“The Power of the Presidency to Hurt”: The Indecorous Rhetoric of Donald J. Trump and the Rhetorical Norms of Democracy

Abstract

Presidents are both individual agents who make rhetorical and political choices and discursive nodes through which political discourse circulates. As both agents and nodes, when presidents engage in educative, vituperative, and performative rhetoric, they are positioned to influence the form and content of the national discourse. Donald Trump largely eschews educative rhetoric. He depends heavily on vitriol, primarily using demeaning language, false equivalency, and exclusion. As an individual actor, these tactics characterize his rhetoric. As a discursive node, the effects are far more broad ranging, circulating and reinforcing deleterious language in both form and content. Trump’s example indicates that scholars of the presidency and presidential rhetoric need to think differently about presidential language as it circulates and influences broader political processes.

The Trump Effect: How 2016 Campaign Rallies Explain Spikes in Hate

“…Whereas much of this research focuses on the role that presidential rhetoric has on altering public opinion and affecting agenda setting, a growing body of scholars—particularly following the election of Donald Trump—is interested in the effects that presidential rhetoric may have on broader political processes (Rubin 2020; Sanchez 2018; Schneiker 2020). Stuckey (2020, 386) argued that to study presidential power effectively, scholars must examine not only presidential speeches and tweets but also the uptake and circulation of that rhetoric. This article builds on this assertion, suggesting that presidents who frequently and publicly use toxic discourse—particularly language that undermines key political institutions, demeans and stereotypes marginalized groups, and underscores imminent threat—are likely to affect more than only the structure of our national conversations, also resulting in changes to constituent behavior (Edwards and Rushin 2018).…”

The Rhetoric of the Trump Administration

“…But he was also unusual in that even this rhetoric was organized around the expression of emotions (Hart 2020). His rhetoric was designed to resonate, not to inform or to educate (Stuckey 2020). Trump’s policy speech was often oversimplified, full of catchphrases and platitudes, and was very often misleading or full of outright lies.…”

“…Ronald Reagan, for instance, was superlatively good at enacting the presidency. He followed all of the forms one expects, whether wearing jeans and chopping wood on his California ranch or sporting a tuxedo at a state dinner, moving with apparent ease between “man of the people” and “head of state.” Trump's performance of the presidency confounded such expectations (Stuckey 2020), leading Richard Crosby (2020) to argue that Trump is best understood through the “rhetorical grotesque,” which captures both Trump's behavior and his appeal at a specific political moment (109). The rhetorical grotesque has three elements: incongruity, transgression, and excess.…”

The Rise of the Global Rhetorical Presidency

“…If nothing else, the recent Trump phenomenon makes plain that Congress and the president must collaborate, and Congress must resume its role in holding the president to account. It also makes clear that presidential rhetoric has real effect (Edwards 2020; Hart 2020a, 2020b; Mercieca 2020; Stuckey 2020). However, the president of the United States is more than a national figure.…”