| dc.description.abstract | The American Presidential Election and its debates are exciting to watch. However, one could claim that they also contribute largely to the continued polarisation of the USA and its citizens. After the 2016 election, both journalists, scholars and politicians tried to understand why Hillary R. Clinton lost. Although the explanations varied largely, many concluded that it was partly due to the Democratic strategy of identity politics. This thesis is based on Francis Fukuyama and Mark Lilla’s definitions of liberal identity politics as a polarising policy destined to split both the Democratic Party and its constituency. In this paper, I will compare the rhetoric used in the 2016 Democratic nomination process with the rhetoric in the current nomination process, ending with Joe Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee. One of the core questions is whether the Democratic Party has replaced some of this rhetoric of victimisation, special interest and political correctness with more calls for collective action. The thesis indicates that Democratic candidates restored to more identity politics in 2020 than in 2016. Arguments presented by several of the Democratic candidates in 2020 were crudely based on identity, and they were aimed at the political flanks, rather than seeking to find middle ground. The thesis will also examine the underlying reasons why the Democratic Party became so enthralled with identity politics, and it indicates that the reasons can be found partly in the influence from the civil rights movement. This influence is still evident, and there are political, institutional, social and strategical reasons why the Democratic Party continue to turn to identity politics. | eng |