Here is the definition that I used earlier for "ideology:"
An ideology is a shared model of social phenomena that is used for conceptualizing, discussing, and evaluating political issues.
In the same earlier essay I described the two levels on which political ideology exists: a visible or audible level that provides resources for thinking and talking about society; and a submerged level in which personal needs drive the ideological sense. (See "motivated cognition.")
I draw in this essay on “Analysing Political Speech: Rhetoric, Discourse and Metaphor," by Jonathan Charteris-Black, Palgrave, 2018. Charteris-Black's book examines political rhetoric of the last sixty years both from the standpoint of classical rhetoric, which teaches rhetoric as a type of persuasive speech, and from the standpoint of more-modern analytic frameworks, which expand the context of analysis to include the political struggle that motivates rhetoric. He has particularly attended to political rhetoric of the past two decades, conservative and liberal, in the UK and the US.
In the following I will discuss features recognized in classical rhetorical analysis that bear on its conceptual and communicative form, as well as features of recent conservative rhetoric that are displayed in the examples that Charteris-Black has chosen for his own didactic purposes. While I recognize that you may feel as oppressed by Trumpspeak as I do, I hope to make some significant points about the political and cognitive effects of Trump's communicative style.
(The major sections "The Mark and the Draw," "God On Our Side: The Christian Soul and Ideology," and "Living in a Conservative World" provide some insight into how the external language of political ideology affects and is affected by our internal lives.)
Charteris-Black enjoys rhetoric at the same time that he sees the dangers in it.
Rhetoric is simply “how persuasion operates in language.” [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 27] Persuasion is how we come to decisions as a community. The techniques of rhetoric are worthy of study because they aid our discussions and motivate our group actions. According to Aristotle, who collected and explained the techniques of Greek rhetoricians in the fourth century BCE, “rhetoric co-ordinated human action by allowing people the opportunity to debate alternative policies.” [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 5]
In Aristotle's Greece, a rhetor was an individual examined and licensed by the state to argue publicly about both public and private matters. He was trained in rhetorical techniques appropriate to different situations and audiences, from trials, to assemblies of the senate or the commons, to diplomatic missions. Aristotle collected and systematized the techniques of the trade, and this rhetoric was an important attainment for public men well into the last century.
Rhetorical technique is a blend of logic and emotion. Logic is more important, perhaps, in a trial, where points of the law must be satisfied. Emotion is more important, perhaps, in political decision-making or in establishing shared values in times of stress. Says Charteris-Black, “Hope is a social necessity, and to achieve their purposes, political speeches need to satisfy emotional, moral and social needs.” [Charteris-Black 2018, p. xii]
While classic Aristotelian concepts of rhetoric have produced magnificent and admirable works of rhetorical art, it was already quite evident in Aristotle's time that there is another important perspective on rhetoric, the perspective that looks at how rhetoric is used within the context of political struggles. Demagogues (leaders of the common people) such as the Athenian Demosthenes were well-known then, as was the effectiveness of their rhetoric in affecting the actions of the state.
Charteris-Black's "Analysing Political Speech" also considers this broader context of rhetoric, when he discusses modern frameworks for the contextual analysis of rhetoric. I'll follow him, beginning with some basic concepts of rhetorical expression, then looking at Trump's rhetoric in the context of conservative political ideology.
Charteris-Black identifies five elements to effective persuasion: [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 100]
“‘Telling the right story’ means providing a set of frames or schemas that fit with the audience’s assumptions about how the world works.” [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 103] His analysis is rather gloomy, since it implies that no one's understanding of the world will be changed by political rhetoric. With respect to 'sounding right,' he comments in his introduction that “the more analytical, the less authentic a speaker may seem.” [Charteris-Black 2018, p. xviii] In fact, as I'll discuss later, Donald Trump's political persona consistently denies any value to analytical thinking. The more complex the argument, the less persuasive. I'll proceed with a few more examples of rhetorical principles.
Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Take these sunken eyes and learn to see
All your life
You were only waiting for this moment to be free
Lennon/McCartney
Metaphor is the use of a word or phrase to apply to something other than its literal meaning. An effective metaphor will link the subject of conversation and its metaphoric substitute by some common trait. In the Lennon/McCartney lyric above, "blackbird" is English slang for a "black" person, or as we say in the US, a person of color. The lyric unwinds the racial slang and has us envision a black bird, creating a new metaphor from it. The bird is singing in the dead night, an image which the song turns into a freedom cry. The black bird uses his broken wings to fly and his sunken eyes to see, weaving further metaphors of freedom, hope, and empowerment.
Paul creates a beautiful message through his clever manipulation of language, an effect probably not attainable using more literal language. The lyric must be followed carefully to find its meaning, a signature technique of the Beatles. That is art.
Metaphor can be used in that same way within political discourse. It can make the message more compelling, engage the hearer's imagination, and make the meaning less specific and less every-day. Sometimes it is used in this way but, if Charteris-Black's speech examples are at all representative, it isn't used a lot in that way currently. In fact, Charteris-Black suggests that Barack Obama's use of formal speech and conventional political metaphor may have alienated segments of the voting population from him and his message.
Political rhetoric has no rules of usage nor indeed few rules of any sort, so metaphor can be used in political rhetoric in the worst possible ways. Linguistic scientists have found convincing evidence that metaphor is an intrinsic part of the way we think, even about rather mundane mechanical things. A thought or a problem can be heavy, not just rocks or logs. One thing can be after another in time, in space, or in importance. We use metaphor naturally and without awareness.
This makes us, you might say, susceptible to metaphors. When we first hear a novel metaphor, we search for the commonality between the subject and the metaphor and when we find it, we go on from there. But as a metaphor becomes more commonplace we notice it less and less. We accept the metaphor, and all the characteristics that belong to the metaphor can be transferred to its subject. If someone refers to some event as a "car crash," for example, we know that it was something bad. But a "car crash" is different from a "problem" or a "mistake." How many of the implications of "car crash" do our minds transfer to the event? How many were intended by the speaker? This is what creates the potential for misuse of metaphor.
Charteris-Black discusses the possibility of systematic study of the wide use of metaphor in political rhetoric. Many of the problems encountered by such a study flow from the slippery nature of metaphor. How does the researcher distinguish a novel from a traditional metaphor? How does one determine the speaker's intent when he/she uses a particular metaphor? How does one determine, then, what communication has occurred between speaker and hearer? [Charteris-Black 2018, pp. 197 et cf.]
Metaphor seems always to highlight some aspects and hide others. Despite the difficulties in studying it, “exploring possible motives (conscious or otherwise) that underlie the use of [a specific] metaphor raises awareness of the potential scope for metaphor for the communication of ideology—even though in real-time processing hearers are only aware of a general effect, or conceptual blend, rather than its cause.” [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 247]
He proposes several possible purposes for metaphor in political rhetoric: [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 248]
Metaphors can be used to speak in an apparently simple way about complex issues. For example, “credit crunch” became the way to refer to credit restrictions during the sub-prime mortgage crisis that became apparent in 2007. Metaphor simplifies issues, one effect being that it can facilitate the arrival at decisions. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 250]
Consider "fire" metaphors as an example of the sorts of metaphors Charteris-Black has focused attention on. EMOTION IS FIRE and POLITICAL CONVICTION IS FIRE (as in “flame of courage” or “flame of change” or “fanning the flames of...”) works because our temperatures go up when we are aroused. The metaphor also carries with it the cultural knowledge that fire is used to destroy things, including to deliberately destroy things that are unwanted, and to purify things that are contaminated. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 245]
A metaphor such as “flood of” or “tidal wave of" immigrants cloaks a partly-hidden message of fear. An alternative water metaphor, “large flow,” doesn’t introduce fear. The use of either of the first two metaphors allows the speaker to introduce fear quietly or even surreptitiously. The speaker using this language might desire to introduce fear without explicitly suggesting that his supporters are fearful, or might wish to avoid any discussion about whether fear is appropriate to a discussion of immigration.
Disease metaphors (“a cancer”) unobtrusively make the case that great interests are at stake and extreme measures are justified. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 252] They prepare the way for proposals that will “cure” the disease. They also prepare the way for another metaphor, “politician as doctor,” who knows both the correct diagnosis and the cure.
“Crime metaphors cast politicians as judges, and plant metaphors [“grow the economy”] as gardeners, but without making explicit the role of judge or gardener, because ideological uses of language are generally covert.” [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 257] The purpose of such metaphors may be to gain acceptance of these framings. This unfortunately leads to an incomplete political agreement. Even hearers who are willing to accept the politician-as-judge may have quite a cloudy picture of what powers are to be given to him. If political discourse has the objective of agreement, such discourse is a failure.
Metaphors can be much more complex than these I have mentioned. George Lakoff, in “Moral Politics,” University of Chicago Press, 2002, analyzed Democratic and Republican worldviews as nurturing parent (meeting needs) vs strict father (source of authority). Such metaphoric systems appeal to strong subconscious emotional processes, again without making much explicit. This simplifies policy differences into a misleading emotional dichotomy. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 258]
We use socially-developed political metaphors both to understand and to communicate our personal social experiences. An example of the communicative impasse this can cause was provided by the “crosshairs” political ad. Sarah Palin in 2011 released a poster that represented twenty Democratic “targets” marked by telescopic sight crosshairs. This visual imagery allows/requires the beholder to project their own meanings onto the image, without at the same time committing its publisher to a specific interpretation. The meaning of the crosshairs differs depending on one’s experiences. To some the crosshairs apparently mean “something to watch.” To some they mean “something to destroy."
Political “myths” or “narratives” can be built up and evolve based on shared ideological metaphors. [Charteris-Black, p. 244] Abstract social metaphors have a fuzzy meaning that is exploited in political discourse. Their ambiguity is useful to: create messages that are broad in meaning; to avoid specificities that will alienate some listeners; to facilitate the omission of firm facts; and to allow denial of intended meanings.
All of these aspects of political metaphor can sacrifice clarity and understanding for the sake of positive evaluation.
Today people are rioting in Greece. They are fighting for the breathtaking principle that the community has no right to regulate the public behavior of its members. They insist that they are not "anti-vaccine" but are "anti-fascist." This is their preferred naming and their preferred framing. They are intent on labeling their government "fascist" rather than "prudent" or "catastrophizing," and may well intend the consequences that will flow from that choice.
Agency (who did what to whom) is often manipulated in political discourse. It can be foregrounded or backgrounded, depending upon the objectives of the speaker. One way this is done is by naming. Individuals and groups can be named in a variety of ways. For example, both “we” and "you" can be ambiguous both as to identity and as to number.
As an example of naming using nouns, suppose that Senators Manchin and Sinema have done something worthy of comment by members of their opposition. They could be referred to by name; as “two Democrat Senators;” as “Democrat Senators;” as “Democratic leaders;” as “the Democrats;” or as “the liberals,” depending on rhetorical purpose. None of these descriptions, by common standards, is quite false. Each of these namings suggests or reinforces a different perspective. Traits that are associated with one designation may not be associated with another. Different namings suggest different perspectives on whatever happened. And, it’s usually challenging to unravel these effects as they are created in real time, much less to analyze or critique them.
Naming our two example senators perhaps calls up their personality, appearance, or their recent behaviors. Naming them “two Democrat Senators” brings up their roles as office holders and their party allegiances. The adjectival “Democrat” highlights partisanship, since Democrats tend to prefer the adjective “Democratic.”
Selective and deliberate naming, when used consistently across time and occasions, can develop and accent distinctions that highlight and strengthen the perceived group allegiances of in-group and out-group. They can create distance or closeness by suggesting normality or abnormality. Stereotypes are created and nourished by such processes.
The Trumpish right has made conspicuous efforts to defend their right to name without criticism, claiming to disdain "political correctness." This supports their persona, as people disdainful of customary practice. You might think that it would be more straightforward for them to endorse correctness and claim that their naming practices are correct. Such a strategy, however, would open that position to challenge, something that they apparently don't welcome. I believe that they find naming a useful tactic for promoting in-group/out-group contrasts.
Verbs can be used to modulate the sense of agency-—who did what to whom. Active voice is strong. Passive is weaker. Transitive verbs identify what was affected, while intransitive verbs don’t. [Charteris-Black 2018, pp. 113-115] These effects are achieved in rhetoric by simple word choices but can have powerful effects when used consistently and repeatedly.
Charteris-Black provides an interesting analysis of "hard" Brexit advocate Jacob Rees-Mogg's "leave" speech from January 25, 2018, which was about six months prior to the Brexit vote. Charteris-Black points out, for example, that Rees-Mogg's economic arguments are entirely lacking any numbers or, in fact, any facts. Charteris-Black suggests that by onitting facts, Rees-Moggs may have been protecting himself from challenges to the accuracy of any figures he might have cited. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 152-3]
There's no correspondence between the items that share a row in the following table. Contrast the two columns.
| Leave descriptors | Remain descriptors |
|---|---|
| "take responsibilty for its own future and become a role model" | "make the UK a rule taker" |
| "aspirational societies" | "vassal of the EU" |
| "tremendous possibility" | "on the back of UK consumers" |
| "injection of wealth" | "lover of vested interests" |
| "improve the lot of all mankind" | "sclerotic Europe" |
| "hope and opportunity" | "panjandrums in Davos" |
| "unfettered" | "disturbing signs" |
| "jump-starting" | "crony interest" |
| "our best days lie before us" | "damage limitation exercise" |
| "called on to be a shaper" | "management of decline" |
| "flexible economy" | "cowed by the EU" |
| "next great economic revolution" | "deadweight" |
| "gummed up" | |
| "pen-pushers" |
How do you argue with logic like that?
By just applying selected words to leaving and staying, Rees-Moggs has convinced me that I have absolutely no interest in remaining in the EU, without making any statements that can be fact-checked, and in fact with no argument at all. He has merely "called names" very consistently and thoroughly. I might go so far as to say that one would need only a thesaurus to write such a speech.
Earlier I listed Charteris-Black's five elements to effective persuasion: [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 100]
Once battle lines have been constructed, persuasiveness can be established by a speaker in very few words. In fact, using the understood language to refer to a wedge issue can win four of five points in the persuasion sweepstakes.
Conservatives in both the US and UK have had the issue of immigration at hand to use as a wedge for quite a few years. The knowledge and beliefs of speaker and hearer interact. “...hearers will have a pre-existing template formed through stereotypical media representations of an immigrant whose primary purpose in traveling to a Western country is to obtain access to its welfare services without working. The [British] Conservative Party sought to activate this schema in their 2005 campaign by using the poster slogan ‘Are you thinking what we’re thinking?’”
They relied upon the schema of the welfare immigrant. It didn’t work for them because their timing was off, and not many people were in fact thinking that. “The most powerful form of control over others is control over their minds—how people think as individuals is strongly influenced by the language employed to describe social situations, because language contributes to individual mental representations...that we have about the world.” Note that the ‘Are you thinking...’ strategy relies on recognition of a stereotype and by its framing it dodges debate. In fact, it doesn’t even reveal what ‘they’ are thinking, much less make any specific claim that is possible to discuss.
This use of implicit themes (or are they memes?) to establish affiliation has been called "dog whistling" in the press. A dog whistle sends a signal that is clear to its target but unheard by others. Communicative patterns that we've heard lately such as "Are you thinking..." aren't in that sense dog whistles, since they seem to be pretty easy for us to hear. Perhaps a new metaphor is needed to apply to signals that are understood by all, but are deniable by the speakers and their intended targets.
Topoi, plural of topos, are defined as elements of rhetorical arguments according to the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) to rhetorical analysis that Charteris-Black describes in chapter 6 of this book. A topos, roughly speaking, is a rule of argumentation that connects premises to conclusions. Topoi are not normative but empirical, that is, topoi are found by analysis of political speech, and do not necessarily yield correct conclusions.
In classical rhetoric a topos is a commonplace argument such as "Everything comes to an end." Topos literally translates as "place." The meaning under DHA therefore differs from the classical meaning. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 143]
Charteris-Black provides a table listing seventeen such topoi that other researchers have identified, and includes examples he found while analyzing speech used during the debate over Brexit. The complete list is of interest because these topoi are frequently used and they all have an important feature in common: they ask the hearer to make a commitment based upon a deliberately incomplete view of the alternatives and their consequences. I invite you to read the book if you're interested, but to make my message I'll present a few here.
The topos of "usefulness" asks you to approve a position or action if it will cause useful results. The required premise for an argument of usefulness is some positive effect. The conclusion is that one ought to endorse the position or take the action. The example cited is "Let's just stick with the facts, migrants contribute more than they take out [sic] the system." The speaker (actually, the Tweeter) here acknowledges the possibility that other facts may be relevant, but asks that we consider only the supposed fact of migrants' contributions.
The topos of "uselessness" is the opposite of "usefulness." If a position or action has an un-useful or harmful consequence, it ought to be rejected. The example reads "I see absolutely no upside in #Brexit. The only 'sovereignty' we will regain controlled by right wing Conservative rump, UKIP, and far right." Here again the Tweeter asks us to not consider any other effects of leaving or remaining.
The topos of "exploitation" claims that, because people are exploited by those in power, we should take action against the powerful. The example Tweet: "The blond guy on the pic is leading UK towards #Brexit to defend the working class against Brussels' elite, right?" The picture is of Boris Johnson on his way to a formal dinner. Here again, the argument ignores options and consequences.
The topos of "people" argues that if "the people" favor a policy, it should be implemented. The example: "Break out of your chains #Brexit. Be brave and vote for the #Brexit. Stand up to the fear mongering and beLEAVE." The example includes an aroma of freedom fighting, and like the others it asks decision makers to look at something very much different from the options and their consequences. [Charteris-Black 2018, pp. 144-5]
The examples cited are taken from Tweets, a format that by design encourages brief messages. Such usage of Twitter supports Marshall McLuhan's "medium is the message" idea, but facts are also easy to express succinctly.
Critical Discourse Analysis is concerned with, among other things, the use of rhetoric in power relationships. “...texts are illegitimate when they have negative mental consequences—that is, they contribute to disinformation, stereotypes, and prejudices.” [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 88] “...it is often quite hard to gain access to forums of power, because restricted access to information is a key means of social control.” [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 89]
Analysis of political speech requires identification of the social context—who is addressing whom in what context of events or issues, and for what purposes. Such analysis reveals things about the use of language as power that aren’t apparent from the text alone. Charteris-Black refers to the role of ideologic rhetoric in creating a model of the social world when he remarks that “…analysing the reasons behind language choices helps us to understand how the social world is created.” [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 90] “...politics is a theatrical domain,” therefore acting skills are important. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 97]
Because of these features in some political speech, interpretation is aided by asking questions such as the following. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 98]
Speaking to ideology as a shorthand way to declare political positions, Susan Fiske connected rhetoric with social judgment: [Fiske 2012, p. 85]
People are famously cognitive misers: in our judgments, we go for fast, frugal, and good enough. What comes to mind easily often determines our top-of-the-head decisions. In keeping with our mental efficiency, we rapidly judge whether another person supplies a similar or dissimilar standard.
Let me apologize again, but consider this section not so much about Donald Trump as about conservative use of rhetoric. Conservative politicians face a big risk that liberals don't face: When a conservative tries to broaden the appeal of his message, he is liable to become beholden to extreme authoritarians. His personal beliefs may be effectively irrelevant.
You may not need to be reminded of this, but much was made about Trump's self-presentation during the 2016 presidential campaign and the start of his administration. The media said that his manner of speech was "unpresidential," and you might have thought from those media comments that this was disqualifying. But his political persona has also been seen as an element in his political "success."
I invoke again Charteris-Black's elements of effective persuasion: [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 100]
Sounding right, thinking right, and looking right are all on the list, and it turns out that a lot of people think that Donald Trump does all three of these.
For example, his “use of Twitter...has given his followers the feeling that they are actively engaged in the political process.” The immediacy of the Twitter service creates the appearance of a "more intimate relationship" with the politician. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. xvi] Never mind that Twitter is as intimate as a mass mailing, and never mind that its message-length limitation makes it hard to communicate much of a message. As we've seen, complex messages are a problematic part of political communication. The medium suits Trump, master of the incomplete thought, and it suits his base of followers. His use of this particular medium says, I think, that "This isn't really all that complicated. You could do this yourself."
The ability to speak without a script can be seen as a mark of authenticity, and Trump has shown that he can go on and on ex tempore. In this way Trump shows that he "knows his stuff," but only if you buy into the things he says. (Personally I suffer cognitive overload if I try to find the wheat among the chaff in real time.) Again, his mode of communication not only is consistent with his own cognitive style, but it also selects for those with a compatible cognitive style. It sends congruent political and social messages.
Trump managed to make a political asset of his reputed wealth. This is a remarkable rhetorical achievement when you consider that his base of support includes those who feel economically cheated. He has used his reputed wealth for its halo, claiming that it is evidence of his exceptional competence. Many of his political base believe that possession of wealth is a sign of God's blessing (see A Just World with Just Institutions). He has also used his reputed wealth to support a claim that there is no self-interest in his political career. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 11]
Like the British advocates for Brexit, his campaign pitted the use of emotion against arguments from reason by his opponents. He won. Emotional language not only is more engaging for many, it also allows avoidance and manipulation of facts. In the world constructed by Trumpian rhetoric, it’s not a question of policies but of people. (Examples of the use of emotion by the Brexiteers can be found on p. 17 of [Charteris-Black 2018].) Said Trump:
I am your voice. So to every parent who dreams for their child, and every child who dreams for their future, I say these words to you tonight: I am with you. I will fight for you. And I will win for you. (21 July 2016) [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 25]
I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives or worked in business or worked in trade or, indeed, ever created a job, but listen, just listen.
Nigel Farage, Brexit advocate, made these comments adressing the European Parliament while being booed. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 166] His comments weren't intended to change his audience's opinions, but to challenge its legitimacy. These remarks activate negative images of politicians and were probably directed toward British voters.
Trump's incivility, particularly his attraction to insults and belittlement, also has attracted comment throughout his brief political career. Again, there was a lot of comment about "violating norms," but less appreciation of incivility as a rhetorical tool. Like everything else Trump has done, there's nothing particularly innovative about it. Charteris-Black noted in his introduction that “a discourse of rejection-—often characterised stylistically as impoliteness” in recent years is an “essential component of political rhetoric,” pointing especially to examples from the right. [Charteris-Black 2018, p. xiii]
The potency and emotion of uncivil behavior derive from its challenge of status expectations. Although we can say, "Sticks and stones, etc.," derogatory names represent a status challenge. You don't tug on Superman's cape, and you don't insult a former U. S. senator and Secretary of State without communicating a lack of respect. Certain forms of address are called for by certain role relationships. But Trump didn't limit his insulting behavior to his Democratic opponents. He used it against Republicans, against the media in general, and even against secondary targets.
Why insults and belittlements? Here again, Trump seems to naturally think in such terms, but beyond this, such disrespect ties in to the theme that his opponents are corrupt and therefore not entitled to respect. If your opposition isn't worthy of respect, there's also no sense in engaging with them on substantive issues. Other benefits might include more media attention. Higher emotional expressivity may increase Trump's believability in certain eyes. The willingness to employ insults implies social equality or superiority over the opponent, lack of respect, or lack of fear. The use of offensive speech seems to be make one something of a freedom fighter when supported by a crude interpretation of "free speech."
Trump's use of colloquial disrespect in his speeches and campaign rallies supports an atmosphere that feels appropriate to his adherents. It promotes identification with him by his voters. It supports another communicative theme of his campaign and his "movement," ad populum, an appeal to "popular sentiment" as justification for political actions and policies. This is apparently very emotionally engaging to his audience, many of whom seem to want to see themselves as "we, the people" unfettered by constitutional structures.
Stylistically, such attacks fit with language and forms of address that are popular on social media, sitcoms, and "reality TV." Insults tend to enforce attention. Insults are presumed to harm their targets, and therefore they're scored as effective rhetorical strokes. In the political context, insults can positively engage the speaker's supporters and strengthen their identities as members of Trumpworld.
Mock insults can build relationships among peers, and insults in a political context can be rhetorical sparring. Hillary Clinton in 2017 remarked that "I was running a traditional presidential campaign with carefully thought-out policies and painstakingly built coalitions, while Trump was running a reality TV show that expertly and relentlessly stoked Americans' anger and resentment." [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 165]
Clinton also remarked retrospectively that "When people are angry and looking for someone to blame...[t]hey want you to be angry, too." Charteris-Black found Trump's lashings-out to be an effective rhetorical ploy: "It was Donald Trump who was more successful in giving voice to this anger by finding relatively soft targets on which he could sharpen his rhetorical knife: immigrants, Mexicans and Muslims.” [Charteris-Black 2018, p. xvi]
Trump and company interpreted criticisms of his lack of politeness as 1) a smear campaign and 2) overconcern with political correctness. This position reinforced his arguments against what he called "identity politics" and against the fairness of news media. Trump used ad hominem (personal) attacks as entertainment (which would be seen as positive by the Trump-ready). He presented himself politically like a celebrity emcee or the host of a "roast". His "boyishness" and looseness appealed to some.
Incivility has been useful and effortless for Trump's political enterprise, but many of us who aren't fans have a very different view. "A coercive action is an action taken with the intention of imposing harm on another person or forcing compliance. Actors engaged in coercive actions expect that their behaviour will either harm the target or lead to compliance...." [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 168. The quote is identified as coming from "Felson 1994."] Political impoliteness can be regarded as coercion, which is seen as appropriate by authoritarian followers. The harm here is the degrading of the target's status. Hillary Clinton argued against this coercion and in favor of "issues" during her campaign, but to little avail.
The responses that are available to the target of ad hominem assaults are limited. They include: 1) ignore the attack; 2) ignore the attack and end the interaction; 3) counter-attack; 4) request a retraction. Each of these defences is difficult to perform successfully, especially when the attack is not expected and the attacker is skilled. There are strategies in addition to those listed, but each is difficult. But the successfulness of an ad hominem attack depends on the viewpoint of the listener.
In What Conservatism Is I pointed out that a political ideology ought to provide a vision of the hoped-for future to its adherents. What follows is not a representative sample of Trump's speech, but it does seem to provide a reasonable description of the vision he enticed his voters with in his 2016 campaign. I find it revealing to review this 2016 rhetoric in light of what has proven to be the reality of Donald Trump and those who support him.
If we let the Clinton cartel run this government, history will record that 2017 was the year America lost its independence. We will not let this happen. It is time. It is time to drain the swamp in Washington, DC. This is why I’m proposing a package of ethics reforms to make our government honest again. (18 October 2016) [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 11]
Here Trump represents himself as protector of the "independence" of our country. Neither in his campaign nor over the duration of his administration did he define exactly what he meant by this, instead relying on the ambiguity of a long-standing right-wing trope. He used the phrase "drain the swamp" 62 times in his election speeches. Again, he never said exactly what he meant and relied on a trope that had been built up by the rightist media over decades. As far as his "ethics reforms," they were never heard from again. Everyone wants independence, freedom from mosquitoes, and better ethics. This statement is an illustration of how to use rhetorical constructs to 4avoid saying anything, which is apparently not nearly as dangerous as something specific that can be quoted and challenged.
My contract with the American voter begins with a plan to end government corruption. I want the entire corrupt Washington establishment to hear the words we are all about to say. When we win on November 8, we are going to drain the swamp. I keep telling people, I hated that expression....They went crazy about it, and now I love it. It’s true. It’s very accurate. (28 October 2016) [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 11]
No one likes corruption, yet this is hardly a benign statement. As we've since been forced to realize, democratic processes are themselves corrupt to a significant body of our citizens. Such language by its vagueness prevents people from making a clear statement of their preferences in the election. His digression about embracing the slogan "Drain the swamp" implied that he was alert to the "voice of the people" and was willing to follow it. We are forced to recognize following the 2020 election that this was imposture.
Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American People.
Here he has rhetorically recast himself as a movement, which is the American People.
There is nothing the political establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense. (13 October 2016) [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 20]
This is an astounding brief statement if you look at it in detail. First, he has now opposed himself to "the political establishment." Like other creatures of myth, no one has ever seen the political establishment, allowing Trump's followers to imagine it in whatever way they prefer. Clearly it is meant to include a very large number of people and institutions.
Trump can't possibly know that there is nothing this "establishment" will not do. The statement seems to imply that this group has a history of doing terrible things, including lying without restraint. Nor could he reasonably defend the assertion that the "establishment" has done its deeds "to hold on to their prestige and power." One set of citizens would find such a statement disqualifying for a presidential candidate. Another set, a group of people with a terrifying view of our community, would find the statement worthy of applause.
The claim that this "political establishment" lies and otherwise acts corruptly "at your expense" is at the same time commonplace and staggering. Any suboptimal performance by the federal government of course affects us all. That's why we have a democracy, I suppose. But within the context of themes and tropes of right wing propaganda, the statement is targeted at resentment, envy, and a win-lose view of the political process. It is an invitation to be agggrieved.
The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself....But the central base of world political power is here in America, and it is our corrupt political establishment that is the greatest power behind the efforts at radical globalization and the disenfranchisement of working people. Their financial resources are unlimited. Their political resources are unlimited. Their media resources are unlimited. And, most importantly, the depths of their immorality is unlimited. (13 October 2016)
So, Trump finally removes his kid gloves! Not only does the "establishment" act corruptly, but it exists only for corrupt purposes! To hell with the Constitution, checks and balances, public discussion, and all the rest. He again presents himself as a savior, David against the governmental Goliath. Bizarrely, he invokes "immorality" to stain his imaginary opponents with no hint of irony.
Tonight, I will share with you my plan for action for America. The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponent is that our plan will put America first.
Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America first, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. The respect that we deserve.
The American people will come first once again.
My plan will begin with safety at home. Which means, safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity without law and order! (21 July 2016, the day that the Republican National Convention drank the Kool-Aid.) [Charteris-Black, p. 22]
"Put America first" is here contrasted to "globalization," which is not an unreasonable contrast on its face. But similar to his other platform planks, Trump invites the national Republican party to accept the further political positions that: 1) globalization was avoidable, 2) the globalization process was deliberately managed to disadvantage American citizens, 3) globalization is in opposition to the interests of American citizens, 4) protecting "respect" for America is a reasonable motive for trade and foreign policy, and 5) probably other positions that Trump associated with this slogan.
He moved on to safety and "law and order," thereby resurrecting Richard Milhous Nixon, 1968, and 1972. To repeat myself, by invoking "law and order" he put up a blank canvas that his followers could paint with their own preferred image of what improved law and order would be. We know that to an authoritarian, law and order means the enforcement of their preferred policies, and not rule of law.
This is a struggle for the survival of our nation. And this will be our last chance to save it. (13 November 2016) [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 22]
Trump as messiah.
One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world. (20 January 2017. “American Carnage” speech.) [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 23]
In fact much thought was given to the workers, and actions were taken on their behalf. Trump might have portrayed those actions as insufficient and bungled and perhaps, in so saying, would have said something that attracted positive attention to the problem. As to the sub-prime debacle ("The wealth of our middle class...."), his analysis contains at least a grain of truth, but the speechwriter was more motivated to generate anger than positive understanding, which in any case would have undermined Trump's message of less government.
Our great civilization has come upon a moment of reckoning. I didn’t need to do this, folks, believe me. (13 October 2016) [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 26]
One of the notable aspects of the Trump insurgency has been that it has occurred at a time of security and prosperity. The "reckoning" they are concerned with seems to be the inability of their political efforts to attract more than minority support. Hence their efforts to present a vague platform.
I’m doing this for the people and for the movement, and we will take back this country for you and we will make America great again. (13 October 2016) [Charteris-Black 2018, p. 26]
This summarizes Trump's political program: The country has been taken away from you by someone or something, and he will return it to you with no view to his own interests, and you will live in the world you remember from your fantasies.
What could go wrong? Michael Wolff in his book "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump Whitehouse" described a White House scene that occurred shortly after Trump assumed office. Steve Bannon sits alone in his office with a whiteboard on which are written the various claims, slogans, and promises that Trump made during the 2016 canpaign. Bannon has been charged with converting these into an agenda for governing. As we know, no agenda ever resulted.
His rhetoric was effective enough to win the 2016 electoral college. Its ineffectiveness at finding a policy consensus for governing the nation has subsequently become undeniably clear. Trump's vague accusatiins and promises have fueled more resentment among his supporters. Still, Trump obtained large popular majorities in large parts of the country in 2020. The Republican party is no closer to formulating a clear and popular platform. It is easy to see that he has invented a new negative-sum form of political gaming. It is less clear how to find a new consensus.
Next: Introduction to the Claims
More information:
[Charteris-Black 2018] “Analysing Political Speech: Rhetoric, Discourse and Metaphor," Jonathan Charteris-Black, Palgrave, 2018.
[Wolff 2019] “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump Whitehouse," Michael Wolff, Holt, 2019.
© 2021, Ross A. Hangartner