Kerstin Maria Pahl (#4: On Transatlantic Alliances)

(Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin)

I would like to shift our attention to a different dimension of democracy and use the online space we are currently inhabiting as a springboard for thinking about what could be called transatlantic communicative alliances that can serve both as support for democracy and a means of addressing its challenges.

In doing so, I want to connect to several themes discussed in previous panels: the need to be engaged and to engage others, the evolving role of media, the tension between group-centered and horizontal communication, and the emotional dimensions of nationalism.

With the Enlightenment public sphere in mind, one might ask: could social media be considered the twenty-first-century version of the eighteenth-century coffeehouse—full of energy, noise, shortcomings, and symbolic meaning? Might it serve as a tool of political participation, a new forum for democratic deliberation, and an open space for fostering citizenship? To some extent, it already has.

Barack Obama famously pioneered the use of social media in participatory politics nearly two decades ago. He organized online town halls, launched an AMA thread on Reddit (“Ask me Anything”), and allowed users to share his iconic “Hope” poster, making political participation only a click away. In contrast, Trump’s first term marked the beginning of social media as the central platform not only for political discourse but also for institutional communication. In Trump’s second term, Vice President J.D. Vance appears equally “terminally online.”

Social media is often criticized for undermining democracy because its structure benefits populist communication styles: short, emotional, and sensationalist content that thrives on moral outrage and amplifies interpersonal emotions. Empirical research suggests that collective emotions, particularly those tied to identity and grievance, are exaggerated online. In addition, social media remains saturated with misinformation, conspiracy theories, hate speech, and abuse. Yet despite these pitfalls or perhaps because of them, social media retains enormous cultural and political influence. About 85% of Americans use YouTube, 70% use Facebook, 50% use Instagram, and around 30% use TikTok. X (formerly Twitter), while used by only 21% of Americans, ranks first among platforms people use to stay informed about political issues. Overall, 71% of U.S. adults use social media, compared to 59% in the UK.

These patterns do not map neatly onto generational divides—they reveal deeper social fault lines. For example, women are more likely to use Instagram, Hispanic Americans often use WhatsApp, Black Americans favor Facebook, higher income correlates with use of X, and lower education correlates with preference for TikTok. Social media has been especially effective in mobilizing previously disengaged voters, an important base for populist movements, precisely because it allows for customized messages to fragmented publics.

Moreover, political messaging online often blurs domestic and international boundaries. Issues like migration are reframed not as national concerns, but as shared transatlantic struggles. As a result, parties and platforms with vastly different policies can appear superficially aligned to evoke a sense of common cause.

A previous panelist (Colin Berg) mentioned that Kamala Harris’s refusal to appear on Joe Rogan’s podcast was a strategic error. With over almost 15 million followers, Rogan’s show is the most popular on Spotify and especially influential among young male voters, a group notoriously difficult to reach. This dynamic was evident in the German context as well. During the last election cycle, a transatlantic media alliance between Elon Musk and the far-right AfD party played out on X, where Musk publicly interviewed the AfD’s leader Alice Weidel.

Historically, many early social movements, from the American and French Revolutions to abolitionism, women’s suffrage, and temperance, relied on transatlantic communication and shared activist networks. Today’s democratic alliances must do the same, harnessing digital media fluently and critically. However, we should not assume that polarization is always best addressed through consensus, nor should polemics be entirely avoided. Social media’s global reach may be vulnerable to abuse, distortion, and disruption by AI, but it still offers a remarkable opportunity to generate democratic passion and engagement. This potential must be actively developed through a deliberate and thoughtful transatlantic communicative alliance.

---

---