Showing posts with label 2024 Republican National Convention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2024 Republican National Convention. Show all posts

Friday, July 19, 2024

Trump's "Jekyll and Hyde" Convention Speech Promised Fierce Leadership


Donald Trump
“Win, win, win, win, win, win.” So said Donald Trump in his speech last night, July 18, 2024, accepting the Republican presidential nomination. Rambling for about an hour and a half, Trump spoke little about policies, although he did manage to spread a pile of falsehoods. PBS's fact checkers discovered a long series of false or misleading claims. Now, we are all accustomed to Trump and his falsehoods. Furthermore, noting that Trump wandered from sounding conciliatory to spewing out angry accusations, a columnist in the conservative National Review called it a “Jekyll and Hyde speech.” 

However, among all this smoke, let us not miss Trump’s point. Trump promoted, not facts, not policies, but an attitude: he promised to be “fierce.” In the nations history, Trump explained, “No enemy was too fierce.” The nation needed, he said, in true conservative fashion, to return to that past attitude. And it is attitudes – not facts, not policies, but attitudes –  that determine election victory. 

Earlier Post: Do 2020 Republican National Convention Speakers Care About Fact Checkers?

Yes, although Trump mentioned policies, this was not a policy speech. Instead, this speech asked, what do we value? And Trump valued strength. Trump promised to be strong – powerful – unyielding. He warned the audience of “crisis… crisis… crisis.” Fear. He warned of dangers of every kind. Powerful, evil, and malicious people threaten us. Facing those dangers, Trump promised to be “fierce.” Trump did not sell himself as a bastion of domestic or foreign policy wisdom. He barely mentioned such virtues. No, in his dark vision, dangers attack us from without and within, and the only solution – the only protection – is to be fierce.

Social scientist George Lakoff explains that conservatives and liberals operate with different metaphors. Conservatives (like Trump’s base voters?) seek a “strong father.” Conservatives seek strength. Liberals, in contrast, prefer what Lakoff calls a “nurturing mother.” Liberals pursue wisdom and compassion. Do the twain ever meet? Trump sought to be elected by promising the American people that he would be strong, that the United States’ enemies will quail in fear as he approaches, that his relentless power will make America safe – that he will “make America great again.”


The United States Is Falling Apart?

Throughout world history, conservative thought often comes from the feeling that things were better in the past. Change causes anxiety and failure. The ancient Greeks fondly remembered the mythical time of Achilles and Odysseus. American conservatives look back to Revolutionary war heroes like George Washington. We fall when we abandon ancient wisdom. Thus, as he began his remarkable discussion of fierceness, Trump lamented the decline – the inescapable decay – that liberal leaders create:
“Under the current administration, we are indeed a nation in decline.”

Crises, Crises, Crises!

Next, Trump narrated the terrible dangers that attack the United States. Unlike the past, which was (so Trump claimed) inflation-free, rising prices now wrack the economy:
“We have an inflation crisis that is making life unaffordable, ravaging the incomes of working and low-income families, and crushing, just simply crushing our people like never before. They’ve never seen anything like it.”
Trump badly overstated his case. According to Investopedia, inflation under Richard Nixon was 5.70%, rising to 8.0% under President Gerald Ford and 9.90% during the Jimmy Carter administration. The inflation rate under Biden has been about 5.70%, which is a bit high, but you can’t honestly say that we have “never seen anything like it.” As I mentioned, however, Trump was not talking about facts to start with. His point was crisis – fear! We are in danger! Who will save us?

Likewise, immigration, which is Trump’s prime “America First” selling point, also morphed into a terrifying crisis:
“We also have an illegal immigration crisis, and it’s taking place right now, as we sit here in this beautiful arena. It’s a massive invasion at our southern border that has spread misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction to communities all across our land. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it.”
Now, unauthorized immigration has indeed risen during the Biden administration, although, as the Christian Science Monitor demonstrates, probably not as dramatically as Republicans like to say. But look at Trump’s language of fear. “Crisis!” “Massive invasion!” “Misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction!” And, of course, Trump insisted, “Nobody’s ever seen anything like it.”

Who will protect us from immigration danger? From the crisis?

Of course, Trump also talked about “an international crisis:”
“Then there is an international crisis, the likes of which the world has seldom been part of. Nobody can believe what’s happening. War is now raging in Europe and the Middle East, a growing specter of conflict hangs over Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines, and all of Asia, and our planet is teetering on the edge of World War III, and this will be a war like no other war because of weaponry. The weapons are no longer army tanks going back and forth, shooting at each other. These weapons are obliteration.”
Indeed, even as I write this, war does ravage parts of the world. Yes, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has been threatening nuclear war. The dangers are real. Look, however, at Trump’s apocalyptic language: “War is now raging.” “A growing specter of conflict.” “Our planet is teetering.” And, in the nuclear age, Trump is right to warn us that “These weapons are obliteration.” Danger and fear.

That is why voters must ask themselves, what defends us against danger? Wisdom, or force? That is a value question, and Trump insists that only force can do the job. (For my part, I would like to say wisdom and power both, but how often do those two join hands?)


Trump Says We Need to Be Fierce!

How can the United States repel such dangers? Biden, of course, like most liberals, projects himself as wise, knowledgeable, and involved. In this speech, Trump rarely mentioned such virtues. Instead, we need to be “fierce:”
“It’s time for a change. This administration can’t come close to solving the problems. We’re dealing with very tough, very fierce people. They’re fierce people. And we don’t have fierce people. We have people that are a lot less than fierce, except when it comes to cheating on elections and a couple of other things, then they’re fierce. Then they’re fierce.” [italics added]
Repetition has powerful persuasive effects: “very tough, very fierce people.” “They’re fierce people.” Trump decried Biden’s alleged weakness: “we don’t have fierce people.” (Also, Trump could not, of course, avoid mentioning his stolen election conspiracy theory.)

Earlier Post: Joe Biden Organized His Holocaust Remembrance Day Speech to Place Values in Context


Who Will Keep Us Safe?

In this speech, Trump projected himself to be the ultra-strong father. Not just a strong father, but a fierce leader. He would exert power. He would be, to the Republican National Convention’s cheering delight, the president with the clenched fist.

Yet, historically, fierce leaders rarely keep their publics safe. By the time Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo and went into exile, his wars had inflicted French casualties that may have reached into the millions. Hitler and Mussolini certainly did not keep their nations safe. What about Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution? Did Pol Pot keep Cambodia safe? If history teaches us anything, it is that strong leaders can create terrible dangers. If weakness does not keep us safe, neither does fierceness. I, for one, would feel more comfortable with Trump’s apparent lead going into the November election if he had talked about being “strong and wise” instead of simply being “fierce.” 

Still, fear overwhelms people’s rational thinking. Faced with crises, they seek strength. They yearn for walls, strong leaders, and powerful protectors. That is what Trump offered. As he concluded his long, long speech, Trump once again promised strength:
“America’s future will be bigger, better, bolder, brighter, happier, stronger, freer, greater and more united than ever before.

“And quite simply put, we will very quickly make America great again.” [italics added] 
Lakoff may be right: our competing metaphors (strong father or nurturing mother) seem to define our political divide. The November 2024 presidential election does not only give the United States a choice between two candidates. The voters will assert their values. Is strength alone enough? Do leaders need to combine strength with wisdom or compassion? Does it matter that Trump uttered false or misleading statements, one after the other? Does fierceness overcome all else? Or, as Trump hopes, do many voters value ferocious strength above all other attitudes? If so, Trump offered his case.

by William D. Harpine

______________ 

Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Did West Virginia Governor Jim Justice Just Advocate Violent Revolution?

Jim Justice speaking at an earlier event
Did West Virginia Governor Jim Justice call for the violent overthrow of the American government when he talked about becoming “totally unhinged?” Or did he not?

Speaking at the 2024 Republican National Convention on July 16, 2024, Justice called for Republicans to engage in violent insurrection.

Radical speakers often speak in what scholars call “multivocal communication” but which the press often calls “dog whistles.” Multivocal means “in two voices,” and a dog whistle can only be heard by some ears but not others. Diplomats call a similar technique “plausible deniability.” That is, Justice said something ambiguous that was profoundly evil, but deniable.

Now, most (not some, but most) Republicans falsely say that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump by unproven fraud. Still, one suspects that many of them also know, deep in their hearts, that the January 6, 2021 Capitol Building riot was evil and unpatriotic. How does one reconcile that moral discrepancy? Simple! Plausible deniability. Talk out of both sides of your mouth. Say something that your listeners instantly understand, but which remains ambiguous.


What Did Justice Say? 

Dressed in a stylish but ill-fitted pinstripe suit, Justice stood behind the podium, offered various folksy comments, and sent for his well-fed bulldog “Babydog.” Babydog sat quietly in a luxurious chair as Justice rambled along in his 6 ½ minute talk. About two minutes into the speech, Justice announced that he stood for truth:
“The foundation of my life is the truth. I’ve got to tell you just this and tell you this right now. I challenge the media all the time to find something that knowingly I’ve told them that’s not the truth. And they can’t do it because I’m not gonna to do that.”
But what “truth” did he speak in that moment? The absolute next thing he said was:
“Now I want you to listen to this and pay really close attention. The bottom line to why we’re here. The bottom line to every single thing that’s going on in this great country today is one thing. We become totally unhinged if Donald Trump is not elected in November.” [Attendees cheered] [Italics added]
Now, let us recall the January 6, 2021 riot at the United States Capitol, when hordes of Donald Trump’s supporters responded to Trump’s brazenly unhinged speech to march on the Capitol to overthrow the 2020 election. The crowd screamed for the deaths of various government officials and shouted “Stop the Steal” as they protested Joe Biden’s election victory. Various rioters ended up in prison.

Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"

Justice’s statement rested on two carefully chosen (he told us to “pay really close attention”) words: “we” and “unhinged.” Those are the words that created ambiguity. How so?


Multivocal Interpretation #1

First, given the historical context of how Republicans behaved when they lost the 2020 election, my interpretation – my reading – is this. Justice was threatening that “we” (meaning Republicans) would become “unhinged” (meaning deranged) if Trump loses the upcoming presidential election. That sounded like a threat to repeat January 6. Judging by the crowd’s enthusiastic cheers, I think that the attendees understood what Justice said exactly in that way.


Multivocal Interpretation #2

At the same time, can we prove Interpretation #1? No! This is multivocal communication. It is plausibly deniable! For, after all, “we” might mean “the entire United States,” not just Republicans. Maybe Justice was saying that the entire nation would become unhinged because of four more years of supposedly inept Democratic Party leadership. Is that what Justice really meant? Or is that what he could pretend he meant?


So, Which Is It?

Multivocal Interpretation #1 expresses a threat. I think that Justice intended to make a threat. He threatened “unhinged” violence if Trump lost. There is little doubt in my mind. I don’t think there was any doubt in the attendees’ minds. I base that interpretation on the fact that Justice preceded his statement by saying “listen to this and pay really close attention,” that he uttered the statement carefully and deliberately, and that the audience responded enthusiastically.

However, Multivocal Interpretation #2 also fits the bare facts. If, for example, somebody arrested Justice and charged him with treason or insurrection, his lawyers could say that he intended Interpretation #2, and nobody could prove otherwise.

Still, Interpretation #2 seems unlikely. If he had truly intended Interpretation #2, it is far more likely that Justice would have said something like, “if we have four more years of Democrats, the nation will fall apart.” Or, he might have said, “if we have four more years of Democrats, the nation will become unhinged.” That would be both more precise and more forceful. I don’t think he intended anything of the kind. The rest of his speech was precise and forceful, and it would be odd indeed if his most important point (the “bottom line” that he asked us to “listen to … and pay really close attention”) was ambiguous. What he intended was to make a veiled threat while leaving room to squiggle away from criticism.

Justice’s overall theme was love: that Babydog loved everyone, and so did Trump. Odd indeed, meaningful indeed, to throw in a seemingly random comment about becoming “totally unhinged.”

Politicians often talk out of both sides of their mouths. This speech, however, was a doozy.

When politicians tell you what they believe, we should sometimes take them seriously.

by William D. Harpine


Earlier Post: Were Trump's Tweets Racist? They Were (Sort of) Deniable Dog Whistles

Earlier Post: Mitch McConnell and the Art of Dog Whistles

______________

P.S. It’s just my view, but I think that Babydog was the best-behaved individual in the entire convention hall. By the way, does Jim Justice always speak the truth, as he claimed in this speech? His record on PolitiFact (which includes one “Pants on Fire” rating) isn’t as bad as Trump’s, but it is far from perfect.

Republican delegate Melinda Morris said at the same convention that, “If this election gets stolen, Trump won’t have to call for a meeting,” she added. “The Americans will be showing up on the doorsteps of Washington, D.C. themselves. This is where we draw a line in the sand. They will not do this to us again, and if they do, we’re going to have to do something about it.” That stated the same point as Justice, but without the multivocal character.

Research Note: University of Texas Professor Bethany Albertson explains her theory of multivocal communication in a highly recommended essay.


Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: From Governor Jim Justice, marked as public domain, via Wikimedia Commons