2021 by the University Press of Kansas
All rights reserved
Published by the University Press of Kansas (Lawrence, Kansas 66045), which was organized by the Kansas Board of Regents and is operated and funded by Emporia State University, Fort Hays State University, Kansas State University, Pittsburg State University, the University of Kansas, and Wichita State University.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Rowland, Robert C., 1954author.
Title: The rhetoric of Donald Trump : nationalist populism and American democracy / Robert C. Rowland.
Other titles: Nationalist populism and American democracy
Description: Lawrence, Kansas : University Press of Kansas, 2021 |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020040366
ISBN 9780700631964 (cloth)
ISBN 9780700631971 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Trump, Donald, 1946 Language. | PresidentsUnited StatesElection2016. | RhetoricPolitical aspectsUnited StatesHistory21st century. | Communication in politicsUnited StatesHistory21st century. | PresidentsUnited StatesElection2016. | PopulismUnited StatesHistory21st century. | DemocracyUnited StatesHistory21st century. | United StatesPolitics and government2017
Classification: LCC E911 .R69 2021 | DDC 973.933092dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020040366.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data is available.
Printed in the United States of America
10987654321
The paper used in the print publication is acid free and meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48-1992.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My approach to rhetoric has been shaped by my teachers, including, especially, Lee Griffin, Tom Goodnight, and David Zarefsky at Northwestern and Wil Linkugel, Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, and Donn W. Parson at the University of Kansas (KU). I also have learned a great deal from the graduate students I worked with first at Baylor and now for more than three decades at KU. The debaters I worked with at both schools also influenced my thinking. I also want to thank Stephen H. Browne from Penn State and Denise Bostdorff from the College of Wooster for their extremely insightful commentary and Melanie Stafford for her particularly careful and graceful copyedit. I owe a particular debt to one of the best editors I know, Dennis Gouran, for his invaluable suggestions and to Donn W. Parson for a lifetime of teaching about Kenneth Burke, public argument, and life. Most of all, I am thankful for Donna.
INTRODUCTION: DONALD TRUMP
A RHETORICAL ENIGMA
When Donald Trump announced his candidacy, almost no one believed he would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination for president. Yet, he won the nomination easily, crushing what was labeled a strong field of potential candidates that included the former governor of Florida, Jeb Bushwho happened to be the brother of one former president and the son of anotheras well as rising star Senator Marco Rubio and darling of the right Senator Ted Cruz.
When Trump won the Republican nomination, almost no one believed he would defeat Hillary Clinton, a former US senator from New York, US secretary of state, and wife of a former president widely believed to be the shrewdest political tactician of his age; she had the strong support of a transformational and charismatic two-term Democratic president, Barack Obama. Yet, Trump won the presidency.
The puzzle becomes still more confusing given the unconventional campaign Trump ran and the many gaffes he committed. He was running for the highest office in the land but lacked any experience in public office. Moreover, although he had been a successful business owner, he also had multiple bankruptcies, had been accused of not paying his contractor bills and even bilking students who attended Trump University, and had lived a colorful personal life accumulating three wives and being accused of infidelity and a host of other sins. His personal background was particularly problematic given that conservative Christians were among the most important groups supporting the Republican Party. And yet Trump won.
His personal life and business career were not the only issues that dogged him throughout the primary and general election campaigns in 2016. Again and again during the campaign, critics said that the latest gaffe would doom his campaign, but it never did. They said this when he attacked Mexican immigrants in his announcement speech, when he denigrated Senator John McCains military service in the Vietnam War, when he insulted a Gold Star family, and on a host of other occasions. And yet Trump won.
In retrospect, there is some reason to believe that what the press saw as gaffes might have reinforced his message with core supporters. Joshua Green noted of Trumps constant violation of campaign norms, Republican voters thrilled to his provocations and rewarded him. In contrast, Trumps creation of outrage not only activated the disaffected but won his national partys nomination and then the presidency, a result reflecting a major change in American rhetorical practice.
Trumps campaign was extraordinary not only for the gaffes the candidate inexplicably survived but also because it succeeded even as it violated every norm.
Moreover, the debates were a disaster for him. Although presidential debates usually have had a modest influence on the outcome of the campaign, there is consensus that debates can make a significant difference if a candidate makes a major gaffe or fails to demonstrate the capacity to fulfill the presidency. In contrast, a challenger can gain ground by demonstrating knowledge of the issues and an appropriate temperament to serve as president. Everything scholars thought they knew about presidential debates from John F. Kennedy/Richard M. Nixon in 1960 through Mitt Romney/Barack Obama in 2012 suggested that Trumps performance would hurt him badly and that it would be viewed as disqualifying by a substantial percentage of the electorate. That did not happen.
Trump had no political experience and lacked a large or experienced campaign staff. He did not have a developed agenda, performed badly in the presidential debates, and committed gaffe after gaffe. And yet he won. Gerson was on target when he wrote that the successful campaign was the single strangest development in American history. It is inexplicable that Trump won.
It is also confusing that although Trump was able to break political norms without harming his campaign, and perhaps even helping it, those same norms seemed still to apply to other candidates. Notably, when Senator Rubio attempted to counter Trump with the latters own weapons of name-calling and ridicule, public reaction was quite negative. It is confusing that norm violations and alleged scandal seriously damaged the campaigns of Rubio, Clinton, and others but had little effect on that of Trump.
The situation did not become any clearer after Trump was elected. In the presidency, he continued to make intemperate statements, use Twitter as a weapon, reference his opponents with unflattering nicknames, and hold rallies as if the campaign had not ended. Because he continued to act and talk as he had during the campaign, his presidency was defined by one gaffe or crisis after another. Trump did not speak or act like any previous president, but his supporters did not care.
University Press of Kansas