Trump's Polarizing Rally in Kentucky. Dividing People Has Its Drawbacks.

Donald Trump, White House photo

Let’s talk some more about Donald Trump’s polarizing speech the other day in Lexington, Kentucky, which I discussed yesterday. Trump’s nominal purpose was to encourage the reelection of unpopular Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin. As of this morning, the Kentucky race is still too close to call. My point yesterday was that the purpose of polarizing rhetoric is to motivate one’s supporters. A polarizing speaker knows perfectly well that he or she will offend and motivate the other side as well, but in the opposite direction. Trump did seem to take credit for helping Bevin, since Bevin’s election performance (even if he loses) was better than the polls predicted. When we talk about elections, polarizing speeches can be useful if they help motivate your own voters to get to the polls. They can be harmful if they motivate the other side’s voters to vote.

President Trump, you’ll recall, said horrible things about the Democrats during his speech. He talked about “Crooked Hillary,” complained about the Democrats “far-left agenda,” and accused the Democrats of trying to destroy America’s democracy. That kind of rhetoric drives people to opposite poles. Thus, we have the word polarization.

Trump was trying to fire up the Republican voters. Several groups have historically low voter turnout. White evangelical voters – Trump’s base – traditionally have low voter turnout, as they have been more interested in the world to come than in the world we live in. Motivating them helps Trump. Older white males, also part of Trump’s base, have traditionally high voter turnout anyway. Some of them might enjoy hearing polarizing rhetoric, but it is not likely to affect how they vote.

So, voter turnout is the #1 goal. However, in his classic book The Political Persuaders, political scientist Dan Nimmo points out that there are other ways in which political campaigns can make a difference. Although very few voters change their minds because of an election campaign, there are always a few people who do switch. Since the Kentucky election was so close, President Trump’s speech and the candidates’ campaign speeches might sway enough voters to affect the election result one way or the other. The same kind of thing might have been true about the 2016 presidential election, when Trump won key states by razor-edge margins.

Also, partisan voters who listen to campaign speeches (whether live, on television, or on the Internet) can learn more about their favorite candidate’s issue positions. This helps them to rationalize and understand their own political participation. Sad but true, most people pick a political party first, and only then decide to agree with whatever issues that party happens to favor. That is why, for example, Republicans were terrified about the federal budget deficit when Barack Obama was in office but could not care less now that their own guy, Donald Trump, is running up huge deficits. That is why it was potentially useful for President Trump to tell his Kentucky audience about the Democrats’ supposed failings.

Hillary Clinton, DoS photo

The biggest lesson is that polarizing rhetoric – by definition – goes two ways. Politicians think it’s wonderful to get their own people motivated. But getting the other side angry can boomerang. One reason that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election is that she put half of Trump’s supporters in a “basket of deplorables.” Click the link and listen to the video: her partisan crowd laughed and cheered. She soon hapologized, but she had done the damage and couldn’t fix it. Let’s be blunt: calling people deplorable enraged them. “Deplorable” became a noun, a proud name that Trump supporters adopted as they campaigned against her. You can now buy a Proud Deplorable T-shirt. (Not that I recommend it; I don’t. Good grief.)

Let’s also think about governing after you win the election. After the polarizing 2016 election, it’s unlikely that either Clinton or Trump could govern the nation effectively. To govern requires more than assembling a slim majority; it requires at least grudging acceptance by the entire nation. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton spent too much time calling each other’s supporters names. Hostility, not grudging cooperation, was the only possible result.

There is, I suppose, a time and place for any kind of rhetoric. Still, however, politicians in a constitutional republic need to think twice before they seek to divide the nation.