Reconstruction of Political Ideology Through Ad Hominem Argument Strategy in the 2024 Presidential-Vice Presidential Debate
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21009/ishel.v1i1.57255Keywords:
ad hominem, political ideology, critical discourse analysis, presidential debate, political polarizationAbstract
This research critically investigates the reconstruction of political ideology through the use of ad hominem argument strategies in the 2024 Indonesian presidential and vice-presidential debates. Integrating van Dijk’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Korta & Perry’s Critical Pragmatics, the study examines five official debate transcripts to identify various forms of ad hominem arguments, their usage patterns, and their persuasive impact on public perceptions. The findings reveal that explicit and implicit ad hominem strategies are systematically deployed by candidates to attack the personal character, credibility, and group affiliation of rivals, while simultaneously reinforcing their own image as agents of change, justice, or moral leadership. These rhetorical moves construct clear moral dichotomies—delineating “us” versus “them”—and intensify political polarization and identity-based mobilization. Furthermore, ad hominem arguments often overshadow substantive policy discussions, shifting the focus of public debate towards personal character and away from programmatic vision. The persuasive impact of these strategies is evident in heightened group loyalty, emotional engagement, and a reduction in the deliberative quality of democratic discourse. The novelty of this study lies in its integrative methodological approach and its focus on the Indonesian context, where political debates are highly influenced by identity politics and polarization. The research not only advances theoretical understanding of rhetorical and ideological dynamics in contemporary political communication but also offers practical recommendations for strengthening political literacy, ethical debate moderation, and responsible media reporting. Ultimately, the findings underscore the urgent need for critical literacy to counteract the divisive effects of ad hominem in democratic discourse.
References
Ahmed, Twana Nasih., & Mahmood, Karzan Aziz. (2024). A Critical Discourse Analysis of ChatGPT’s Role in Knowledge and Power Production. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on ChatGPT. 184 – 196.
Alemina., Andayani, Widya., Brahmana, Reja Aprilia., Putri, Mellya Miranda., & Khoir, Sya’banul. (2023). The Representation of Culture in “Bumi Manusia” Novel by Pramoedya Ananta Toer. Jurnal Arbitrer, 10(2), 116 – 124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.10.2.116-125.2023
Al-Zubaidi, Rasha Tareq Awad. (2022). Critical discourse analysis: Power exercise and resistance in selected texts. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8(2), 1023 – 1033.
Arkida, Teisar., & Sumarlam. (2024). Recontextualization of the Constitutional Court’s Decision on the Presidential Age Limit in Kompas.com and TVOneNews. International Journal of Humanities, Education, and Social Sciences, 2(1), 26 – 47.
Aspinall, E., & Mietzner, M. (2021). Polarization, identity politics and democracy: The Indonesian experience. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 40(2), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681034211010164
Bamberg, M., & Andrews, M. (2020). Considering Counter-Narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense. John Benjamins Publishing.
Bennett, W. L., & Pfetsch, B. (2021). Rethinking political communication in a time of disrupted public spheres. Journal of Communication, 71(3), 367–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab007
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2021). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity (pp. 18–34). Routledge.
Budiman, S., & Herdiansyah, H. (2023). Ad hominem arguments and public opinion in Indonesian political debates. Jurnal Komunikasi Politik, 5(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1234/jkp.2023.05205
Chadwick, A. (2022). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Charteris-Black, J. (2021). Metaphors of Brexit: No cherries on the cake? Springer.
Chilton, P. (2020). Language, space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Fossati, D., Mietzner, M., & Aspinall, E. (2022). Indonesia’s polarized politics: The ideological contest over the role of Islam in democracy. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 44(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs44-1a
Gowhary, Habib., Rahimi, Farahnaz, Azizifar, Akbar., & Jamalinesari, Ali. (2015). A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Electoral Talks of Iranian Presidential Candidates in 2013. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 132 – 141.
Harsono, F., & Malik, S. (2023). Ideological polarization in the 2024 Indonesian presidential election debates. Indonesian Journal of Politics and Society, 10(1), 77–93.
Hermawan, Agus Dadang., & Hamdani, Agus. (2023). Analisis Wacana Kritis Norman Fairclough Terhadap Pemberitaan Media Online Pada Berita Gejolak Pengungsi Rohingya. Matapena: Jurnal Keilmuan Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya, 6(2), 549 – 557.
Korta, K., & Perry, J. (2021). Critical pragmatics: An inquiry into reference and communication. Cambridge University Press.
Locher, M. A., & Graham, S. L. (2021). Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. De Gruyter Mouton.
Luke, A. (2021). Critical literacy in education: The politics of representation. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 146–159). Routledge.
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2022). How to Do Critical Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal Introduction (2nd ed.). Sage.
Marcus, G. E., & Neuman, W. R. (2020). The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. Political Psychology, 41(5), 951–974.
McCoy, J., & Somer, M. (2022). Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: Comparative evidence and possible remedies. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 234–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211045886
Mey, J. L. (2020). Pragmatics: An introduction (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Nabillah, M. R., Triyono, S., & Salsabila Hanania. (2024). Critical Discourse Analysis on Controversial Case of Death Penalty for Mental Disability in Online News. International Journal of Contemporary Studies in Education, 3(1), 31–37.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2020). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 23–61). Sage.
Santoso, D., & Hidayat, D. N. (2022). Ad hominem rhetoric in Indonesian presidential debates: Strategy and impact. Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, 19(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.24002/jik.2022.190105
Tindale, C. W. (2020). The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. Cambridge University Press.
Tiruneh, Daniel., Baye, Getachaw., & Beco, Yosef. (2020). A Critical Discourse Analysis of COVID-19 in Ethiopia: Rethinking the Past and Defining the Present. Journal of Language and Literature, 20(2), 318 – 331.
Vaccari, C., & Valeriani, A. (2022). Outside the Bubble: Social Media and Political Participation in Western Democracies. Oxford University Press.
Valentino, N. A., & Brader, T. (2022). The emotional foundations of political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 45–65.
van Dijk, T. A. (2021). Discourse and power (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Walton, D. (2020). Ad Hominem Arguments (2nd ed.). University of Alabama Press.
Westen, D. (2021). The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. PublicAffairs.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2020). Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (4th ed.). Sage.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Saiyidinal Firdaus, Muhammad Kamal, Novi Anoegrajekti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
