysed 8 million US speeches – and uncovered a surprising trend
Direct Quotes for Use in Class:
- “US politicians used to back up what they were saying with facts. Now they’re more likely to rely on gut feelings and intuition.”
- “From the 1870s until the 1970s, US politicians used increasingly complex and precise language to describe the world around them. But since then, speech has shifted towards simpler, more emotional language.”
- “Rather than offering statistics, they’re more likely to appeal to people’s values and emotions.”
- “This mirrors a wider trend towards distrust in institutions and expertise.”
- “It’s possible that politicians are simply giving people what they want to hear.”
Task: In groups of 4, find examples of all these 5 points in the press and present them to the class.
Supplementary Sources
- Nature Human Behaviour (2025):
Computational analysis of US congressional speeches reveals a shift from evidence to emotion - IFLScience Summary:
Use Of Facts And Evidence-Based Rhetoric At All-Time Low In Congressional Speech
Session 1: Deconstructing the Article
Warm-Up Discussion:
- What kinds of language do politicians use today?
- Can you think of an example where a politician used emotion instead of facts?
Article Reading and Annotation:
- Students read the article in full, highlighting key points.
- Students annotate quotes that strike them or raise questions.
- The teacher guides the discussion using the key quotes provided.
Group Discussion Questions:
- What do the authors mean by “simpler, more emotional language”?
- How might this shift affect policymaking and democracy?
- Why might this shift have begun in the 1970s?
- Do you agree with the quote: “Politicians are giving people what they want to hear”?
Mini-Lesson: Introduction to Computational Linguistics
- Provide examples of tools like sentiment analysis and language modeling.
- Explain how large datasets (e.g., congressional records) are analyzed using AI.
📊 Session 2: Applying Discourse Analysis
Franklin D. Roosevelt – First Inaugural Address (1933)
Context: The Great Depression
Excerpt:
“This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is… fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
Ronald Reagan – Address to the Nation on the Economy (1981)
Context: High inflation, recession
Excerpt:
“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.”
Barack Obama – Democratic National Convention Speech (2008)
Context: Presidential campaign
Excerpt:
“If you don’t have any money, you should be able to go to college. And if you can’t afford health insurance, you should be able to get it. That’s the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation.”
Donald Trump – Republican National Convention Speech (2016)
Context: Nomination acceptance
Excerpt:
“I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice. I am your voice.”
Student Tasks:
- Identify language rooted in intuition vs. evidence.
- Highlight rhetorical appeals (logos, ethos, pathos).
- Annotate for tone, diction, and persuasive strategies.
Group Comparison:
- In small groups, compare two speeches.
- Discuss how word choice and tone reflect shifting rhetorical norms.
- Consider audience, political context, and effectiveness.
📝 Assessment – Essay Questions (Choose One):
-
Rhetoric and Democracy:
“How has the shift from evidence-based to emotion-driven political language influenced the quality of democratic discourse in the United States?”
2. The Role of Audience in Shaping Political Speech:
“To what extent are modern politicians responding to the desires of their audience when they prioritize emotional appeal over factual accuracy?”
🧵 Wrap-Up Discussion Questions:
- Does emotional language necessarily mean manipulative language?
- Should political rhetoric prioritize persuasion or truth?
- How can voters become more critical of the language politicians use?