 |
| Donald Trump |
“We’re going to evict crazy Kamala. Do you know, ever hear of Kamala? Radical left. Radical left.”So said Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in his August 12, 2024 political rally in Montana. Trump exploited the simple rhetorical trope of repetition. One of a demagogue’s most powerful tools, simple repetition can dominate even the most well-intentioned political audience. Instead, in this case, eschewing argument, Trump used what I have previously called the jackhammer method of persuasion.
Over and over, Trump called Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris a member of the “radical left.” Now, as a rhetorical tactic, repetition has one big advantage: the speaker experiences no need to explain anything, prove anything, or justify anything. As a rhetorical tactic, repetition detours around any reasoned ideas. If we hear something many times, we may grow to believe it: as hammer-like repetition pounds unproved and sometimes ridiculous ideas into our brains.
Earlier Post: Conservatives, Public Health, and the Jackhammer Method of Persuasion
The Psychological Theory of Repetition
A psychological theory called the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion posits that we adopt attitudes in one of two different ways. We can follow the Central Route, which means that we listen carefully, gather information, and analyze the pros and cons. That requires time and effort; the listener must gather and analyze information with confidence. It’s a lot of work. It often requires a significant knowledge base. In contrast, the Peripheral Route bypasses reasoned thought. An audience member who relies on the Peripheral Route relies on superficial cues: whether the source is likeable or attractive, the speaker’s delivery style, belief in the speaker’s expertise, and, of course, simple repetition. The Peripheral Route makes it simpler to evaluate an argument. In truth, that often makes sense, especially for trivial decisions.
Nevertheless, I cannot imagine any decision more important than voting for the President of the United States. Does any other action cry out more loudly for Central Route persuasion?
Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and the “Radical Left”
Over and over, Trump said that Harris and other Democrats were radicals, leftists, or socialists. Only briefly and hyperbolically did Trump explain why he thought Harris was a radical leftist.
For example, after calling Harris “Radical left. Radical left,” Trump sarcastically explained why Harris was “radical:”
Trump continued to complain about radicals as he looked forward to the next election:
Obviously enough, Trump’s rhetorical tactic pleased this crowd precisely because they already believed every word of it. Liberals terrified them. Montana is a gun culture state. Talk radio and Fox News had already convinced them that Democrats are liberal, radical, dangerous gun-grabbers. Did Trump need to prove any of what he said? As far as his audience felt – no! Elections are determined by encouraging voter turnout, not by changing people’s minds, and enthusiastic Peripheral Route persuasion was all that Trump needed.
Do speeches like Trump’s give us a sound basis to participate in elections using the criteria of good citizenship that we all should have learned in school? I shudder to think.
Nothing New Under the Sun
As the prophet said, there is nothing new under the sun. Name-calling, hyperbole, wild accusations – well, often enough, that’s how American politics works. Notoriously, many voters in the United States of America go through their political lives oblivious to the most basic issues. Trump’s crowd, who showed up precisely to hear the kind of ramble-browsing that Trump so enthusiastically offered, are, like too many of us, happy to live in a world of talking points and imaginary dangers. Trump presented a choice between two groups: the “Radical Left” or Trump and his friends. A stark, binary choice. Basic identity politics. Us or them. Right or wrong. Good versus evil. The underlying value assumptions were never proven, but merely assumed.
Earlier Post: Conservatives, Public Health, and the Jackhammer Method of Persuasion
The Psychological Theory of Repetition
A psychological theory called the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion posits that we adopt attitudes in one of two different ways. We can follow the Central Route, which means that we listen carefully, gather information, and analyze the pros and cons. That requires time and effort; the listener must gather and analyze information with confidence. It’s a lot of work. It often requires a significant knowledge base. In contrast, the Peripheral Route bypasses reasoned thought. An audience member who relies on the Peripheral Route relies on superficial cues: whether the source is likeable or attractive, the speaker’s delivery style, belief in the speaker’s expertise, and, of course, simple repetition. The Peripheral Route makes it simpler to evaluate an argument. In truth, that often makes sense, especially for trivial decisions.
Nevertheless, I cannot imagine any decision more important than voting for the President of the United States. Does any other action cry out more loudly for Central Route persuasion?
Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and the “Radical Left”
Over and over, Trump said that Harris and other Democrats were radicals, leftists, or socialists. Only briefly and hyperbolically did Trump explain why he thought Harris was a radical leftist.
For example, after calling Harris “Radical left. Radical left,” Trump sarcastically explained why Harris was “radical:”
“Well, she has a couple of things that a lot of people from Montana would like. She wants to take away your guns. You like that, right? All right, how about this? She wants to defund the police. Are you okay with that? She wants to allow millions of people to pour into our border through an invasion using an invasion process. I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s for you. It’s not for me either. It’s not for most people in this country. We’re going to evict crazy Kamala and we’re going to, we’re get Joe Biden out of the White House.”Those talking points are a bit dubious. Although Harris has sometimes opposed increased police funding, there is no record of her wanting to defund the police. PolitiFact previously rated Trump’s claimed that Harris wants to defund the police as “Mostly False.”
Earlier Post: Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"
Furthermore, Harris at one time advocated buying back (not seizing) so-called assault weapons, but she has, according to PolitiFact, otherwise never advocated taking away people’s guns. Also, Harris supported a bipartisan border control bill, which is not consistent with Trump’s claim that she supports an invasion process.
So, the listener confronts two links: first, were Trump’s accusations accurate? Well, no, at best, Trump exaggerated Harris’ positions. Second, were her policies “radical left?” That also deserves careful – Central Route – examination. Opinion surveys have shown that half or more of Americans support laws that would ban assault weapons, which, to my thinking, leads me to question whether that policy would be “radical left.” Still, Peripheral Route persuasion obviously invites hyperbole, as does much political talk.
Repetition Was Relentless
No Trump did not appeal to Central Route reasoning: he used a rhetorical jackhammer. Trump repeatedly insisted that his opponents are “radical left.” Referring to Montana’s Democratic Party Senator Jon Tester, Trump said:
After complaining about the 2020 election, Trump continued to rant about radicals:
Furthermore, Harris at one time advocated buying back (not seizing) so-called assault weapons, but she has, according to PolitiFact, otherwise never advocated taking away people’s guns. Also, Harris supported a bipartisan border control bill, which is not consistent with Trump’s claim that she supports an invasion process.
So, the listener confronts two links: first, were Trump’s accusations accurate? Well, no, at best, Trump exaggerated Harris’ positions. Second, were her policies “radical left?” That also deserves careful – Central Route – examination. Opinion surveys have shown that half or more of Americans support laws that would ban assault weapons, which, to my thinking, leads me to question whether that policy would be “radical left.” Still, Peripheral Route persuasion obviously invites hyperbole, as does much political talk.
Repetition Was Relentless
No Trump did not appeal to Central Route reasoning: he used a rhetorical jackhammer. Trump repeatedly insisted that his opponents are “radical left.” Referring to Montana’s Democratic Party Senator Jon Tester, Trump said:
“He’s a radical left lunatic, just like Kamala and we got to elect him."(When Trump carelessly said “him,” I must think that he intended to refer, not to Tester, but to Tester’s more conservative opponent.)
After complaining about the 2020 election, Trump continued to rant about radicals:
“I handed Kamala and Crooked Joe a surging economy with no inflation. We had no inflation. We had nothing. We had the greatest economy in the history of the world. True. Their radical socialist lunacy turned it into a failing economy with the worst inflation in probably 70 years.”(If we were debating by the Central Route, we might remember that in December 2020, Trump’s last full month in office, unemployment hit an astonishing 6.7%. If, however, the horror of “radical socialist lunacy” terrifies us, we can happily stay on the Peripheral Route and ignore the numbers. See the point? An audience that processed information through the Central Route would care about the numbers!)
Trump continued to complain about radicals as he looked forward to the next election:
“On election day, we’re going to tell this radical left country buster, she’s a country buster, that we’ve had enough.”Trump being Trump, he succumbed to the overwhelming need to whine about the 2020 election – again, blaming it on the “radical left:”
“The radical-left Democrats rigged the presidential election in 2020. We will not let them rig the presidential election in 2024.”Well, in one context or another, Trump made his point: Democrats are not just liberals, they are, he asserted, radicals. Dangerous. Frightening.
Obviously enough, Trump’s rhetorical tactic pleased this crowd precisely because they already believed every word of it. Liberals terrified them. Montana is a gun culture state. Talk radio and Fox News had already convinced them that Democrats are liberal, radical, dangerous gun-grabbers. Did Trump need to prove any of what he said? As far as his audience felt – no! Elections are determined by encouraging voter turnout, not by changing people’s minds, and enthusiastic Peripheral Route persuasion was all that Trump needed.
Do speeches like Trump’s give us a sound basis to participate in elections using the criteria of good citizenship that we all should have learned in school? I shudder to think.
Nothing New Under the Sun
As the prophet said, there is nothing new under the sun. Name-calling, hyperbole, wild accusations – well, often enough, that’s how American politics works. Notoriously, many voters in the United States of America go through their political lives oblivious to the most basic issues. Trump’s crowd, who showed up precisely to hear the kind of ramble-browsing that Trump so enthusiastically offered, are, like too many of us, happy to live in a world of talking points and imaginary dangers. Trump presented a choice between two groups: the “Radical Left” or Trump and his friends. A stark, binary choice. Basic identity politics. Us or them. Right or wrong. Good versus evil. The underlying value assumptions were never proven, but merely assumed.
Earlier Post: Negative Campaigns Go Way Back!
Never, ever should political pundits underestimate Donald Trump’s powerful political skills. Trump’s platitudes invited his audience to accept, or reject, the “radical left.” His audience wanted nothing to do with the left. Trump continues to do well in opinion polls. With millions of voters convinced that liberals threaten their way of life, Trump powerfully tracked his listeners’ fear and dismay. Did he offer them much in the way of policy? No, but policy was never his purpose. Instead, he filled the audience with outrage that the “radical left” would take away everything they hold dear.
Never, ever should political pundits underestimate Donald Trump’s powerful political skills. Trump’s platitudes invited his audience to accept, or reject, the “radical left.” His audience wanted nothing to do with the left. Trump continues to do well in opinion polls. With millions of voters convinced that liberals threaten their way of life, Trump powerfully tracked his listeners’ fear and dismay. Did he offer them much in the way of policy? No, but policy was never his purpose. Instead, he filled the audience with outrage that the “radical left” would take away everything they hold dear.
by William D. Harpine
______________
P.S. Special thanks to rev.com, a commercial transcript service, for preparing a full transcript of this speech. They are doing better than the mainstream media!
P.S. Special thanks to rev.com, a commercial transcript service, for preparing a full transcript of this speech. They are doing better than the mainstream media!
Research Note: Readers who want to learn more about Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo’s Elaboration Likelihood Model are encouraged to look at their excellent book, Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, which was published as part of the Springer Series in Social Psychology. Most research libraries will have a copy.
Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine
Image: Official White House photo
No comments:
Post a Comment