The Geography of Conflict: How Locative Metaphors and Moral Cartographies Correlate with Polarization in American Political Discourse

Locative metaphors are frequently used in American political discourse, sketching «moral maps» and assigning virtue and vice to specific geographic locations. Nevertheless, systematic linguistic explorations of how these spatial expressions promote partisan polarization has been limited, often overlooking their role as central organizing devices. This study aimed to empirically investigate how Republican and Democratic-aligned political discourse in the U.S. exploits distinct repertoires of locative metaphors. It sought to identify recurring partisan-oriented locative language units, analyze their linguistic features contributing to persuasive pragmatic impact, and understand how they function as means of moral evaluation, perpetuating the «us vs them» mentality. A 2.9-million-word corpus of American political texts (speeches, debate transcripts, op-eds, social media posts; 2015−2025), annotated for partisan alignment, was analyzed using quantitative corpus statistics (frequency, chi-square, Cramer’s V, logistic regression) and qualitative rhetorical and functional-linguistic analysis of locative and spatial metaphors. The undertaken analysis revealed statistically significant partisan preferences: Republican discourse favored expressions like «DC swamp» or «coastal elites,» aligning with moral foundations of Purity and Loyalty, Democratic discourse more frequently used expressions like «Wall Street fat cats» and «sanctuary city,» resonating with Fairness and Care. Republicans employed out-group stigmatizing metaphors more extensively. Logistic regression demonstrated these metaphors strongly predict speakers' partisan alignment. This article shows that locative metaphors are core cognitive-discursive mechanisms in constructing moral geographies that intensify U.S. political polarization. Understanding this «linguistic cartography of conflict» is crucial for analyzing how political discourse bypasses factual debate, creates divisions, and forms public perception of socio-political phenomena.