Donald Trump Says That the MAGA Crowd Loves Black People, Except When They Don't

Donald Trump, White House photo

President Donald Trump can win votes by dividing Americans, but can he govern the country that way? I don’t see how.

My former professor, Charles Urban Larson, a noted authority on persuasive communication, explains that persuaders can use a unifying style or a pragmatic style. The unifying style tries to unite us, while the pragmatic (or polarizing) style polarizes the audience.

In an extemporaneous briefing before the Marine One helicopter departure for Cape Kennedy yesterday, Trump said, "MAGA loves black people." He spoke in a warm, welcoming, inclusive style, making loving, generous comments that aggravated the nation’s divisions. That is, his style was unifying, but his content was harsh, divisive, and racial. Kind and hateful. Uniting and divisive. Generous words placing a thin cover over hostile thoughts.

Let’s look at how it happened, why it worked rhetorically, and  how Trump twisted rhetorical kindness to his own dubious purposes. In an act of what was either supreme tone-deafness or astute political divisiveness, he excluded African Americans at the same time he welcomed them.

“MAGA,” a Trump campaign slogan that has festooned countless homemade signs and red caps, means “Make America Great Again.” Some of us wonder whether it really means “Make America White Again,” which would transform the acronym to “MAWA.” Doesn’t have the same ring, does it? Of course, conservatives piously deny that MAGA carries racist overtones. Until yesterday, they could say that with a straight face.

What Trump Said

With thousands of people rallying against police violence all over the country, sometimes violently, here’s what a reporter asked President Trump yesterday at the Marine One departure briefing:

"Q    Mr. President, are you — with your tweets today, are you concerned that you might be stoking more racial violence or more racial discord"

And here is how the President responded: 

“Not at all.  MAGA says ‘Make America Great Again.’  These are people that love our country.  I have no idea if they’re going to be here.  I was just asking.  But I have no idea if they’re going to be here.  But MAGA is ‘Make America Great Again.’  By the way, they love African American people.  They love black people.  MAGA loves black people.

“I heard that MAGA wanted to be there; a lot of MAGA was going to be there.  I have no idea if that’s true or not.  But they love our country.  Remember that: MAGA is just an expression, but MAGA loves our country.”

Here’s Trump's Positive Message

Trump's surface message was positive and welcoming, after all, “By the way, they love African American people.  They love black people.  MAGA loves black people.” That sounds positive because to love people is such a good thing.

So, isn’t that wonderful? “They love African-American people,” said Trump. It is so good to love people. Trump continued in a positive tone: “they love black people. MAGA loves black people.”

Related Link: Trump's Unifying Speech in South Korea

Well, again, yes, it’s great to love people. How, a Trump supporter could ask, can you call the President and his supporters racists when they love Black people so much? But…

Alas, Here Are Trump’s Divisive Undertones

ProPublica reporter Jessica Huseman explained what was wrong with Trump’s attitude in one quick tweet: “‘MAGA loves black people’ suggests black people aren’t a part of ‘MAGA.’ That they are outside of it. And that’s the point.”

To me, making America great should mean making all of America great. But, since I suspect that there are people who think that no diverse nation can be a great nation, we hear an undertone that making America great means undoing an African American’s presidency and restoring racial boundaries.

What else? Trump also said, “I heard that MAGA wanted to be there; a lot of MAGA was going to be there." So, to Trump, there were people who protested police brutality, and there was MAGA, and "a lot of MAGA" was going to show up. Again, two distinct groups.

So, what Trump's quick statement told us – between the lines – is that the people who Make America Great love Black people, but that MAGA supporters and Black people form two different communities. Political psychologist Bethany Albertson offers a theory that helps us understand this. She talks about what she calls “multivocal communication.” This is communication that uses the same words to send different messages to different audiences, thus multivocal. We hear a surface meaning, which, in this case, is that Trump and his supporters love Black people. But people who are tuned in will hear the underlying message that Black people do not belong to the MAGA crowd. I assure you, dear readers, that no one, and I mean no one, tunes into multivocal meanings more attentively than the typical Trump supporter. If liberals didn't get the message, most Republicans caught Trump's drift right away.

The way the United States' political situation is structured, a candidate can win reelection by taking just over 50% of the vote. In fact, the Electoral College system lets a candidate win, as Trump did in 2016, with slightly less than 50%. But if governance requires consent of the governed, what happens when a leader excludes huge chunks of the population from consideration? That can only lead to bedlam, which is, of course, what is happening on the streets today.

Trump's multivocal comment accomplished two purposes. He pretended, for just a moment, to support racial harmony. He also set up a racial divide. Tricky, isn’t it? It’s awkward for liberals to complain that Trump and his supporters love Black people. It is, however, unlikely that his supporters will overlook that he endorses them over Black people. Some voters are equal, George Orwell might have said, but some are more equal than others.

Is Ideology Truth’s Enemy? William Barr, Tim Walz, and the Antifa Conundrum

This weekend, we have seen violent outbursts in several of America’s cities, protesting recent police killings. Different Americans are, however, reacting in different ways. Who do they think is responsible? 

Attorney General of the United States William Barr gave prepared remarks at a press conference today. He attributed the violence to extreme left-wing agitators:

“Unfortunately, w/ the rioting that is occurring in many of our cities around the country, the voices of peace protest are being hijacked by violent radical elements.”

He continued that:

“Groups of outside radicala and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate and violent agenda.”

And here came his main point:

“In many places, it appears the violence is planned, organized, and driven by anarchic, far left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics.”

Of course, "appears" is a great weasel word. Barr said “ant-EE-fuh.” “Antifa” stands for anti-fascist, and going against fascism seems patriotic.  Fascists have had a bad reputation ever since World War II.  But “ant-EE-fuh?” By pronouncing it that way, instead of “anti-faa,” which is more etymological, Barr blurred the group’s anti-fascist message, making Antifa sound foreign and disloyal. Does that reflect his ideology? Did he mispronounce the word to downplay the anti-fascist symbolism?

More important, he asserted, with the authority of the Department of Justice, that left-wingers are driving the protest against police violence. Does he have evidence for that? Or is it just an assumption? I worry a bit, since this sounds very much like the right-wing rhetoric that I heard as a child during the Joseph McCarthy era.

But Minnesota’s Governor Tim Walz, who has been supervising law enforcement in some of the most violent demonstrations in Minneapolis, took a more measured, and surprising, tone. Like Barr, Walz condemned the violence, saying that the rioters were “attacking civil society (and) instilling fear and disrupting our great cities.”  Minnesota officials said, as did Barr, that some of the people being arrested were white supremacists who had come to the community to agitate. According to Jon Parton of Courthouse News, “Department of Safety Commissioner John Harrington said they are contact-tracing the arrested and added that an investigation is underway about white nationalist groups posting online to encourage their members to use the protests as a cover to create chaos.”

White nationalists? Or Antifa terrorists? The extreme left wing, or the extreme right wing? Or both?

Who is right? I’m sure that federal, state, local law enforcement will investigate the riots thoroughly. I’m equally sure the partisan media outlets will spin the facts to suit their predetermined opinion. On today, the actual day of the event, the local officials might know more about on-the-ground events than the Attorney General in Washington. But who knows for sure? Barr, who is noted for conservative views, echoed terminology that is typical of the right-wing blogosphere: "outside agitators," "anarchic, far-left extremist groups," and so on. Was he responding that way because his ideology told him to blame left-wingers? Or did he possess facts that he has not yet mentioned? And, of course, it is possible, although perhaps less likely, that Minnesota officials blame white supremacists to divert attention from their own citizens.

We all tend to believe what we want to believe. Psychologists call this motivated reasoning. We all see the world through ideological lenses. Rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke said that we understand the world through a “terministic screen” that uses words to shape our perceptions. The German philosopher Ernst Cassirer explained that our language structure shapes how we deal with reality. And I vaguely remember that the great conservative radio announcer Paul Harvey was once accused of reading the news with “complete and total bias.” Harvey responded that he felt sorry for people who thought they could be objective. He had a good point.

At the same time, does not wisdom require us to see beyond our immediate, narrow focus? Can we truly not try to see other people’s perspectives, to accept that our ideology might be wrong? Hamlet wisely told Horatio:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in our philosophy. (Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5)

And so it is with us. We want to believe that our side is right while the other side is wrong. We fill in our knowledge blanks by letting ideology tell us what is true.  Unless we can shake loose of our preconceptions, and see the world more as it is and less as we want it to be, how will we ever understand one another? Or, to put it another way, if we leave our truth behind in favor of comfortable, ideological falsehoods, why would we even deserve to have hope for the future?

I have seen too many times in the last several years that people believe things that fit their ideology, while stubbornly refusing to accept any facts that contradict their predetermined framework. I suspect that that is what William Barr was doing as he intoned tired right-wing terminology. However, consistent with the philosophy that I explained above, I don’t want to jump to conclusions. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Is that not sometimes the case? Maybe, when all the facts come out, we will see a different picture entirely from what anyone today believes amidst an ongoing disaster.

So, yes, I think we are all ideological, all the time. But I get very worried when people like Barr spout off typical ideological buzzwords. I also think that ideology can quickly destroy rational thought. Watch out for ideology: it’s loaded.

Department of Justice photo

Sean Patrick O'Rourke's Speech about "Wisdom and Eloquence:" A Defense of the Liberal Arts

As the nation's turmoil grows out of control, perhaps we can reach back to ancient wisdom and find that the liberal arts might give us our solution. “Liberal arts” does not imply that one is a political liberal. The great rhetorical theorist Richard Weaver was profoundly conservative, and Russell Kirk, the intellectual founder of modern conservatism, was a historian. The “liberal” in “liberal arts” implies that one is expanding one’s thought, not that one is adopting any one political opinion.

On September 11, 2017, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, my friend and colleague Sean Patrick O’Rourke, the Director of the Center for Speaking and Listening and Professor of Rhetoric and American Studies at Sewanee, The University of the South, gave a speech on “Wisdom and Eloquence” at the Dedication of the Learning Commons at the University’s duPont Library. This speech was recognized by publication in the November 2017 issue of Vital Speeches of the Day. O'Rourke gave his speech at a time when education in general, and liberal arts education in particular, come under attack from too many quarters. In addition to thanking the many people whose work made the project possible, O'Rourke explained that, “we also gather to mark this moment in Sewanee’s long and distinguished history of contributions to liberal education.”

Like all good ceremonial or epideictic speakers, O’Rourke reached to a larger issue, deploring the United States’ growing willingness to abandon critical thought:

We are still feeling the effects of 9/11 and its aftermath: Recent independent polls by Pew, Gallup, and USA Today all indicate that we are more divided now than ever before. That division is evident in our use of corrosive, abusive, and hateful speech, our failure to listen to each other, our unwillingness to research and investigate the controversies that divide us, our willing and willful ignorance of science and scientific communications, and our tendency to let raw power replace informed debate, reasoned deliberation, and considered judgment. Our republic, commentators now tell us, is threatened more than at any time since the Civil War.

Related Link: Pink and the Power of Pearls at the VMA Awards: Epideictic Excellence

As I write this, Americans are rioting in the streets to protest police killings, while white nationalist groups flock to the cities to join in the mayhem, presumably hoping to cast blame on African Americans.

Looking for a solution to our national divisions, O’Rourke turned to the liberal arts. He explained how Marcus Tullius Cicero saw the ancient Roman Republic under internal attack. Rome’s great orator “retired to his villa,” O'Rourke explained, “thought deeply, and wrote to remedy the ills of his society.” To Cicero, the keys to civic leadership were, O'Rourke explained, “wisdom and eloquence.”

This thought led the speaker to discuss the Learning Commons dedication: “the space we dedicate today is the beginning of our answer to our civic crisis.” He explained that the Learning Commons “includes the enormous resources, both electronic and printed, of a superb college library.” Vitally, however, the Learning Commons also houses “a team of scholars, tutors, fellows, and teachers committed to working together to help every student achieve, in her own way and in his own field of study, ‘sapientia et eloquentia,’ wisdom and eloquence, never one . . . without the other.”

How do wisdom and eloquence, the goals of liberal arts education, answer our national and intellectual and political crisis? Using the rhetorician's classic tool, O'Rourke tied his points together with the trope of parallel structure:

To elevate the level of public discourse in our all-too-rancorous republic and to listen to one another even as we disagree;

To answer the bigoted and uninformed tweet with reasoned, informed, and considered judgment— . . . ;

To meet the defamatory utterance with passion, guided and directed by reason, . . . ;

To speak truth to power even when the risk is great and the fear nearly paralyzing;

To pursue knowledge, to weigh evidence no matter how contradictory or complex; to distinguish what is real from what is concocted, to engage questions even when they are difficult;

To eschew the easy talking points of partisan propagandists and instead embrace the nuances and complexities always present in any worthwhile debate or discussion;

To understand, in the end, that There. Is. No. Immaculate. Perception. That each of us will always have a somewhat different perspective on the world, its many issues and concerns, and the several routes forward. And that, while agreement on any of these points may be rare, constructive disagreement is a goal worthy of a liberally educated citizen in a republic.

As basic goals of liberal arts education, each of these points arises from a unified way to understand wisdom, and the parallel phrasing – “To elevate” – “To speak” – “To understand” – helped the listeners grasp the unity that underlies all critical thought. Yes, to trope Cicero, eloquence can lead us to wisdom just as wisdom leads us to eloquence.

Related Link: John McCain's Speech about "Spurious Nationalism"

Today, even more than in 2017, we hear our nation’s leaders attack science and denigrate our legal system, appeal to misinformation about our nation's history to justify stunningly unwise proposals, and call one another names because reasoning with our neighbor becomes too much trouble. To be wise, we must learn to think for ourselves, and not just to think, but to think clearly, to learn the lessons that history teaches, and to learn humbly that any of us can be wrong about just about anything.

So, no, those of us who study the liberal arts (my own undergraduate degree was in philosophy) are unlikely to get rich or famous. If, however, the liberal arts die from neglect, if we lose wisdom and eloquence, what good will the rest of knowledge do for us?

Like all good ceremonial speakers, O'Rourke praised the people and the institution that were being dedicated. He also, however, elevated the audience to think about moral principles. Furthermore, he showed, in a subtle but powerful manner, then an important public policy – the pursuit and encouragement of liberal arts – provides the only solution to our national identity crisis.


P.S.: Interested readers might want to look at O'Rourke's article about the liberal arts college, which he published in the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement (click the link and scroll). Also, anyone interested in rhetoric and public speaking should keep an eye on Vital Speeches of the Day, a nonpartisan publication that publishes notable speeches, and which, before budget cuts, used to be a fixture in every respectable public and high school library. Also, if you click the "William D. Harpine's Publications" button above, you will find links to my own modest research contributions about ceremonial or epideictic speech.

Doug Burgum on Mask-Shaming: How to Be Persuasive in a Conservative State

During his coronavirus press conference yesterday, North Dakota’s Republican Governor Doug Burgum opposed mask-shaming. His simple thesis was that a mask is a health precaution, not a political statement. To make his point, he showed great rhetorical skill by reframing the argument into a medical rather than political issue, while he established emotional appeals by giving examples of people who have medical reasons to wear mass and appealing to North Dakota pride.

In the bizarre world of 21^st century American politics, taking simple public health precautions to reduce coronavirus spread has, too often, created political firestorms. President Donald Trump and Vice President Michael Pence do not wear masks in public. President Trump famously referred to coronavirus news reports as “their new hoax.” Vice President Mike Pence's staff required a group of business executives to remove their coronavirus masks before he would meet with them.

North Dakota is a deeply Republican, pro-Trump state with a strong libertarian tradition. Governors, however, need to deal with practical concerns of wise governance that escape Washington’s attention. True to its libertarian tradition, North Dakota does not require citizens to wear masks in public. Nor did Burgum urge citizens to do so. Nor did he wear a mask during his news conference. He did, however, ask North Dakota’s citizens not to shame mask-wearers. Sadly, someone needed to say that. People have shamed me on social media when I suggested wearing masks in public. There have been reports of Trump supporters taunting and assaulting people whose only offense was to wear a mask.

Yet, Burgum wanted to establish an attitude of tolerance for people who wear masks. How did he handle his persuasive challenge?

First, he appealed to unity: “we are all in this together and there’s only one battle we are fighting about, the battle of the virus.” That is, his method was to speak in what persuasion specialist Charles Urban Larson calls a unifying style rather than the more divisive pragmatic style. In that way, Burgum sought to encourage action through unity rather than by dividing us from one another.

Related Link: Reagan or Trump? A Unifying Republican versus a Divisive Republican

Second, Burgum reframed the debate away from politics, denying that wearing a mask was “ideological or political or something.” He explained that, “If someone is wearing a mask, they're not doing it to represent what political party they're in or what candidates they support.”

Also, avoiding a rhetorical mistake that liberal speakers have been known to commit, he ratcheted the value question down to a personal level. Denying that mask-wearing was political, he continued tearfully: “They might be doing it because they’ve got a 5-year-old child who’s been going through cancer treatments. They might have vulnerable adults in their life, who currently have COVID and they’re fighting.”

Someone, like all too many liberal speakers, might say boring, abstract things, like: “it is the moral thing to protect other people from being infected.” What Burgum said carried much more power. He talked about a cancer-stricken child or suffering adult. By being concrete, Burgum flung his point out with a punch.

Yes, we can bridge the gap between conservatives and liberals. We do, however, need to speak in a language that other people will understand. As the conservative, libertarian governor of a conservative, libertarian state, Burgum showed us how it can be done.

Dear readers, please stay healthy!

If the "Medium Is the Message," What Message Does a Videoconference Send? A Few Tips for Videoconference Speakers

Marshall McLuhan told us that the “medium is the message.” He talked about hot and cold media. He called radio a hot medium. Since the only channel is sound, radio presenters fill in the imagination and emotion by speaking energetically. My top role model would be the late, great conservative broadcaster Paul Harvey. Television, in contrast, is a cool medium. The viewer both sees and hears, so the speaker has less to fill in and tends to speak in a conversational, living-room style. Watch the CBS Evening News for good examples.

Videoconferencing is turning out to be a cool to lukewarm medium. Videoconference speakers, take note!

The Internet is most often a hot medium. Even though the computer user sees and hears, just like television, Internet video stresses short, intense clips. Successful YouTube personalities, like video gamer and actress Felicia Day or musician Sarah Jeffery, use fast, energetic delivery.

As I said, videoconferencing is working out to be, well, a lukewarm medium. Lukewarm isn’t bad; it just means that it’s in between, and successful delivery styles resemble television more than YouTube. A videoconference tends to be less formal than a live conference. (That doesn’t mean that you should cut loose and be too casual, especially if the boss is listening. Oops.)

Link: How Can You Look Good at a Videoconference?

A videoconference gives people a chance to interact without leaving their homes or offices. In some ways, a video conference participant might feel more relaxed than a live, in-person presenter. We don't need to get on a plane, check into the hotel, get our suits pressed, and run to get to the program that never seems to be scheduled in the room that you expect. At a video conference, we feel that we are talking at home, as if we were Skyping our family. At the same time, the video conference is an organizational effort. It is a more serious event than a private conversation. To be taken seriously, speakers need to sound as if they are taking the conference seriously.

Link: How Can You Sound Good at a Videoconference?

The Internet is still evolving and what works this year might change next year. But, for now, videoconference participants are wise to remember that the medium is the message. A videoconference is wonderful, but it’s not a live conference, and we don’t speak the same way.

Anyway, enjoy your conferences! In the Internet era, we don't have to meet in person to interact with each other. It's different, but still good.

How Can You Sound Good When You Present at a Videoconference?

My last post talked about creating a good visual impression during a videoconference. With the coronavirus pandemic putting the kibosh on live conferences, we’re meeting on the Internet instead. But what about how you speak? Your vocal presentation gives you a chance to shine.

So, point number one is to speak in an energetic but not overwhelming style. A videoconference speaker wants to speak with plenty of vocal variety – especially variations in the rate and pitch of speech – but not with Paul Harvey-level enthusiasm. You’re speaking into someone’s home or office, not in a big auditorium, and you prefer to sound conversational. At the same time, if you are too cool, you can get lost in the Internet shuffle. To judge how people are responding to you, keep an eye on their nonverbal reactions. (That’s why the conference software shows everyone in a little box.)

Second, a videoconference speaker should never speak too fast. That’s because the Internet does not carry audio reliably. Yes, a super-fast Internet connection will help, but no one should ever trust the Internet. I do mean never. Fast speech might sometimes get garbled before people hear it. If there’s a lot going on at the conference, you might not get a second chance to make your point, so you need to make sure people hear you the first time. Slow down a bit!

Third, remember the Internet lag. At a live conference, people will hear the speaker’s voice within milliseconds. Over the Internet, the signal could travel for a second or more before everyone hears it. Furthermore, there’s no guarantee that everyone will hear the same speaker at the exact same moment. That’s another reason to avoid fast speech and it’s a good reason to pause briefly to punctuate your points.

Fourth, watch microphone placement. The microphone hanging from your computer is not ideal. That’s because the microphone wants to be six inches or so from your mouth, but the best camera placement will be a bit farther away. We’ve all noticed how awkward it is when an Internet camera peers at a person’s face, emphasizing the nose and every blemish. But if you back the camera off, vocal quality can break down. There’s a physics reason for that, but I’ll spare you the explanation. I purchased a separate web microphone – it wasn’t expensive – and it helps a lot. I can plop the microphone on my desk about 10 inches closer than the camera, making the camera and microphone both happy.

At the same time, don’t put the microphone right against your mouth. No one wants to hear your P’s pop. A few inches away will be best, and the ideal distance varies with the microphone. It’s not a bad idea to test your microphone and camera setup by conferencing with a sympathetic family member ahead of time to make sure that your visual and audio setup is the best.

Fifth, since you aren’t there in person, vocal quality rises in importance. Here are some old announcer’s tricks. One is to breathe from your abdomen, like an opera singer or a baby. Good speakers don’t move their shoulders when they speak. Paul Harvey himself once said that, when he was growing up, his mother liked to dress him in cute sailor vests. She didn’t have enough money to buy him a new vest as he grew, and he learned abdominal breathing to avoid suffocating. He joked that his mother was, without knowing it, preparing him for a career in radio. Another trick is to take a few moments to relax your mouth, throat, and shoulders, breathing deeply and thinking peaceful thoughts. We don’t sound our best when our muscles are tense. What about pitch? To find your ideal pitch range, close your eyes, relax, and hum. You will be humming in your natural pitch range. You’ll probably notice that this is higher or lower than the way you usually speak. Trust me, you will always sound better in your natural range than if you try to force your voice to be higher or lower than it wants to be.

Finally, be sure to project into the microphone. People will neither understand nor believe you if they can’t hear you. Again, checking your microphone setup ahead of time will help you find the correct volume. You probably need to speak a bit more loudly than you would expect, although, of course no one likes yelling.

I hope all that helps! Videoconference speakers usually want to be moderately enthusiastic, project their voices, and sound relaxed and confident. If possible, watch a recording of your presentation afterwards so you can learn from experience. Finally, and this most important, enjoy going to your conference, interacting with colleagues, sharing what you know, and learning from other people. That's what it's all about.

My upcoming post talks about hot and cold media. Is a videoconference a hot medium or a cool one? Or something in between? It makes a difference when we start speaking to one another on line.