Universes of Arguments: Mapping the Redistributive Debates in Norway and the United States

We use natural language processing to classify all pro-redistributive speeches in the U.S. Congress and Norwegian Storting from 2015 to 2022, contrasting arguments based on fairness with those based on the negative societal consequences of inequality (inequality externalities). Fairness-based arguments are markedly more emotional-especially expressing anger and compassion-while externality-based arguments are more analytical and frequently draw on empirical evidence. Pro-redistributive arguments in the U.S. primarily focus on fairness, whereas externality concerns are a central feature of the Norwegian debate. In an experiment, both types of arguments are similarly convincing to U.S. survey respondents, although a preference for fairness is linked to lower educational attainment. Our results document two distinct ways to argue for redistribution, whose prevalence differs across countries, and provide a general framework for comparing the content and evaluations of arguments across domains.