The Role of Passive Constructions in Manipulative Political Rhetoric

This paper examines the role of passive constructions in manipulative political rhetoric aimed at eliciting emotional responses. Politicians frequently employ the language of hatred and resentment to deepen societal polarization, portraying opposition forces as dangerous enemies while framing their own policies as ethically and morally superior. Politicians driven by a thirst for power use passive voice for various purposes: at times to convey indignation toward injustice, and at others to enhance their own image through empathy and emotional appeal. However, the frequent use of passive constructions can create ambiguous and obscure rhetoric, leading to negative public reactions and potentially harming the politician’s image. The study highlights the linguistic impact of passive voice in political discourse, specifically its role in obscuring agency, evading political responsibility, and shaping public perception. The rhetorical analysis of figures such as Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and George Bush, etc. demonstrates how this linguistic tool facilitates responsibility avoidance and strengthens emotional appeal. Although passive constructions are often used in academic writing and media to maintain neutrality, George Orwell (1946) advocates for active voice to ensure clarity and specificity. Consequently, the choice between active and passive voice in political discourse is crucial. Active voice explicitly distributes responsibility, while passive constructions, in certain contexts, serve as instruments of political manipulation. While media frequently employs passive constructions for objective reporting, in practice, this rhetorical strategy is often used to shape public opinion, suppress agency, and manipulate narratives.