Donald Trump's Inaugural Address, Part 1: Parallel Phrases

Donald Trump's Inaugural Address was like no other before it. The odd phrase "American carnage" seemed to encapsulate Trump's theme. His speech has been criticized for factual inaccuracy, for example by NPR's editors and the Washington Post Fact Checker. Trump has never been known for factual accuracy, so no one should act surprised. Some called the speech "dark."  I suppose that it was, at times.

I'm going to ignore those issues for the moment. (I'll write about them another day, including my thoughts about the key phrase "American carnage.") Today, I want to point out (with some trepidation!) that the speech had certain qualities that good speakers might want to emulate. One was Trump's use of parallel language. Parallel language--the trope that ancient rhetoricians called paromoiosis--is familiar and effective. By repeating a simple language structure, the speaker shows how one idea relates to another, and can build to a conclusion. Parallel phrases are easy to remember.

Donald J. Trump, WH photo

For example, while listing his proposed ideas, Trump used a series of "we" phrases:


    "We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world..."

    "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone..."

    "We will shine for everyone to follow."


And so forth. Near the end, he listed his promises:

"Together we will make America strong again, we will make America wealthy again, we will make America proud again, we will make America safe again." This led inevitably, predictably, and effectively to his campaign-long slogan: "And, yes, together we will make America great again." This worked rather nicely, rhetorically speaking, as the first four promises led to the last one; together, in Trump's vision, the first four promises will be (he hopes?), the components that will America great again.

The television showed many of Trump's supporters crying during his speech. In contrast, some pundits were horrified. For my part, I think America was already great. My point today, though, is to give credit for a finely crafted, if somewhat apocalyptic, use of language.

Did Trump's speech have faults (other than citing dubious facts)? Well, I told my students that Trump's address would have been more powerful if it had been better organized. When a speaker rambles, themes get lost. In fact, if a speech is poorly organized, we can end up with rhetorical carnage. Also, my public speaking students, including the conservatives, made fun of Trump's gestures. Well, no speaker is perfect, right?

I'm sure we'll hear more speeches from Mr. Trump, and I'll continue to comment about his speaking methods.