Why Moral Reframing Is No Longer Enough: Assessing the Limits of Cross-Value Appeals Against Moral Amplification in Trump-Era Politics.
In the last decade, the concept of moral reframing has gained traction among scholars, activists, and political communicators on the left. Rooted in moral foundations theory, the idea is disarmingly simple: people can be persuaded when arguments are presented through the lens of their own moral values rather than the values of the speaker. Progressives, for instance, might frame climate action not only as a matter of compassion for vulnerable communities but also as a patriotic duty to protect the homeland, or as Obama would use an act of purity that preserves the sanctity of the natural world. The promise of moral reframing lies in its ability to cross ideological divides, offering a pathway to consensus in a fractured political landscape.
Yet the political reality of the Trump era reveals stark limits to this approach. Donald Trump’s style of communication does not seek common ground. Instead it thrives on division, sharpening moral instincts into weapons of polarization. Rather than reframing values to build bridges, Trump amplifies loyalty, authority, and purity into simple, emotionally charged narratives of us against them. He urges followers to see loyalty as devotion to him personally, authority as obedience to his will, and purity as the exclusion of outsiders and dissenters. In this environment, the promise of reframing encounters a wall of identity fusion and authoritarian signalling that resists persuasion.
The purpose of this article is to assess whether moral reframing, once hailed as a strategy for bridging ideological divides, is still capable of counteracting Trump’s moral amplification. We will argue that it is not enough. Reframing may still hold some value for reaching moderates, but against the gravitational pull of Trump’s authoritarian populism it falters. Understanding why requires close attention to the interplay between persuasion, identity, and power in contemporary American politics.
Theoretical Background
The starting point for understanding the limits of moral reframing lies in moral foundations theory, developed by social psychologists Jonathan Haidt and colleagues. This framework identifies a set of basic moral intuitions that shape political judgment: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. While all individuals possess these moral foundations to some degree, progressives tend to emphasize care and fairness, whereas conservatives draw more heavily on loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Liberty operates across the spectrum but takes different forms, with conservatives often framing it as freedom from government interference and progressives framing it as protection from oppression.
Moral reframing builds on this insight by suggesting that persuasion is possible when political actors craft messages that resonate with the moral values of their audience rather than their own. A progressive advocate who frames environmental policy as a question of purity, or military spending as an expression of loyalty to the nation, is attempting to meet conservative listeners on familiar moral ground. Experiments have shown that reframing can increase support for policies among individuals who would otherwise resist them. It functions as a bridge, inviting audiences to see their own values reflected in positions that might initially appear alien.
Trump’s rise complicates this picture because his rhetorical strategy is not about building bridges but about amplifying and narrowing. His communication seizes on loyalty, authority, and sanctity and inflates them into absolutist demands. Loyalty is no longer about commitment to the community or the nation, it becomes a personal oath to the leader himself. Authority ceases to be a shared respect for institutions or traditions and instead becomes submission to Trump’s own will. Sanctity is recast as a defense of purity against supposed contamination, whether by immigrants, political opponents, or abstract threats like “globalism.” This is not moral reframing in the sense of finding resonance across divides. It is moral amplification, a strategy that heightens division and fuses moral identity with political loyalty to the leader.
This difference matters profoundly. Where reframing operates through persuasion, amplification operates through polarization. It encourages supporters to harden their positions and see compromise as betrayal. It erodes the shared moral vocabulary that reframing depends upon by narrowing the field of legitimate values. In such an environment, appeals across moral foundations are less likely to be heard as genuine persuasion and more likely to be dismissed as weakness or manipulation.
To appreciate how moral reframing has functioned in practice, it is useful to recall how prominent progressive leaders have employed it in their rhetoric. Barack Obama often reframed progressive policies in ways that resonated with values emphasized by conservatives. In his 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote, he declared that “there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America. There’s the United States of America” (Obama, 2004). This was more than rhetorical flourish. It was an attempt to place progressive aspirations in the language of national unity and loyalty, values conservatives hold dear. Likewise, when speaking on global hunger, Obama argued that “as the wealthiest nation on Earth, I believe the United States has a moral obligation to lead the fight against hunger and malnutrition,” framing compassion in terms of national duty and moral authority.
Bernie Sanders has employed similar reframing, particularly on economic inequality. In a 2016 speech at the Vatican, he insisted that “the issue of wealth and income inequality is the great economic issue of our time, the great political issue of our time, and the great moral issue of our time” (Sanders, 2016). By recasting inequality as not only a matter of economics but also of moral obligation, Sanders linked the progressive call for redistribution to a shared sense of justice that crosses ideological boundaries. Both Obama and Sanders thus illustrate how reframing can translate progressive goals into values that resonate beyond their own political base.
The Limits of Reframing in the Face of Amplification
At the heart of moral reframing is the assumption that individuals can be moved by seeing their values reflected in new contexts. A conservative who values loyalty might be persuaded to support refugee resettlement if it is framed as honoring America’s tradition of protecting those who fought alongside its troops abroad. A conservative who values authority might be swayed to back environmental regulation if it is presented as a way of holding corporations accountable to the rule of law. The mechanism depends on a willingness to consider arguments that resonate with one’s moral instincts even when the policy itself originates on the other side of the ideological divide.
Trump’s amplification disrupts this mechanism by transforming values into litmus tests of allegiance. Loyalty becomes synonymous with fidelity to Trump himself. Authority is defined by his pronouncements, not by institutions or norms. Purity is constructed through exclusionary boundaries that cast outsiders, dissenters, and critics as dangerous contaminants. In this rhetorical universe, reframed arguments are stripped of their persuasive power because the values they invoke have already been captured and redefined by Trump’s narrative. A progressive who appeals to loyalty risks being accused of treachery, while an appeal to authority will be dismissed unless it aligns with Trump’s authority alone.
Psychologically, this dynamic can be understood through the concept of identity fusion. Trump’s most committed supporters are not simply political partisans who weigh costs and benefits. Their political identity is fused with their personal identity, producing a sense of oneness with the leader and the movement. Challenges to Trump are experienced as challenges to the self. Under such conditions, persuasion through reframing does not invite reflection but instead triggers defensiveness and resistance. What might appear to an outsider as a clever appeal to shared values feels, to the fused supporter, like an attack on their deepest loyalties.
Reframing also falters because amplification thrives on constant repetition and emotional intensity. Trump’s communication style reduces complex political questions to vivid and memorable contrasts: us versus them, patriot versus traitor, strong versus weak. These contrasts activate moral intuitions in a way that is immediate and visceral. Reframed arguments, by contrast, are often more subtle and cognitively demanding. They require the audience to shift perspective, to recognize a new resonance between their values and a novel policy domain. In a polarized media environment dominated by amplified moral signals, the quieter work of reframing is easily drowned out.
The net effect is that reframing struggles to gain traction. Against Trump’s authoritarian moral amplification, the strategy appears not only inadequate but in some contexts irrelevant. Reframing assumes the possibility of shared values and the willingness to hear them invoked by political opponents. Amplification actively works to eliminate that possibility by insisting that only one set of values, defined through loyalty to the leader, can ever be legitimate.
Authoritarianism and the Hardening of Moral Boundaries
Trump’s communication strategy cannot be understood solely as an intensification of moral foundations. It is also an expression of authoritarian politics that seeks to centralize loyalty, obedience, and purity around a singular figure of power. Authoritarianism thrives on rigid boundaries, both moral and social. It requires clear delineations between insiders and outsiders, between those who belong and those who must be cast out. When moral amplification is placed in the service of authoritarianism, values like loyalty and authority become absolute and non-negotiable.
This dynamic transforms politics from a contest of ideas into a test of allegiance. The question is no longer which policy best serves the nation but rather who is willing to submit and who dares to dissent. Loyalty becomes a personal pledge to Trump rather than a commitment to the country or its democratic traditions. Authority is measured by the leader’s commands rather than by the rule of law or institutional legitimacy. Purity is framed as the defense of an imagined national essence against enemies defined by race, religion, ideology, or geography. In this system, reframing does not merely fail to persuade. It is actively delegitimized, portrayed as weakness, deceit, or even treachery.
The authoritarian turn also creates an environment where factual persuasion itself is undermined. Trump’s constant attacks on the press, the judiciary, and the electoral process are not simply rhetorical excesses. They are calculated efforts to erode the authority of any source of truth outside of his own. Once the leader becomes the sole arbiter of what is real, appeals to shared moral values lose their footing. If reframing depends on finding a common vocabulary, authoritarian amplification works by destroying that commonality, leaving only the leader’s narrative as the measure of truth.
Moreover, authoritarianism intensifies identity fusion. Supporters are encouraged to see themselves as extensions of Trump, and Trump as the embodiment of their own dignity and survival. In such a configuration, reframing not only struggles to gain traction but can backfire. An argument that attempts to recast progressive policies in terms of loyalty or purity risks being interpreted as an act of manipulation by an enemy, further entrenching the authoritarian bond.
The combination of amplification and authoritarianism thus erects barriers against persuasion that are unusually strong. It transforms moral values from a shared human vocabulary into hardened boundaries of identity and allegiance. For those outside the authoritarian circle, reframing can still function as a persuasive tool. But for those within it, the walls are high and the gates are closed.
The Narrow Path for Reframing
Although Trump’s authoritarian amplification blocks persuasion among his most devoted supporters, this does not mean moral reframing is entirely without power in the present political climate. Its effectiveness is reduced, but not wholly extinguished. The strategy retains value in spaces where identity has not been fully fused to Trump’s leadership and where individuals remain open to moral reasoning that speaks to their values.
The most fertile ground for reframing lies among moderates, independents, and the politically disengaged. These groups often share some moral leanings with conservatives while resisting the most extreme forms of authoritarian loyalty. For them, an argument that emphasizes loyalty to democratic institutions or purity in the form of protecting the environment can resonate. Unlike Trump’s base, they are not bound by the strict moral boundaries he constructs. They may be sceptical of progressive policies when framed in the language of care and fairness alone, but they can respond when those policies are presented through the values of patriotism, respect for order, and pride in the nation.
Reframing also holds promise in undermining the spill over effects of Trump’s amplification. Even if his core supporters cannot be persuaded, his rhetoric influences the broader public discourse by setting the terms of debate. If progressives abandon reframing altogether, they risk leaving these moral foundations entirely in the hands of Trump and his imitators. By occupying and redefining the language of loyalty, authority, and purity, progressives can contest the moral territory that amplification seeks to monopolize. This does not convert the loyalist, but it prevents Trump’s values from becoming the uncontested default for large swaths of the electorate.
Still, these opportunities are fragile. Successful reframing depends on authenticity and consistency. Voters who hear appeals to loyalty from progressives must believe that the speaker genuinely values loyalty, not that they are deploying it as a cynical tactic. Trump’s amplification thrives in part because it is simple and repetitive, while reframing requires nuance and credibility. If progressives use reframing sporadically or opportunistically, it will fail to resonate and may even deepen cynicism about politics as a whole.
In this sense, the narrow path for reframing is as much about long-term narrative building as it is about immediate persuasion. By steadily embedding progressive policies in the language of shared values, progressives can create alternative moral narratives that blunt the power of authoritarian amplification. It is not a quick fix and it will not pry away the most fervent Trump loyalists. But it may shape the moral imagination of those on the periphery, and in close electoral contexts that can make a decisive difference.
Why Moral Reframing Is No Longer Enough
Unfortunately, we have shown that moral reframing, once heralded as a way to bridge partisan divides, falters in the face of Trump’s moral amplification and authoritarian style. Reframing presupposes a shared moral vocabulary across the political spectrum. It assumes that care, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity, and liberty can be mobilized in different ways but still recognized as common human concerns. Trump’s politics aims to destroy that shared terrain. By collapsing values into tests of personal loyalty, he transforms moral foundations into instruments of exclusion and domination. In such an environment, reframing is not merely weakened. It is actively undermined by the very conditions of discourse that Trump has created.
This is why moral reframing alone is no longer enough. Persuasion cannot function when the terms of argument are dictated by authoritarian amplification. Progressives must continue to use reframing to reach moderates and to occupy moral ground that Trump seeks to monopolize. But they must also confront the deeper structural reality: reframing does not dismantle authoritarian bonds, and it cannot pierce the walls of identity fusion that Trump cultivates among his base.
In response, some Democrats have begun to experiment with alternative strategies that move outside the framework of moral persuasion altogether. California governor Gavin Newsom, for example, has adopted a tactic of countering Trump on social media through satire, parody, and deliberate mimicry of Trump’s own rhetorical style. By posting memes, AI-generated spoofs, and exaggerated all-caps missives that mirror Trump’s tone, Newsom aims to puncture the aura of dominance that authoritarian amplification depends upon. Satire in this mode does not try to persuade Trump’s base on their own moral terms. Instead it ridicules the performance of amplification itself, drawing attention to its absurdity and undermining its authority. It is, in effect, a strategy of inversion: if Trump thrives on making politics into spectacle, Newsom seeks to turn the spectacle against him.
This kind of rhetorical combat carries its own risks. It can appear derivative or inauthentic, and it risks normalizing Trump’s coarse style of discourse. Yet it also highlights a central truth: humor often reaches where moral appeals cannot. Trump himself seems uniquely sensitive to mockery, perhaps because comedy punctures the authoritarian need to be taken seriously. His repeated attacks on late-night comedians, and his failed attempt to silence Jimmy Kimmel after a mocking monologue, demonstrate that satire can get under his skin in ways sober argument rarely does. When ABC briefly suspended Kimmel’s show following political pressure, the backlash was immediate and fierce, and the suspension was quickly lifted. The episode revealed both Trump’s appetite for censorship and the resilience of comedy as a form of resistance.
The lesson is not that progressives should abandon moral reframing but that they must supplement it with other tools. Authoritarian amplification is not merely a distortion of values but a performance of power. Reframing alone cannot disrupt that performance. Satire, mockery, and the creative use of Trump’s own tactics against him show that there are other avenues for resistance, especially when authoritarian figures depend so heavily on projecting an image of strength. Paired with reframing that reaches moderates, and anchored in concrete action that demonstrates democratic values, these strategies form a more complete arsenal against the corrosive effects of Trump’s amplification.
Simply Put
The struggle over moral language in American politics has entered a new phase. Where once reframing promised to soften divides and build consensus, Trump’s authoritarian amplification has hardened boundaries and narrowed the space for persuasion. The left cannot afford to abandon reframing altogether, but neither can it cling to it as a sufficient solution. The battle is not only over policy but over the very moral foundations that guide collective life.
If progressives hope to counter Trump’s politics, they must recognize that reframing alone will not dissolve authoritarian bonds. The task is larger: to reclaim moral values that have been distorted and weaponized, to restore a shared moral vocabulary grounded in truth, and to embody those values through action that demonstrates loyalty to democracy, respect for legitimate authority, and a commitment to a just and inclusive society.
At the same time, Trump’s hypersensitivity to ridicule suggests that satire and humor can succeed where moral persuasion stalls. Gavin Newsom’s parodies and Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night mockery highlight the vulnerability of Trump’s amplification to comedic exposure. Attempts to suppress or silence comedy have consistently backfired, underscoring how humor can puncture the authoritarian performance of strength. In pairing reframing with satire, progressives can both reclaim moral ground and destabilize Trump’s rhetorical dominance.
Moral reframing was once enough to persuade across divides. In the era of Trump, persuasion requires something more. It requires resistance to authoritarian manipulation, resilience in defending democratic norms, and the courage to ridicule the absurdities of power. The challenge is immense, but so too is the necessity. For if Trump’s amplification continues unchecked, the cost will not only be political defeat for the left but a corrosion of the very democratic values on which persuasion depends.
References
Table of Contents
