Generation Z, born from 1995 to 2010, is often seen as a progressive, inclusive, and open-minded generation, but at the moment, this image seems to be shifting.
We are increasingly worried about the economic situation, the climate, politics, and whether or not democracies will survive the reign of right-wing parties.
These fears are frustrating and make us tired – we would take almost any opportunity there is to ease the weight from our shoulders.
Far-right politicians have spotted those fears and incorporated them into their campaigns to appeal to new voters. With a variety of strategies, they target younger audiences, leading to an increased support of the far-right in our generation.
In the 2024 European elections, right-wing parties were gaining more votes than previously.
In Germany, young voters (ages 16-24) mainly voted for the conservative CDU (Christian Democratic Union) and the right-wing party “Alternative for Germany”. The right-wing party tripled their votes compared to the last EU elections, leaving it in second place with 16% of votes from this age group.¹
Similar developments can be observed in France, where in the 2024 national elections, 23% of the 18 to 24-year-olds voted for the “Rassemblement National”, Jordan Bardella’s far-right party.² In various European countries, even in traditionally progressive countries like Sweden³, equal outcomes seem to become the new norm.
But not everyone is voting conservative; in the same elections, left-wing parties also received votes from said age group at an above-average rate.
However, more women tend to vote left. Part of this division can be summed up in the youth gender gap of voting for the far-right. While men from the age of 16 to 36 tend to support far-right parties, women of the same age lean towards more socially progressive ones.⁴
This splintering in political opinions is dividing the generation; the effects have yet to be seen.
The role of social media
Social media has the power to integrate political content into your feed without you having to click on it actively. This is particularly true for short-form content on TikTok or Instagram, where the algorithm automatically proposes the following video. This algorithm can subtly introduce us to a specific type of content, and in the case of an interaction, the number of videos shown is gradually increased.
In that way, political ideas and the content of political parties reach new target groups, notably young people, who are the main users of these apps.
Primarily, right-wing parties have invested more than average in social media campaigns⁵. Compared to classical media, social media is less closely monitored, allowing right-wing parties to share their ideas or ideologies unfiltered.
They no longer depend on journalists to report on them, as snippets of discussions or interviews can be posted out of context without further contextualisation, making it an essential part of most parties’ campaigns.
Furthermore, the anonymity of the internet adds to the impact of this content.
Sympathisers of right-wing politics can gather further insights into ideologies or participate in conversations in comment sections without revealing their identity.
This lowers the inhibition level drastically and can normalise the one-sided views that are molded by the right on topics like migration, equity and queerness, even if these are not supported in their usual social circle.
But why is right-wing content often outperforming that of more moderate positions?
The overall buzzwords to their success are: emotions, reactions and provocation.
Most of the time, right-wing parties‘ content is emotionally charged and seeks to provoke by addressing controversial topics or proposing seemingly simple solutions to common problems. These emotions lead to strong opinions and reactions.
This intensity lays a foundation for a sense of community among supporters of the right as they “finally” find someone with the same view. In the comment sections, people support each other’s hateful views and casually spread further ideological ideas.
The confidence in the comments is at least partly due to a lack of counter-ideas and criticism, as the content is typically shown to a politically homogeneous bubble. These target groups are created by the algorithm which creates a profile of your personal content preferences.⁶
Moreover, nationalistic and populist content introduces ideas subtly, for example, when politicians join trends or use well-known audio clips. Thereby, entertaining content is blended with political content, making it suitable for mainstream consumers.
Through a personal social media profile, followers can even get the impression of actually getting to know a politician. In some cases, these sympathies are so strong that they become the primary motivation to vote for a person.
An example, therefore, is the French politician Jordan Bardella, part of the Rassemblement National. In interviews, teenagers admit that his behaviour on TikTok convinces them, along with his, as they say, charismatic way of acting⁷.
This biased way of making political decisions can pose serious danger, as the focus shifts from political intentions to looks and behaviour.
However, we need to keep in mind that the danger itself does not lie in the nature of social media but in the way we deal with political content.
If we would want to use social media as a platform of constructive political discourse, we would have to take the content into account, question if it aligns with our values and take the presented ideas as an exit point for thoughts and our (critical) opinion of a party.
An absence or decrease in critical thinking can make the viewer internalize the opinion explained in the video more quickly.
As soon as a politician is deemed trustworthy by their target group, the opinions they present can quickly be taken for granted rather than as food for thought. This unnatural trust in social media content clears the way for politicians or other actors on social media to influence us on a deeper level.
We shouldn’t forget that even though social media has the power to influence us, we have the power to resist it by questioning and critically analyzing the content we consume.
Rhetorics and other strategies
The manipulative side of social media is closely linked to the way politicians speak or write in person and in their posts.
Even if it might seem like a simple interview, within their phrases, more than just the obvious messages are included. Persuasive techniques and phrasing influence the audience‘s perception of what is said.
One technique politicians use to emphasise their point of view on an issue is framing. Framing means matching the context of what you’re saying to your narrative. The aspects in favour of the speaker can be highlighted, whereas others can be downplayed or omitted. This strategy leads to a bias that can change our reaction to the matter depending on how it is presented.
Such differences can be observed when comparing Donald Trump‘s and John F. Kennedy‘s takes on migration.
In his address to the Congress in 2025 Trump referred to illegal migrants as “the invasion of our country“ . This compares migrants to an army that is attacking the U.S. portraying them as a dangerous threat to the country.
As soon as these words are pronounced, an image with the context of war is created in the listener’s head. This visualisation of the speaker’s opinion makes it both powerful and dangerous. Particularly because figurative frames like this one, make the listener perceive statement as more intense and emotionally captivating.⁸
Keeping in mind that this is just one and not even one of Trump‘s most extreme frames, we can imagine the amplification of the effects when multiple of them are included in single speech or post.
In contrast, John F. Kennedy presents a positive frame in his book “A Nation of Immigrants“, where he concludes that “immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life.”
By choosing positive verbs to describe the effects of migration and employing a metaphor that highlights the benefits immigrants bring, Kennedy creates an opposing image to the one Trump painted in our heads.
But even though both quotes convey opposing political opinions, the way they work is quite similar. Within their phrases they bring across a point without stating an argument. This lack of classical arguments can make it hard for us to distinguish the factual background from the opinion of the politicians as they are melting together.
However, there is another form of bias that seems like an actual argument: post-truth arguments. Notably, among far-right politicians and populists, we can find an accumulation of them. Post-truth arguments are based on emotions rather than on facts. This diminishes the importance of actual facts in political speeches and discussions in the right-wing and populist spheres.
Especially for our generation, preoccupied with fears about the future and economic challenges, fear- and emotion-based politics can seem appealing, as if someone cares about these worries.
But we must always keep in mind that only politics grounded in factual reality can solve actual problems.
Therefore, when political content is emotionally captivating, consider verifying with other sources if the apparent cause for the problem also exists in facts and reliable data.
What each of us can do
I encourage you to stay awake and aware, take the uncomfortable but real solution seriously, and don’t ignore it if somebody’s view seems to change.
¹ https://www.tagesschau.de/europawahl/wahl/junge-waehler-100.html
²https://www.lopinion.fr/politique/legislatives-pour-qui-les-jeunes-ont-ils-vote-au-premier-tour
³ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29208658
⁶https://support.tiktok.com/en/using-tiktok/exploring-videos/how-tiktok-recommends-content
⁸https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1851121
