Donald Trump's Inaugural Address, Part 2, "American Carnage"

Although Donald Trump made many points during his January 20, 2016 Inaugural Address, his phrase "American carnage" represents the speech's destiny.

History often remembers a speech for one dramatic phrase. Think of these:

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," which anyone recognizes from Franklin Roosevelt's First Inaugural Address.

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country," a striking phrase from John F Kennedy's Inaugural Address.

"You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold," from William Jennings Bryan's speech at the 1896 Democratic National Convention.

And, of course--

"I have a dream today!" is the phrase for which history remembers Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., from his 1963 speech in Washington, DC.

Each of these memorable phrases focuses the audience's attention on the speech's theme. Roosevelt's speech, delivered during the Great Depression's depths, told the American people that they could overcome adversity if they overcame their fears. John Kennedy's phrase invited people to put country above self, which was the principle for many of his programs. Bryan's dramatic phrase expressed a difficult economic issue, the gold standard, in emotional and powerful terms. King's speech looked to the future, which is what dreams are about. Each of these speakers said many things, but we remember each speech for one dramatic phrase.

Donald J. Trump, WH photo

In contrast, Trump's phrase "American carnage" creates a dark and dismal vision of the United States. It is the kind of phrase that one might otherwise use to describe a nation that has been devastated by war or shattered by grinding poverty.

Not all of Trump's speech was dark and dismal. He described hope, national unity, and a program of strength and justice. Most of this gets lost, however, because "American carnage," the speech's striking and thematic phrase, focuses the listener's attention entirely on what Trump claims to be a disaster.

Persons who are shocked by Trump's pessimistic phrase need to remember that many Americans do, in fact, feel that the nation is facing an apocalyptic disaster. It is often unclear what this apocalyptic disaster might be, but, even if some of the dangers are overblown, the fear is real. Many people welcomed Trump's recognition of their belief that things are going very wrong in our country. At the same time, words have impact, and people who fear carnage or who believe that things are as bad as Trump said may be more inclined to accept risky policies or to abandon long-established traditions. A basic principle of conservatism is to take risks only when absolutely necessary. "American carnage" not only presents a cheerless opinion, but could be used to justify dangerous decisions: while Franklin Roosevelt faced down a true national emergency with optimism, Trump's optimism – and he did project some optimism in the speech – was buried under a single frightening phrase.

Also, here are my more positive thoughts about language use in Trump's speech. 

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.

President Obama's Most Notable Speeches? Part 1

CNN published today a list of what they think were Barack Obama's best speeches as president. These lists are always subjective, and maybe history will make a different judgment. The CNN list puts Obama's victory speech in the #1 spot, followed by his Newtown and Selma speeches, and then his farewell address, his Cairo speech, and his "More Perfect Union" address. The article heavily cites the opinions of Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a leading authority on political speech. Jamieson wisely noted that Obama spoke much better to live audiences than he did from the White House on television.

Others might disagree with CNN's list. I remain partial to Obama's eulogy to Clementa Pinckney which he gave in the wake of the Mother Emanuel AME Church shootings. Obama sang at the end, which gave the speech a deep, emotional conclusion. It's hard to forget a speech that ends in song.

What will history say about Obama's speaking career? Did his presidency fulfill his oratorical talents? Will his words resonate with history, or will they be forgotten? Time will tell.

Nevertheless, most of a president's day is spent in meetings and conferences. The president makes decisions, listens to advice, and reflects on policy. Speeches sometimes sell those policies, and sometimes ignore them, but speeches are often the emotional and logical surface of the president's behind-the-scenes work. This photo of Obama on the phone probably represents his typical workday better than any speeches he gave.

Barack Obama on the phone. WH photo

But does that miss the point? While in office, presidents are judged by their accomplishments. After they leave, they are often more remembered for their speeches. Lincoln led the Union in the Civil War, but is best remembered for his speeches. Franklin Roosevelt led the nation through the Great Depression and World War II, but is best remembered for his First Inaugural Address ("nothing to fear but fear itself") and his Pearl Harbor speech ("day of infamy"). Sometimes the press belittles presidents who excel in speaking, implying that speaking does not substitute for policy, but presidential speeches are long remembered.

Donald Trump gives his Inaugural Address tomorrow, starting a new era of presidential rhetoric. What will he say? How will he say it? We will soon know. How will history judge Trump's speaking? We will not know that for many years.

Barack Obama's Farewell Speech: Can't We Listen to One Another?

Public reactions to Obama's farewell speech in Chicago so far reflect the liberal-conservative divide. Yet, too few commentators actually listen to the speech. My own quick look at news websites seems to show many more articles and editorials about the speech by conservatives than by liberals. Conservatives seem to have been offended by it, while liberal commentators, for the most part, are paying less attention.

The conservative National Review published Charles C. W. Cooke's article describing Obama's speech as reflecting "schizophrenia." That does seem overstated, and it is not at all clear that the author actually knows what the word "schizophrenia" means. To a psychologist, schizophrenia means that a person is disconnected from reality. In the public mind, it often means that the person holds two

Barack Obama, WH photo

different ideas. Seemingly, Cooke uses the second, less exact meaning of the word. Cooke described the speech as "tinnier and more hollow than usual."  Cooke's basic argument is that Obama was calling for change, but that Obama fails to understand that Donald Trump is also calling for change. This seems a bit ironic, since to be a conservative, by definition, means that one resists change. At the same time, Donald Trump certainly is advocating change. The question, as Cooke does sense, is whether Obama or Trump is advocating for good change or bad change. I suppose that history will tell. What bothers me about this critique is that it seems so personal: sliding over the issues that Obama raised, and instead attacking Obama personally. For example, Cooke complained about Obama's "self-congratulation" The personal attacks were quite polite, but they were personal attacks on the same. At the same time, just as Obama used his speech to review his career in the White House, Cooke used his article to review what he saw as Obama's character failures.

Matthew Cooper, writing in the more liberal Newsweek, notes that Obama repeated many of his usual refrains, such as the need to advocate positive change and to represent the needs of minority religions and ethnicities. Cooper felt that the most enduring part of the speech is, probably, Obama's call for "a reality-based politics" in which people are willing to leave their "bubble" and to interact more with people whose opinions differ from their own. Cooper did find fault with Obama's speech, calling it "gassy" and noting that much of it did not seem very original. In contrast to Cooke's article, which was quite negative, Cooper gives a more balanced review of what Obama had to say. At the same, Cooper, like Cooke, gives short shrift to Obama's content.

The biggest problem that I have with these reactions, and others that I have seen, is that they seem to be motivated as much by the writer's preconceived opinions about Obama as by the speech itself. Obama appealed to identification, to the seeking of common ground with others, and divided himself from those who do not respect our traditions. Unfortunately, we no longer seem to agree on what our traditions are. Neither article paid much attention to the underlying principles that Obama discussed, instead looking for ways to turn those principles toward a particular viewpoint. They both missed the point. This has, unfortunately, become common in today's political world.Did either of these authors pay careful attention to what Obama was actually trying to say, or evaluate how well he said it? Instead, even with the election over, too many in the media still view Obama's every presentation as part of some kind of horserace between Republicans and Democrats. What the country desperately needs is for people to listen first, and evaluate later, instead of evaluating first and listening never.

Obama's Farewell Speech: Identification and Division

Barack Obama gave his farewell address last night in Chicago. The speech was, for the most part, thoughtful. It was quite partisan, but in a fairly subdued manner. Reaction has been mixed; Fox's Bret Baier said that Obama gave the speech to fire up his supporters. Chris Cillizza wrote in the Washington Post that the speech "effectively functioned as the final chapter of the Obama presidency."

The great literary and rhetorical critic Kenneth Burke said that all persuasion results from identification.  Obama's speech repeatedly emphasized unity, how we all share a common cause. Burke would have understood perfectly:

"The freedom to chase our individual dreams through our sweat, toil, and imagination--and the imperative to strive together as well, to achieve a greater good."

Barack Obama, official WH Photo

"Only if all of us, regardless of our party affiliation or particular interest, help restore the sense of common purpose that we so badly need right now."

Obama's standard phrase "Yes We Can" is a call for identification. Obama added this coda: "Yes We Did." "Yes We Can." The word "we" is about identification.

Burke said that identification is paired with division. Obama warned of the threat posed by radicals and terrorists, who do not share America's values. He warned people not to huddle off into bubbles where they hear only one point of view: "The rise of naked partisanship, increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste--all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable." We then, he warned, accept "only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that's out there."

Obama's critique of his successor was muted in this speech, although maybe it will become more dramatic in the future. Who knows?

We identify with one another to persuade them. By dividing ourselves from others (terrorists, dictators), we affirm who we are and make that identification stronger.

I'll have more to say about this speech over the next several days.

Meryl Streep's 2017 Golden Globes Speech: A Study in Controversy

Meryl Streep's speech at the 2017 Golden Globe ceremony has led to praise and condemnation. Her speech took a political slant. Accepting the Cecil B. DeMille Award, award, she began by mentioning the varied backgrounds of Sarah Paulson, Natalie Portman, and Ruth Negga.

Her real, not terribly subtle purpose was, without mentioning his name, to criticize Donald Trump's behavior when he mocked a disabled reporter, "someone he outranked in privilege, power, and the ability to fight back." She warned of the dangerous implications: "this instinct to humiliate when it's modeled by someone in the public platform by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody's life because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing."

She continued by drawing this incident into a larger context, a context that emphasize values: "disrespect invites disrespect violence incites violence when the powerful use definition to bully others, we all lose."

After making this point, she moved on to a policy question: "that's why our founders in trying to the press and its freedom in our Constitution. So I only ask the famously well-healed Hollywood Foreign Press and all of us in our community to join me in supporting the Committee to Protect Journalists because we are going to need them going forward and they'll need us to safeguard the truth."

Controversy quickly followed. Trump responded with a couple of ill mannered tweets in which he called Streep a "over-rated" actress and a "Hillary flunky." Celebrities gave mixed responses. Meghan McCain said that "Streep's speech is why Trump won." Billy Eichner commented that he would "rather live in a bubble than live with people who don't feel the need to respect the disabled, freedom of speech & the arts!!" Anna Kendrick tweeted, "Is there anyone better? #Meryl."

As I have mentioned earlier on this blog, ceremonial speeches are often controversial and often talk about policies. I am sure that many people in the audience expected a nice, calm, fluffy speech about movies. That is certainly fine. All the same, there's no reason to give speeches unless we are unless we are willing to cause controversy once in a while.

The careful listener would have noticed that she began and ended her speech by talking about the arts. She never mentioned Trump's name.

The world is not a safe place, and there is no reason that speakers need to stick to safe topics. It is not to be expected that everybody would like Meryl Streep's speech. At the same time, many people heard what she had to say, and maybe she had some influence.


Some earlier posts about ceremonial speeches that cause controversy:

http://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/06/should-ceremonial-speeches-cause.html

http://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/12/new-years-speeches-part-1.html

http://harpine.blogspot.com/2016/06/just-because-were-magic-jesse-williamss.html

New Year's Speeches, Part 3A

Well, one last thought about New Year's Speeches. My high school classmate Riva Meade points out that the State of the Union speech in the United States performs a similar function to the political New Year Speeches that are given elsewhere in the world. She makes a good point. An interesting thought, however, is that the new year implies hope, looking to the future, whereas the State of the Union speech focuses on the present and past, together with, in recent years, a laundry list of proposed policies. Does the occasion of the new year make a difference? Does it inspire us to think more about the future? I really don't know. Maybe...

New Year's Speeches, Part 3

Shinzo Abe, Dept. of State Photo

1. Shinzo Abe, the Prime Minister of Japan, gave a New Year's speech in which he continued his advocacy of stimulative fiscal and monetary economic policies. His policies are called Abenomics and, in fact, he used that very term himself. Prior to the adoption of Abenomics, Japan's economy had been in the doldrums for some number of years. Now, although we often think about a ceremonial speech, such as a New Year's speech, as an opportunity for praise and blame, for discussing broad values, and so forth, this year sees a trend in which international public officials are giving Fourth of July July speeches about economic and political policies. This actually makes a lot of sense, because the new year is a symbolic time of hope and new plans.

At the same time, Abe's speech did include some traditional epideictic material. He commemorated 70 years of Japan's democratic, post-World War II Constitution. He talked about the declining birthrate in Japan, and examined his plans for the future.

2. President-Elect Donald Trump gave a New Year's speech at a private party for his guests and business partners. He got some news attention for praising a business partner from Dubai. I have not been able to find a complete text or video of the speech, although cell phone video of some selections has leaked onto the Web. Although it is reported that Trump did discuss public issues related to the election, he also spoke about private business matters. Without a complete text I don't see how I can make a reasonable judgment about the speech. Trump's speech does seem to be part of a continuing trend, of which I personally do not approve, in which public officials are giving major speeches in private, without releasing the speech texts or videos. It may be recalled that Hillary Clinton was accused of the same thing.

In general, rhetorical critics and speech historians have not paid much attention to New Year's speeches. The few examples that I've been looking at over the last several days show that the New Year's speech is an interesting genre in many cultures, although, Trump's somewhat unusual contribution aside, it does not seem to be a widely used type of speech in the United States of America.


My earlier posts about New Year's speeches are here and here. 

New Year's Speeches, Part 2

As it happens, neither President Obama nor President-Elect Trump gave a New Year's speech this year. However, a number of world leaders celebrated 2017 with important speeches. Although these were all, on their face, speeches to celebrate the holiday, many of them talk about important policy questions and national issues. Here were a couple that I found interesting:

1. The King of Thailand gave a speech on the topic of national unity. Thailand has been struggling with political instability for years, and is currently ruled by a military junta. The military and government officials have had a great deal of difficulty agreeing on the new Constitution. The country faces considerable internal stresses. King Vajiralongkorn, who is said to be less popular than his father, is widely expected to endorse the new constitution, which will restore some version of a more democratic government. Speeches can be given to encourage division, but Thailand, given its troubled political history, received a speech of unity.

2. Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister of Australia, presented a New Year's speech in which he praised Australia's tradition of national unity and harmony: "Conflict around the world should make us all the more grateful and proud that we are such a harmonious society, with people of all faiths, cultures and backgrounds living together in peace." He also, however, promised strict defense against the threat of terrorism. He also praised the Australian people for their refusal to be intimidated or cowed by the threat of terrorist activities.

Ceremonial speeches, such as New Year's Day speeches, are important to mark milestones in people's lives. They also give speakers a chance to reinforce values, such as harmony, unity, or strength, and remind the audience how these values need to influence either personal or national policies. One should never dismiss ceremonial speeches or special occasion speeches as mere fluff. They rarely are.


Here's Part 1.