 |
| Jim Justice speaking at an earlier event |
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment