Ali Karčić

Immigration and the status of ethnic and religious minorities have become central objects of political conflict in Western democracies. Rhetoric once associated primarily with the far right now also appears in mainstream party communication. This dissertation examines its causes, consequences, and explores possible countermeasures. Across four papers, the dissertation combines parliamentary speeches from nine Western European countries with experiments in Germany, Denmark, and the United States. It examines when and why mainstream parties adopt anti-immigrant rhetoric, finding that they use more such rhetoric when far-right parties enjoy electoral success. It also examines how mainstream parties respond to immigration-related voter concerns: symbolically, by “standing for” voters, or substantively, by “acting for” voters through policy-oriented rhetoric. In Denmark, symbolic responses predominated before the 2015 migrant crisis, followed by a shift toward more substantive rhetoric. The dissertation argues that mainstream parties can influence social norms because citizens perceive them as credible and legitimate representatives of what is socially acceptable in society. In Germany, prejudiced rhetoric attributed to mainstream parties weakens perceived anti-prejudice norms more strongly than comparable rhetoric from far-right parties; the same pattern does not emerge in Denmark. Finally, a meditation experiment shows that citizens can become less receptive to prejudiced rhetoric, with findings more consistent with emotional than cognitive responses to the intervention. Together, the findings show how mainstream anti-minority rhetoric can be both a consequence of party competition and a source of social norm change. What mainstream parties say matters beyond the electoral and legislative arena.

PDF