.jpg) |
| JB Pritzker |
Responding to that prospect, Pritzker held his August 25 press conference to speak against Trump's plan. He combined factual analysis with rhetorical language. Each of his rhetorical figures aimed to show that Trump’s actions conflicted with traditional American values. Not only did Pritzker’s rhetorical figures and tropes elevate the speech, but they also highlighted liberty. Liberty is, after all, what Patrick Henry once called America’s “precious jewel.” After all, language is not decoration: we think with words! Language defines how we think.
Did Patrick Henry Warn Us About Donald Trump?
So, let us look at how Pritzker used rhetorical figures, not to decorate his speech, but to persuade his listeners.
Parallel Language
Parallel language (like Caeser’s “I came, I saw, I conquered”) connects ideas to show a pattern. Early in the speech, Pritzker’s parallel language helped him link several accusations into a chain:
Hidden in Pritzker’s brief statement was the rhetorical trope of “climax:” the final, culminating point, that Trump’s policy is un-American, put Pritzker’s protest on the altar of patriotism. “Un-American” became the culminating point, the principle that united Pritzker’s criticisms. Quite potent.
Parallel language (like Caeser’s “I came, I saw, I conquered”) connects ideas to show a pattern. Early in the speech, Pritzker’s parallel language helped him link several accusations into a chain:
“What President Trump is doing is unprecedented and unwarranted. It is illegal. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.”Note the parallel language: “is unprecedented… It is illegal… It is unconstitutional… It is un-American.” The linguistic repetition showed the audience a common theme of wrongness. “Unprecedented,” Pritzker’s first criticism, separated Trump from the conservative philosophy that he supposedly represents. The conservative core is to avoid new things, and something that is unprecedented doesn’t sound conservative. “Unwarranted” stated that Chicago does not need Trump’s intervention. Escalating the rhetoric, “Illegal” and “unconstitutional” placed Pritzker on the side of the law and Trump against it. Finally, “un-American” summarized Pritzker’s argument: after all, things that are unwarranted, illegal, or unconstitutional do not sound very American, do they?
Hidden in Pritzker’s brief statement was the rhetorical trope of “climax:” the final, culminating point, that Trump’s policy is un-American, put Pritzker’s protest on the altar of patriotism. “Un-American” became the culminating point, the principle that united Pritzker’s criticisms. Quite potent.
Rhetorical Question
Pritzker’s very next sentence asked a rhetorical question (like Shakespeare, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”):
More Parallel Language!
Continuing, Pritzker contrasted Trump’s purported goal against what Pritzker said was the true goal:
Pritzker said “This is about” twice. Since Pritzker had already argued that the occupation was not about law enforcement, it was instead about (1) intimidating “his political rivals” and (2) circumventing “our democracy.” The repeated phrase showed the audience that Trump’s two hidden motives were as closely related as two cousins.
Let us not overlook Pritzker’s invective (like the classic, “my opponent is lower than a snake in the grass”) against Stephen Miller, the “complicit lackey.” Rarely do personal attacks elevate a speech, but is this an exception?
Comparison and Contrast
Comparison and contrast (Chaucer, “His horses were good, but he was not gaily dressed”) gives issues their context. Comparing and contrasting puts language to work analyzing problems. So, continuing, Pritzker contrasted crime in Chicago, which is a real problem, against the even worse crime problem that, he asserted, afflicts conservative regions:
That is how Pritzker dispelled Trump’s pretense that he was attacking crime. Instead, the numbers showed that Trump was on an anti-liberal state agenda. Compare and contrast! Once again, these figures of speech were not decoration: the figure of speech carried a persuasive idea. Once again, Pritzker’s figure of speech highlighted Trump’s threat to liberty, that “precious jewel.”
Turning the Tables
The most powerful of all debating tactics is to turn your opponent’s argument around. During the last presidential campaign, Republicans repeatedly (and dubiously) accused President Biden and other Democrats of defunding the police.
Countering this in a bold stroke, Pritzker cited facts to show that it was Trump, not the Democrats, who cut police funding. In a lengthy section, Pritzker cited several ways that Republicans have downgraded law enforcement:
_________________
Research Note:
Over the centuries, rhetoricians have cataloged literally hundreds of rhetorical figures and tropes. Stanford University Professor Jonah Willihanganz has collected a nice summary of some of them.
Of course, Patrick Henry’s wonderful metaphor of liberty as a “precious jewel” may be the most powerful figure that I mentioned in this essay!
Ironically, Patrick Henry called liberty a precious jewel precisely because he opposed adopting our Constitution, fearing that the president would one day become a king. Did he have a point, after all? What do you think? “Will the abandonment,” Henry asked, “of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else.”
Several philosophers have commented on the ways that language expresses and influences the way we think. One of the most readable works on that theme is Suzanne K. Langer, Philosophy in a New Key.
Pritzker’s very next sentence asked a rhetorical question (like Shakespeare, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”):
“If this was really about fighting crime and making the streets safe, what possible justification could the White House have for planning such an exceptional action without any conversations or consultations with the governor, the mayor, or the police?"
Pritzker then answered his own question:
“Let me answer that question: This is not about fighting crime.”Pritzker’s rhetorical question implied a paradox. He accused Trump of concealing his true motive, for, if Trump wanted to fight crime, he would have worked with the police.
More Parallel Language!
Continuing, Pritzker contrasted Trump’s purported goal against what Pritzker said was the true goal:
“This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to deploy the military in a blue city, in a blue state, to try and intimidate his political rivals.Pritzker’s phrase, “This is about,” sought to uncover Trump’s real motives. Pritzker had already stated that Trump was not really interested in law and order. Instead, the military intervention is about Trump’s real motive: to undermine our system of government. By this point, Pritzker had pictured Trump as the enemy of that precious jewel, Liberty. Pritzker’s figure of speech distinguished Trump’s overt motive against the covert purpose.
“This is about the president of the United States and his complicit lackey, Stephen Miller, searching for ways to lay the groundwork to circumvent our democracy, militarize our cities and end elections.” [italics added]
Pritzker said “This is about” twice. Since Pritzker had already argued that the occupation was not about law enforcement, it was instead about (1) intimidating “his political rivals” and (2) circumventing “our democracy.” The repeated phrase showed the audience that Trump’s two hidden motives were as closely related as two cousins.
Let us not overlook Pritzker’s invective (like the classic, “my opponent is lower than a snake in the grass”) against Stephen Miller, the “complicit lackey.” Rarely do personal attacks elevate a speech, but is this an exception?
Comparison and Contrast
Comparison and contrast (Chaucer, “His horses were good, but he was not gaily dressed”) gives issues their context. Comparing and contrasting puts language to work analyzing problems. So, continuing, Pritzker contrasted crime in Chicago, which is a real problem, against the even worse crime problem that, he asserted, afflicts conservative regions:
“Like every major American city in both blue and red states, we deal with crime in Chicago. Indeed, the violent crime rate is worse in red states and red cities.”Pritzker did not prove that point—it would have been wonderful if he had—but merely assumed that his listeners had followed the media’s crime reports. As Arianna Johnson points out in Forbes magazine, states that voted for Trump have murder rates 12% higher than Democratic areas. In 2020, of the 10 states that have the highest murder rates, eight consistently vote for Republican presidential candidates. For example, conservative Mississippi and Louisiana are at this writing ranked #1 and #2 in firearms mortality. Overall, conservative states have been more dangerous and crime-ridden than blue states. Yet Trump only threatened to occupy cities in states that voted for Biden. Does that make sense? It is that paradox that Pritzker addressed by comparing and contrasting.
That is how Pritzker dispelled Trump’s pretense that he was attacking crime. Instead, the numbers showed that Trump was on an anti-liberal state agenda. Compare and contrast! Once again, these figures of speech were not decoration: the figure of speech carried a persuasive idea. Once again, Pritzker’s figure of speech highlighted Trump’s threat to liberty, that “precious jewel.”
Turning the Tables
The most powerful of all debating tactics is to turn your opponent’s argument around. During the last presidential campaign, Republicans repeatedly (and dubiously) accused President Biden and other Democrats of defunding the police.
Countering this in a bold stroke, Pritzker cited facts to show that it was Trump, not the Democrats, who cut police funding. In a lengthy section, Pritzker cited several ways that Republicans have downgraded law enforcement:
“If Donald Trump was actually serious about fighting crime in cities like Chicago, he, along with his congressional Republicans, would not be cutting over $800 million in public safety and crime prevention grants nationally, including cutting $158 million in funding to Illinois for violence prevention programs that deploy trained outreach workers to deescalate conflict on our streets. Cutting $71 million in law enforcement grants to Illinois, direct money for police departments through programs like Project Safe Neighborhoods, the state and local Antiterrorism Training Program, and the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative, cutting $137 million in child protection measures in Illinois that protect our kids against abuse and neglect.” [Italics added]Pritzker’s opening phrase “If Donald Trump” attacks Trump’s honesty. If is a powerful word; it makes us think. I hope that, by this point, the reader noticed the linguistic power of saying “cutting” over and over. Repetition has a power of its own, like the repeated blows that nail two boards together. Indeed, nailing down his argument, Pritzker then mocked the Republican Party’s talking point:
“Trump is defunding the police.”Wielding Trump’s own phrase against him! So, now, who is on the side of law and order? By Pritzker’s argument, it certainly is not Trump. Turning the Tables regularly works, simply because the speaker uses the other side’s argument against them. Other than blustering, how could Trump respond? Could Trump suddenly say that it is good to defund the police? Not likely.
Thesis and Antithesis
If we want to contrast two opposing philosophies, if we want to establish a moral opposition, we state a point and then its opposite. Thus, Pritzker specifically rejected Trump’s clarion call:
If we want to contrast two opposing philosophies, if we want to establish a moral opposition, we state a point and then its opposite. Thus, Pritzker specifically rejected Trump’s clarion call:
“Earlier today in the Oval Office, Donald Trump looked at the assembled cameras and asked for me personally to say, ‘Mr. President, can you do us the honor of protecting our city?’ Instead, I say, ‘Mr. President, do not come to Chicago.’”Thesis: Trump requested an invitation to Chicago.
Antithesis: Pritzker said, “do not come to Chicago.”
The contrast clarified the conflict.
Conclusion
Throughout this speech, a speech that history should preserve, Pritzker stood for freedom against tyranny. Pritzker’s parallel language piled Trump’s moral failings one on top of the next. His comparison and contrast highlighted the conflict between Trump’s pretend values and true motivations.
Pritzker’s rhetorical figures were neither beautiful nor inspiring. He didn’t talk like Abraham Lincoln or Daniel Webster. He talked like a fighter. Pritzker’s figures of speech linked his arguments the way a prizefighter links one-two punches. Pritzker’s invective invited his audience to condemn politicians who subvert their own values to serve an overlord. He scraped raw the difference between Trump’s actions and the goals that Trump only pretended to uphold. Overall, Pritzker’s rhetorical figures uncovered Trump’s hypocrisy and attacked his policy’s ethical failings. Pritzker’s rhetorical figures did not elevate his speech by lifting the soul or thrilling the heart. Instead, the figures elevated Pritzker’s speech by forcing us to think. By forcing us to face hard truths. It isn’t just what a speaker says: it is also how the speaker says it.
Conclusion
Throughout this speech, a speech that history should preserve, Pritzker stood for freedom against tyranny. Pritzker’s parallel language piled Trump’s moral failings one on top of the next. His comparison and contrast highlighted the conflict between Trump’s pretend values and true motivations.
Pritzker’s rhetorical figures were neither beautiful nor inspiring. He didn’t talk like Abraham Lincoln or Daniel Webster. He talked like a fighter. Pritzker’s figures of speech linked his arguments the way a prizefighter links one-two punches. Pritzker’s invective invited his audience to condemn politicians who subvert their own values to serve an overlord. He scraped raw the difference between Trump’s actions and the goals that Trump only pretended to uphold. Overall, Pritzker’s rhetorical figures uncovered Trump’s hypocrisy and attacked his policy’s ethical failings. Pritzker’s rhetorical figures did not elevate his speech by lifting the soul or thrilling the heart. Instead, the figures elevated Pritzker’s speech by forcing us to think. By forcing us to face hard truths. It isn’t just what a speaker says: it is also how the speaker says it.
by William D. Harpine
_________________
Research Note:
Over the centuries, rhetoricians have cataloged literally hundreds of rhetorical figures and tropes. Stanford University Professor Jonah Willihanganz has collected a nice summary of some of them.
Of course, Patrick Henry’s wonderful metaphor of liberty as a “precious jewel” may be the most powerful figure that I mentioned in this essay!
Ironically, Patrick Henry called liberty a precious jewel precisely because he opposed adopting our Constitution, fearing that the president would one day become a king. Did he have a point, after all? What do you think? “Will the abandonment,” Henry asked, “of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else.”
Several philosophers have commented on the ways that language expresses and influences the way we think. One of the most readable works on that theme is Suzanne K. Langer, Philosophy in a New Key.
Are you interested in Illinois politics? You might be interested in my otherwise unpublished paper, “A Cog in the Machine? Mike Howlett's Image in the 1976 Campaign for Governor of Illinois.”
Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine
Image of JB Pritzker, Maryland GovPics, Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons
.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment