Former president Donald Trump says he wants to unite America but the rehetoric of his speeches reveals his underlying sinister and destructive intent. This is not a new revelation. Scads of his speeches and diatribes before, during, and after his presidency refer to murder, bombing, or the “taking out” of people and/or problems with which he disagrees. What is novel is how the figures of speech in his rhetoric has become routine in our country’s everyday political discourse–the “banality of evil” if you will.
But is it? Has Trump kindled a new ferocity or beastlness in our speech? Or has the blood-thirst always been there, waiting for someone or something to tap into and reignite it? Let’s find out which.
Rhetorical Classifications
People employ numerous forms of rhetorical devices to communicate with one another. Our daily conversations contain both literal and figurative language. The former denotes the exact meaning of the word or phrase, the latter promotes an intensified or persuasive effect. Few of us speak in a literal fashion all or even much of the time. Instead, most of us employ the tropes and schemes of figurative language to persuade or convince others to conform to their way of thinking or behaving. A fine example of this occurred during Ruben Gallego‘s address to the Democratic National Convention last month (See my August newsletter for more details).
Figures of Speech Examples
De Epending on the source, figures of speech can be broken into over 250 sub-categories. Of the two major categories cited above, tropes, words that carry a meaning other than what they ordinarily signify, are more commonly used in everday speech. Some of the most common are:
- Allegory–a metaphoric narrative in which the literal elements indirectly reveal a parallel story of symbolic or abstract significance
- Aphorism– briefly phrased, easily memorable statement of a truth or opinion, an adage.
- Euphemism–substitution of a less offensive or more agreeable term for another
- Hyperbole–use of exaggerated terms for emphasis.
- Metaphor–an implied comparison between two things, attributing the properties of one thing to another that it does not literally possess.
- Metonomy–a thing or concept is called not by its own name but rather by the name of something associated in meaning with that thing or concept
- Snowclone–alteration of a cliche or phrase pattern
- Zeugma–use of a single verb to describe two or more actions (cf. my August newsletter for a fine example)
Trump’s Most Characteristic Figures of Speech
The examples identified above reflect most of the tropes contained in language Trump commonly uses in his speeches and online postings. Among these, three merit special mention: aphorism, euphemism and hyperbole. Trump’s use of aphorism appears ad nauseum in his phrase, “Make America Great Again.” He employs hyperbole every time he characterizes one of his actions or those taken in his behalf as “perfect.”
However, hIs employment of euphemism is particularly notable. A 2019 USA Today analysis of 64 of his rallies held between 2017 and 2019 revealed Trump used the word “invasion” nineteen times when discussing the topic of immigration. He employed the zoomorphic term “animals” in regards to the immigrants themselves. But among them all, “killer” proves to be Trump’s euphemism of choice. It appeared almost three dozen times in his speeches at those rallies.
Benefit of the Doubt
Some including myself back then dismissed such characterizations as political rhetoric designed and confined to appeal to the prejudice of his followers. And on one level, it is just that. Yet, on another, why does it appeal to them at all? Does his audience actually believe all, most, or even many of the people crossing our borders are cutthroats and murderers?
Probably not. Certainly, many Americans customarily employ the term “killer” in their daily conversations. How often have you heard “[Name of your favorite sports team] really killed them in the fourth quarter.” Or, “I really killed [Name of my opponent] at [card game, sports activity]today].” Examples of hyperbole, sure, but they also express the speakers’ emotional attitude, their satisfaction in annihilating their opponents to the extent they had no recourse left. In short, they lost.
On a personal note, I grew up in Wisconsin, a place where following the Green Bay Packers is, if not a religion, a certain conversation starter. Among all their great players and coaches over the years, the one who most stands out, who headed them during their glory years was Vince Lombardi. His motto: “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.”
So What?
My father preached Lombardi’s aphorism like a mantra to me and my brother during our teenage years. Certainly, fathers in dozens of Wisconsin households and all across the country advocated the same to their families. Yet, as important as the content of the expression is the brevity of the idea it expresses. Those same people would shy away from endorsing a concept like winning at all costs is an acceptable form of moral behavior. However, embedding the idea within a witty turn of phrase renders it more supportable and justifiable, ennobles it, in fact.
The same logic applies to winning football, or any endeavor for that matter. If sports aphorisms serve as a metaphor for our daily lives, then the amassing of yardage, the imposition of will becomes a justifiable, even honorable pursuit. Better yet, beating our opponents and by extension, those who disagree with us, into submission becomes a laudatory pursuit. To do so, such that these others, the opponents, have no recourse, no means of fighting back thus becomes an enviable goal in itself.
Connection to Trump’s Figures of Speech
But, one might say, that’s just Trump being Trump. What impact can his language have over the rest of American society?
Plenty. His role as a former president and current Republicqn nominee gives his language an outsized status and power few other individuals possess. His customary hyperbole kicks up a duststorm of obfuscatory ideas, some contradictory, others unrelated, from which he can shield the identity of his true intentions. In short, the quality of his rhetoric transforms him into a figurative Loki of ideas, a veritable shapeshifter in expressing his ideas and opinions.
Moreover, the amorphous quality of his language resonates with others to do the same. Case in point: Mark Robinson, current Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina. At a July church gathering, Robinson declared during his address that “some folks need killing.” Spoke in the context of dealing with “evil people,” his target of such violence remained unclear. What was clear, however, was the absolutist nature of his solution–the total annihilation, the killing of the other–applicable to anyone different from him and his beliefs.
The Upshot of Trump’s Figure Language
Robinson exemplifies the “banality of evil” mentioned above and cited so often by mainstream media. The ordinary quality of his speech combined with the hyperbole contained within it reflect the absolutist, right vs. wrong quality of his thinking. For him and for Trump, the world is a battleground between good and evil. In such a dystopian worldview, there can only be winners and losers because the only ones fit to live are those who possess the correct qualities that merit living. What those qualities might be are reserved to the individual who defines them.
That condemns everyone to the fate of isolation from everyone else–alone to fight with whatever powers one has. That is a fine working scenario if one believes in a merciful god willing to provide assistance, but what about those who don’t believe in such a deity? Or those who believe in a deity that differs from the one the first person has chosen? Or those who believe in none at all?
Based on the evidence, an alternative solution may be to resonate with those individuals whose language patterns contain figures of speech which acknowledge the uncertainty of human existence and which accept the inclusion of new ideas, beliefs, and life styles.
However, embedding these figures in the everday speech of our leaders is not enough. Perhaps the best way to dampen the evil that pervades the human spark of life is to counter it with a backfire flame of compassion, unity and tolerance. It might not extinguish the evil that exists within us, but it may help in recogizing and accepting its existance in all of us while nurturing the good impulses within ourselves as well.