When Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address 162 years ago, standing over the grounds on which thousands of American soldiers had died and surrounded by 15,000 people, he did so with a renewed definition of freedom—one “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Tasked with an insoluble duty of uniting a divided country ridden with malice, death and discontent, Lincoln set out to redefine the purpose of the Civil War. His address framed the conflict as more than just a struggle of unity.
In the days, weeks and years that followed, however, his speech was often viewed as a partisan message designed to dissuade Democratic dissent and mobilize his Republican base. Yet the speech endures as a testament to Lincoln’s unwavering conviction and, more broadly, to the power of language.
Its unparalleled composition, marked by a striking use of monosyllabic words and rhythm, continues to resonate with the American mind, posing itself as a lasting call to action.
Despite its brevity, the speech alludes to universal principles and asks listeners to uphold them. In a time of uncertainty, Lincoln connected the nation’s past, present and future to clarify America’s definition of freedom.
Today, the address still stands as a timeless call to action—but it is not the only one.
Though Trump’s speeches lack the grandiose nature of the Gettysburg Address, they too call upon the masses—though often for a different, more polarizing purpose.
Beginning with his campaign slogan, “Make American Great Again”, Trump, like Lincoln, links the past, present and future. “Great Again” references both the past and present, implying that the nation is no longer as prosperous or righteous as it once was. “Make” functions as both a call to action and a vision for the future. Together, the phrase forms a memorable campaign slogan.
To those whose past is marked by decades of government-induced exclusion – often in the form of segregation and colonization – the phrase functions as an alienating tool. By suggesting that the United States should return to an earlier time, critics argue that the slogan implies a reversal of decades of social and civil rights progress. While Lincoln used his references to the past, present and future as a means for unity, Trump’s slogan references an inner-purpose that is inherently polarizing.
More recently, when the country appeared divided over Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s handling of immigrants, Trump responded with harsh rhetoric. Referring to Renee Good, he said she “behaved horribly” and “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE officer.”
Trump’s supporters soon echoed similar language. Kristi Noem, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, described Good’s actions as acts of “domestic terrorism.”
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was timeless because it emphasized a call to action meant for all Americans. Trump’s rhetoric, by contrast, often functions through division. By identifying a clear enemy, it pushes both sides of the political spectrum further towards their respective extremes.
In communities like the Quad Cities, the influence of Trump’s rhetoric is prevalent in the behavior of younger generations.
Senior Lili Guicho, an outspoken critic of the Trump administration, organized a schoolwide anti-ICE walkout and participated in several “No Kings” rallies around the community. Her activism stems from an understanding that political messaging carries immense power.
“His rhetoric forces us into a polarized battle of morals and ethics,” Guicho said. “As a result you are required to only agree with one or the other. We protest as a means to create understanding of our side and to express our frustration with our current system.”
Current trends suggest that an increasing share of Americans would call the country politically divided. In 2022, approximately 83% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans said the opposing party was close-minded. Additionally, 72% of Republicans described Democrats as immoral and 72% of Democrats say Republicans are dishonest.
Dr. Duk Kim, a political science professor at St. Ambrose University, attributes this stark division to messaging and a lack of understanding. “Political rhetoric and messaging clearly amplify polarization in the U.S,” Kim said. “Some politicians openly express extreme views in their speeches and public actions to mobilize their supporters. That portrays political opponents as threats rather than people with different perspectives.”
Beyond its title, the presidency represents the country and its people on a global stage. Whatever reverence is attached to the office is often reflected in how the nation itself is perceived.
“In Canada, a lot of people are unified in disliking him,” said Victoria Rice, a former PV student currently studying at McGill University in Canada. “When he called on the annexation of Canada, whether it was a joke or not, everyone still agreed that the comment was unnecessary. To us, it showed he doesn’t think about the effects of his language. As a result, most people incorrectly assume Americans are arrogant solely because they think Trump is arrogant.”
The timelessness of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address and the startling nature of Trump’s rhetoric verify the importance of political messaging. Now, as global and domestic tensions surge and people look at their leaders for guidance, it is imperative that leaders echo messages of unity.
