Donald Trump's Speech at the State Dinner in South Korea: A Unifying Speech

President Trump at State Dinner in South Korea

Although President Donald Trump is better known for divisive speeches, he gave a unifying speech at a November 7, 2017 state dinner with President Moon of South Korea, during President Trump's trip to Asia. My former professor Charles Urban Larson distinguished between the pragmatic speaking style, which we often associate with President Trump, and the unifying style, which brings people closer together.

The event started with a graphic in Korean and English: "We Go Together." President Moon's remarks emphasized the long alliance that the two nations shared. A toast was raised.

President Trump promised that the next day would be "exciting . . . for many reasons that people will find out." Well, surprise and suspense are classic Trump tactics. Mostly, however, Mr. Trump emphasized unity: "The partnership between our two nations and our two people is deep and enduring. We have been proud to stand by your side for many decades as an unwavering friend and a loyal ally." In what sounded like a response to North Korea's recent missile tests, he continued: "And you have never had a time where this ally has been more loyal or stood by your side more than right now." He also talked about "our close and abiding bonds of friendship."

Most ceremonial or epideictic speeches turn to values; this was no exception: "Together, our nations remind the world of the boundless potential of societies that choose freedom over tyranny, and who set the[m] free." That passage not only reaffirmed unity, but also reinforced democratic values. He praised South Korea for "South Korea's success and affirm our close and abiding bonds of friendship."

A notable feature was Mr. Trump's clear endorsement of the South Korea-United States alliance, which contrasted with Mr. Trump's earlier reluctance to fully endorse the North Atlantic alliance earlier this year.

Throughout the event, translators communicated the speakers' words. All in all, this was a safe speech: unifying, reassuring, dignified, carefully scripted. President Trump followed the script, caused no problems, and aroused no controversy. Sometimes, when danger lurks, calm reassurance is a speaker's best attitude.

Speakers Need Research: The Continuing Case of Donald Trump?

Donald Trump speaks to business leaders in Japan

Speakers need to do their homework before they say something, but I added a question mark to this blog post's title because the context of President Donald Trump's latest mistake remains unclear. Did he make a mistake at all, or did he just phrase his point a bit carelessly?

In a rambling, partly extemporaneous speech to American and Japanese businesspeople yesterday, Mr. Trump praised United States economic growth, complained about the United States trade deficit with Japan, and then said this:
 
"And we love it when you build cars -- if you're a Japanese firm, we love it -- try building your cars in the United States instead of shipping them over. Is that possible to ask? That's not rude. Is that rude? I don't think so. (Laughter.) If you could build them. But I must say, Toyota and Mazda -- where are you? Are you here, anybody? Toyota? Mazda? I thought so. Oh, I thought that was you. That's big stuff. Congratulations. Come on, let me shake your hand. (Applause.) They're going to invest $1.6 billion in building a new manufacturing plant, which will create as many as 4,000 new jobs in the United States. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. (Applause.)"
(I added the italics.)

The mainstream press jumped on Trump's statement because he implied that Japanese companies are not building cars in the United States. But is that what he meant?

Mr. Trump did, a moment later, talk about a Toyota-Mazda project in the United States. Second, he may have simply extemporized over his intended comment. He also promised quick approval for Japanese plants being built in the United States. Maybe he meant to say this: "And we love it when you build cars [in the U.S.A] . . ." but rushed to make his next point before he finished his previous point. Most of us make mistakes like that when we speak off-the-cuff. Still, from his phrasing, he didn't seem to know that about 3/4 of Japanese cars made in North America have final assembly in North American factories. If he had held that fact had firmly in his mind, he probably would have phrased his point more clearly. Research will often prevent a speaker from making mistakes like that.

Also, just before his controversial statement, Mr. Trump said this:

"I also want to recognize the business leaders in the room whose confidence in the United States -- they've been creating jobs -- you have such confidence in the United States, and you've been creating jobs for our country for a long, long time. Several Japanese automobile industry firms have been really doing a job."

That wasn't wrong, but maybe it was a bit unclear. Was he praising Japanese companies for creating jobs in the United States? Or not? Maybe . . .


Lost in the brouhaha is that Mr. Trump also complained that few American cars are exported to Japan, which is absolutely true, and which contributes to the trade imbalance. If he not have made his slip of the tongue, the press might have focused on that more important policy comment.

To his credit, a Washington Post columnist pointed out that Mr. Trump did acknowledge a new Japanese factory being built in the United States, and accused other reporters of "cherry-picking" Trump's comments.

More broadly, when I took college communication classes, my professors pointed out that important people like presidents often read their speeches precisely because the entire world will jump on them if they make a mistake. Judging from the video, Mr. Trump read part of the speech from a text, while extemporizing part of it. His delivery and presentation were much better when he was not reading, but his language was clearer when he was reading. For you and me, off-the-cuff speeches are sometimes the best. For a president, not necessarily so.

I've often blogged to show that speakers need research; for example, here.

Rose McGowan's Me-Too Speech: A Study in Language

I'd like to take a break from politicians and talk about Rose McGowan's "Me-Too" speech, which discussed sexual abuse, at the Women's Convention in Detroit, Michigan. McGowan's character resisted evil on the television show Charmed, and it was interesting to hear her talk about real-life evil. I'll talk little about her actual allegations and motivations--other people are more qualified to discuss them--and instead look at her language use, which featured sophisticated rhetorical tropes and figures of speech. Powerful language helps a speaker emphasize key points. The audience remembers points that a speaker expresses in powerful language.

First, the #MeToo hashtag is itself a neologism, that is, an invented term attributed to Tarana Burke. Unfamiliar phrases, especially if they are short and pithy, grab our attention. Referring to her own history as a sexual assault victim, McGowan used the "me-too" phrase to identify herself with her audience: "Thank you, Tarana Burke, thank you to all of you fabulous, strong, powerful me-toos, because we are all me-toos -- and thank you to Tarana for giving us two words and a hashtag that helped free us." McGowan continued by linking "I" and "we" statements to establish identity: "I have been silenced for twenty years," soon followed by "We are free. We are strong. We are one massive collective voice."

In that opening section, one also notes McGowan's parallel language: "We are free. We are strong. We are one massive collective voice." The "we are's" have a cumulative effect. She continued: "Its time to be whole. It's time [to] rise. It's time to be brave." Also parallel, also a cumulative effect.

A "monster" metaphor then drove home her attack on evil: "In the face of unspeakable actions from one monster, we look away to another: the head monster of all right now and they are the same and they must die." Repetition then drove her point home: "It is time. The paradigm must be subverted. It is time."

People respond well to groups of three, leading us to notice McGowan's rhetorical tricolon: "Name it, shame it, call it out." She ended with a brilliant allusion to Nathaniel Hawthorne: "The scarlet letter is theirs, it is not ours. We are pure, we are strong, we are brave and we will fight."

At the end of her speech, she tied her sense of unity and female empowerment into a thinly-veiled attack against Donald Trump's Access Hollywood scandal.

Effective, powerful language made this speech memorable.

Alas, McGowan was later charged with a drug offense. Too bad.