Tag Archives: name-calling

Donald Trump’s Rhetorical Demonology

Problem Practices, Rhetorical Mastery, , , , , , , , ,

trump

The rhetorical sleight of hand that turns individuals or nations into objects of scorn is not that unusual. But it is crippling to a nation when a leader charged with serving the public makes it his signature style.

Would we be naïve to assume that political discourse should be centered on questions of policy? Perhaps. But most individuals who want to serve in the political arena have action plans they would like to apply to intransigent problems. The language that results is usually melioristic; it suggests improved conditions for many, meaning the action would be better, more effective, more efficient in moving the nation (county, town, state) forward. If this is not what politics is about, what is left is a mostly a pathetic form of performance art.

Donald Trump’s rhetoric unfortunately fits this darker pattern, being almost consistently adversarial, reducing even structural problems to individual action, and resting most heavily on a rhetoric of personal invective. It is his dominant and recurring rhetorical motif. Any expression of opponents undergoes a transformation into a demonology of vilification. If half the nation is weary of his presence on the national scene, it is because he has personalized nearly every discussion by turning it into gladiatorial contest using terms that savage doubters. It is a binary logic that results in threatened lawsuits against journalists, media operators and sometimes members of his own party. Pick a national figure who must work with Trump and, as in a schoolyard taunt, their given names are prefaced with infantile adjectives or nouns: “dopey,” “Lyin,’” “fat,” “crooked,” “shady,” “slimeball,” “ditzy” “birdbrain,” and so on. It’s as if Trump acquired a kind of verbal aphasia that made him incapable of learning the art of conversation. No wonder that those who know him well says that he really has no friends. What is left is the brash language of a Las Vegas comedian, often with a touch of menace reminiscent of a crime boss in an old Warner Brothers film. Just through 2021, the New York Times had catalogued nearly 10,000 insults Trump hurled at his opponents, often in his party, and often made while he was President the first time. A sample describing Robert Mueller’s investigative team appointed by the Department of Justice:

A “gang of treasonous thugs,”
“18 Angry Democrats”

“illegally in on the SCAM?”

“losers”

a “hit squad”

These are mild compared to hundreds of other samples that could be cited. Even so, these labels are wounding to those singled out as enemies of the state.

Even an advisory that this President us mostly unfit to be heard by children would not out of line.

The hortatory language of political persuasion was never meant to rest on ad hominem put downs. Ad hominem comments (attacks on an individual rather than their ideas) reside in a dark cellar of public discourse. They play surprisingly well to television viewers accustomed to the melodramatic language of the streets. But this language is a tedious crutch that conceals Trump’s incompetence at explaining policy on its own terms,

The rhetorical sleight of hand that turns individuals into objects of scorn is not completely unusual in American political rhetoric. But when used by a leader formally charged with serving the needs of a vast nation, it is crippling to all of us. Think of how Trump has already treated our friends in Canada, deconstructing an important relationship built over decades. In contrast, the norm for virtually every President has been to celebrate the citizenry rather than hide behind childish put-downs. All modern presidents have attempted to offer hope and words that inspire. Their body language is usually open, not aggressive. It would not “old fashioned” to ask this leader to give his discussions a degree of dignity. This approach is an essential attribute of problem-solvers who seek to reduce their differences with others by sticking to transcendant rather than divisive terms.

Studies indicate that the president is the first public official children recognize. It might seem like a joke, but an advisory that this President is mostly unfit to be seen and heard by children would not be out of line. It is something the American Academy of Pediatrics might consider, since they are interested in media effects on younger Americans. Sadly, many in the nation are only too happy to be entertained by the performances.

The Rebirth of A Logical Fallacy

Problem Practices, , , , , ,

If Trump’s words were matched to the right setting, we might need to find an abandoned schoolyard somewhere.

Most students of argument learn early that among the many kinds of common fallacies we inflict on each other, the most egregious is the Ad Hominem argument.  The term designates a simple but reprehensible pattern: denigrating or criticizing an advocate rather than their ideas.  It’s essentially a smokescreen used by someone who is lazy or mean-spirited. The form usually comes in the form of a counter-argument of sorts, but it follows an illegitimate path.

You already know where this is going. While students rightly recoil at the mere suggestion that they might use this form, we can’t say the same for a leader who should be setting an example for the rest of us. This once rare infraction in public discussion it is now on its way to becoming the default mode of response.  And our President should get most of the blame.

Somehow this elemental lesson on the ethics of argument is lost on Mr. Trump.  His daily rhetorical output almost always include at least a few barbs and personal slights directed to those he disagrees with.  Every day is yet another example of how to obfuscate an issue behind a blitz of name-calling.

No insult comedian can touch Trump’s streak of meanness.  Favorite pejoratives directed to people include “loser,” “bad,”  “dishonest,” “clueless,” “low class slob,” “phony,” “a zero,” “a weirdo,” “a clown,” “ a dummy,” “a flunky,” “sloppy,” “gruby,” “a spoiled brat,” and so on.  The New York Times has counted nearly 600 discrete pejoratives  with like these, most substituting for what should be more substantive counter-arguments. Interestingly, his kind of talk would have him ejected from a lot of deliberative bodies in most other democracies.

It’s another reason to lament the loss of a figure like Congressman Elijah Cummings.

One suspects Trump lacks even the elemental will to engage with an idea by arguing a well-formulated position supported with evidence. Apparently, the easiest simple-minded alternative is to call his opponents names: a pattern that is still jarring to hear in the confines of the White House.

Given the pervasiveness of this style, our public rhetoric will pay for this race to the bottom. And it’s another reason to consider what it means to lose Congressman Elijah Cummings, who passed away a few days ago. The eloquence of this important leader in the House of Representatives graciously celebrated the values of integrity and decency.  A practitioner of the spacious old rhetoric of inclusion, most Americans felt better for having heard his affirming words.

Cummings’ style was a long way from the trash talk of the current President.  If Trump’s words were matched to the right setting, we might need to find an abandoned schoolyard nearby.  Then the President could utter his tantrums where they belong: somewhere between the broken chain-link fence and the graffiti-laden basketball court.