Of the many different candidates currently still vying for the position of President of the United States of America come the next election, few are as maligned as Donald Trump. As a very visible businessman and a celebrity in his own right, Trump has never shied away from very publicly and loudly voicing his political opinions, nor even when these opinions, usually coupled with his distinct look and attitude, have caused him to be widely ridiculed. Despite all this, with election season now far advanced, Trump is still in the running. Not only that, but poll results and the public’s general reception of him suggest that he is actually a viable candidate. So, how does a man go from being considered a nuisance candidate who is only seemingly running for publicity to a serious competitor for the presidency? As both an entertainer and a salesman, his popularity can be traced, not to the truth of his words or even the political value of his arguments, but in how well his presentation of his ideas and himself is received by his audience. A close analysis of his first speech as an official presidential hopeful reveals effective rhetorical strategies using mostly the main conservative heuristics identified by David Plazek, though lightly couched in liberal ideologies, while making spare but effective use of modernized and politicized versions of George Orwell’s concepts of dying metaphors and meaningless words.
The speech is the one Trump delivers on June 16, 2015 at the Trump Tower in New York. With a backdrop of multiple American flags and a podium that simply says “Trump” in bold capital letters, his campaign website, and his campaign slogan “make America great again!” Trump officially makes his campaign announcement (2015). For most of the speech, Trump criticizes the current administration by discussing the ways in which American has fallen behind China, Japan, and Mexico; “Islamic terrorism” and the ways he believes the current administration has exacerbated the problem; the “true” current state of the economy; and Obamacare. He also criticizes his fellow candidates and what he sees as their inability to handle the problems as he states that he, of all the candidates, is the only one talking about jobs and China. Thus, with Obamacare coming into full effect in 2016, the country needs “a truly great leader” who is also a “cheerleader,” one that can outsmart China and Mexico (Trump, 2015). He presents himself as a firm and effective political and economic negotiator. His platform, in fact, is making America rich based on the fact that he is very rich. He then summarizes by promising to be tough on ISIS, build a wall on the “southern border” and make Mexico pay for it, strengthen the military, negotiate with Iran, support the Second Amendment, remove Common Core education, rebuild the country’s infrastructure, “save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts,” “get rid of the fraud,” reduce the country’s debt, and bring back the American Dream (Trump, 2015).
As this is a political speech, it is only right that it is analyzed according to the readings which focus mainly on political rhetoric. Plazek (2012) gives a very concise discussion on the main characteristics which define the differences between conservative and liberal ideologies. He states that conservative characteristics focus on “mainlining the status quo, support of traditions, a pessimistic appraisal of human nature and possibilities, emphasis on nationalistic perspectives, greater focus on law and order, and a greater belief in punishment as motivation” (Plazek, 2012, p. 171). In contrast, liberal characteristics focus on “belief in progress/change, skepticism of tradition, optimistic appraisal of the human condition, fear of aggressive nationalism, human rights promotion, and emphasis on incentive” (174). Plazek argues that the characteristics in each set complement each other and the pursuance of one naturally follows from the pursuance of the others. While Plazek studies worldviews, Orwell (1956) focuses on the use of language, specifically what he sees as the “modern” tendency to convolute language in a way that creates “staleness of imagery” and a “lack of precision” (pg. 357). Two such rhetorical strategies that he pinpoints are what he calls “dying metaphors” (pg. 357), metaphors so over-used that they no longer either effect or meaning, and “meaningless words” (pg. 359), words that have no meaning in the given context and are used in a conscious attempt at duplicity. Although Orwell warns against the use of these, they are no doubt useful in the kind of generic and vague political writing that Orwell criticizes. In fact, if used properly, such examples of “bad writing” can be used to effectively put forward the ideologies presented by Plazek to please the crowd, although without truly saying anything of substance.
As a piece of formal writing, Trump’s speech fails in many respects. When viewed as a cohesive text, the entirety of his speech is very badly organized. He tends to repeat himself, move from topic to topic without any attempt at effective transitions, and often goes off into very barely related tangents. The gist of the speech, however, is clear enough: that the Obama administration has ruined the country and that he, because of his experience and resources, is the only one of the candidates and current leaders with the skill and knowhow who can bring America back to its former glory. As he is running under the Republican banner, one would expect Trump to appeal more to conservative ideologies. And, for most of his speech, he does manage to do this. His campaign slogan, which he repeats in his speech, “make America great again,” is a perfect illustration of what Plazek describes as the conservative tendency to “look fondly upon past eras that were “golden ages” (2012, p. 172). “Make America great,” the slogan of theformer president much-beloved of Republicans, Pres. Reagan, implies a fondness for the “greatness” of America at the time of his term. The tacking on of “again” at the end of this slogan is definitely a rhetorical appeal to nostalgia. It suggests a reversion to both old values and a previous “great” state. This coincides with Trump’s emphasis on basically undoing what he believes to be the damages done by the Obama administration, which include Common Core, the executive order on immigration, and Obamacare. At the same time, it is also an appeal to the conservative sense of nationalism. Trump frames foreign issues with an “us against them” mentality. Because of his largely economy-based platform, he contextualizes the effectiveness of foreign and economic policies in terms of competition, whether America is “beating” other countries (Trump, 2015). This, moreover, relates to what Plazek sees as a “pessimistic appraisal of human nature” (pg. 172). Trump presents other countries as basically out to get America. Mexico is sending all the people it does not want, burdened with the problems it is trying to get rid of, while China is finding ways to get the better of America in every deal and in the global market. At the same time, he also emphasizes the “stupidity” and corruption of current leaders and politicians. Lastly, he emphasizes the conservative stance on “law and order” (Plazek, 2012, p. 173) by stating that he plans to “fully support and back up the Second Amendment” (Trump, 2015). In fact, in his hypothetical story of what he would do if he were the president and dealing with the Ford Company choosing to build its factory in Mexico rather than America, Trump fully encapsulates what Plazek (2012) considers the conservative “belief in punishment as motivation” (pg. 171). He would motivate the president to do the right thing, i.e. build in America, by punishing them with high tariff rates. In fact, the wall that Trump promises to build is in itself another “stick” that would forcibly stop illegal immigration.
However, of all the conservative characteristics enumerated by Plazek, the conservation of the status quo is the only one which Trump does not tackle directly. In this case, he seems to lean towards what Plazek (2012) sees as the liberal characteristic of “belief in progress” (pg. 174). He promises to make great changes to the country: its infrastructure, its economy, and its foreign policies. Against the conservative tendency for slow change, he promises to make these changes quickly. However, one may argue that he is indirectly trying to conserve the status quo through his use of the tricks Orwell has identified that signal vagueness and duplicity. In modern politics, Orwell’s “dying metaphors” can be translated into political clichés. These are buzzwords (or, rather, buzz-phrases) that politicians use often because they induce a specific effect. Examples of such phrases are “our country is in serious trouble” or “the U.S. has become a dumping ground,” which are meant to get inspire dread and indignation. Similarly, Trump’s use of these empty words to rile up the crowd is, according to Orwell, signaled by his use of mixed metaphors, such as in “we have all the cards…we don’t even know that we have the cards because our leaders don’t understand the game. We could turn off that spigot…” (Trump, 2015). More importantly, much like his general call for government upheaval, Trump uses “meaningless words” in that he says crowd-pleasing phrases without meaningful context. Examples of these are “take care of our vets” or being “[tough] on ISIS;” these are popular sentiments but ultimately do not have any meaning because he attaches none to them. However, the best example of meaningless words that Trump incorporates into his speech is his reference to “the American dream;” the vague way in which he refers to its “death” and his plans to “bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before” robs the phrase of its meaning (2015). It is a usage that illustrates what Orwell (1956) calls “intent to deceive” (pg. 360). Thus, the vagueness and meaninglessness with which Trump tackles his references to change indirectly suggest the conservation of the status quo. In fact, because so much of his appeal to ethos is based on his success and status as a very rich man, one would imagine that maintaining the status quo is in his best interests. Thus, despite his reference to jobs, Trump notably makes no concrete references to liberal concepts of raising the middle class or anything else which may affect the current socio-economic hierarchies.
Ultimately, however, Trump’s speech is effective. He espouses plans that coincide perfectly with conservative ideologies, which is tactically astute considering that he has to first win over conservatives/Republicans to become the GOP nominee. At the same time, he makes grand declarations for change which would resonate with people who are currently dissatisfied with the current administration, while not promising anything beyond reverting America to some vague past greatness and fixing the country’s superficial problems (money, infrastructure, foreign policies) without disturbing its internal structure. He uses phrases that, despite not having any real meaning, are designed to please his audience. Thus, despite the weaknesses in the structure and truth-value of his speech, as a salesman, Trump knows how to use the rhetorical strategies outlined by Plazek and Orwell to sell himself in the most effective way possible.
Works Cited
Orwell, G. (1956). Politics and the English Language. The Orwell Reader. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 355-366.
Plazek, D. (2012). Ideology Spotting: An exercise in teaching conservatism and liberalism. Journal of Political Science Education, 8(2), 168-188.
Trump, D. (2015). Our Country Needs A Truly Great Leader. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/16/donald-trump-transcript-our-country-needs-a-truly-great-leader/
For a custom paper on the above topic, place your order now!
What We Offer:
• On-time delivery guarantee
• PhD-level writers
• Automatic plagiarism check
• 100% money-back guarantee
• 100% Privacy and Confidentiality
• High Quality custom-written paper
