Tag Archives: presidential norms

red and black bar

When the Chief Celebrant is Also a Full-Time Hater

Problem Practices, Rhetorical Mastery, , , , , ,

The rhetorical signature of this committed hater.

One of the burdens Americans have had to carry for some years now is living with a figurehead–the nation’s leader, citizen number one, the country’s official spokesperson–who at the same time can rarely keep himself from unleashing the tired arts of denigration and retribution.  At the risk of delivering old news, his output of public vituperation is off the charts and unlike any “leader” the nation has known. On occasion our leaders have unkind things to say about someone else. But they usually choose carefully when to share those negative judgments, reserving the public realm for silence or faint praise. It is hard to fathom how the nation managed to put a chronic bully in the role he inhabits.

To be sure, we know his type from any number of movie thugs. We can’t say that we haven’t heard his stale taunts before, but not from the person atop our political system. Even as a child he had a reputation as a bully that even placement in a private school apparently could not tame.

Trump professes to like “nice” things. People: not so much. He is a nonstop trash-talker. It does not help that the President’s grasp of language is limited. He and all of us are captives to the same name-calling that recycles endlessly. You know his favored terms of invective by now: “corrupt” “evil,” “crooked,” “failing,” “dishonest,” “crazy,” “phoney,” “Lyin,”  “weak,” “vermin,” “wacko,” “nasty,” and so on. These are used in various combinations to describe the miriad ways others manage to spoil his world.

Tragic comic masks roman mosaic 2

This is vitriol 101: the simple and tired language of a hater who lacks the capability to expand thoughts into more complex formulations. He uses Old Testament certainty that bolsters his own self-regard while diminishing others.  People like Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff are “horrible persons.” Journalists are from outlets that are “crooked,” “fake news” or “Lyin.'” Hecklers should be “roughed up.” Political enemies are “Communists, Marxists, fascists, and radical-left thugs.” It is our misfortune that Trump thrives on ad hominem attacks that would be considered out of bounds by any high school debater.

A key presidential role is to act as a celebrant of all things American. It is not compatible with a person who needs to use the language of a misanthrope. Presidential rhetoric usually includes references to the generosity of others, the grace to not make every moment about oneself, and the impulse to resist another’s victimization in favor of pointing out the humanity they share with all others. For example, John Kennedy generally refrained from attacking any individual in personal terms. Instead, if he needed to, he focused on the faulty ideas that the individual favored, preserving his chances to protect his office. This norm of generosity is now violated every day.  Will we remember what we lost?

 

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.