Breeaunna Lewis
Professor Werry
RWS 200
3 February 2016
Demagoguery in the Twenty-First Century
As America’s presidential election approaches, the nation is being exposed to many forms of rhetoric. One of the Presidential candidates, Donald Trump, has caused a phenomenal uproar by his harsh and radical speeches and comments which have led to a widespread debate over whether or not Trump should be labeled a modern-day demagogue. In the article “Characteristics of Demagoguery,” professor of rhetoric and writing at The University of Texas, Patricia Roberts-Miller, discusses the elements and characteristics of demagoguery and claims that it is a form of rhetoric that removes debate and offers only one true solution while promoting members of an ingroup to hate or scapegoat specific outgroups. Demagoguery as a form of rhetoric can be found throughout America’s history and is identifiable in present day society, particularly in times of crisis, anxiety, and contested social change. Some of the elements of demagoguery described in Roberts-Miller’s article can be found in the inaugural speech given in 1963 by the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, who challenges the attempts of the federal government to impose laws of desegregation. The elements of demagoguery used by Wallace to gain support and followers can be compared in present day politician, Donald Trump, presidential announcement speech. Wallace illustrates a prototypical demagogue in America’s history, however, the extent to which Trump uses demagogic strategies to gain support in the current political moment is still under debate. In this essay I will evaluate the elements of demagoguery in Wallace’s and Trump’s speeches, examine the extent to which Trump builds off of Wallace, and compare the extent in which demagoguery is present in both by analyzing each text through the lens of Miller’s text.
One of the most prominent and recurring elements of demagoguery in Wallace’s speech is his use of polarization. Roberts-Miller defines polarization in regards to demagoguery, stating, “a demagogue breaks everything into two camps the one s/he represents (what people call the in-group), and evil (the out-group)” (51). Roberts-Miller’s definition is very applicable and can be identified in Wallace’s speech, where he immediately creates an ingroup, being the people who believe in segregation, and an out-group, being all the people who support desegregation. Wallace begins his speech by directly addressing his in-group, stating, “[l]et us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South” (72). In saying this, Wallace creates a distinctive barrier between his in-groups and outgroups by using words such as “us” and “they”. He further defines a barrier between the two groups by attributing them with positive descriptions, such as: “upright man”, “true southerners”, and “the greatest people that have ever trod this earth”. Wallace manipulates his word choice and highly emphasizes his use of words, such as: my, us, and we, when addressing his in-group. By using this type of language, he evokes feelings of importance, entitlement, and essentialism from his audience. This same manipulation of word choice is also used when Wallace addresses his outgroup. He again uses the same separating words, but rather in the opposite way. Some examples of these separating descriptions are, “ungodly government”, “opposite of Christ”, and “the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South”. These descriptions only further evoke feelings of hatred and fear from the in-group, thus leading to an increase of support for Wallace.
Another apparent element of demagoguery used in Wallace’s speech is demonization. Demonizing, as defined by Roberts-Miller, “is done through explicitly saying that the out-group is Satan himself, or through metaphors that imply Satan and Devils” (52). Roberts-Miller claims that this element of demagoguery “is a scare tactic that helps polarize the situation,” and “is part of the general project of demagoguery of making it actively dangerous to disagree” (53). Wallace exemplifies this element of demagoguery, as described by Roberts-Miller, when he uses it to demonize the federal government and African-Americans. Wallace states, “… [i]f we amalgamate into the one unit as advocated by the communist philosophers then the enrichment of our lives, the freedom for our development, is gone forever” (76). Wallace attacks the federal government by creating a connection between them and communism. In the eyes of most Americans, a communist is one of the worst identities a person can claim to have. Wallace extends this further by using many more demonizing terms towards the federal government, such as: “opposite of Christ”, “ungodly government”, and even compares it “to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South” (75). By demonizing the federal government, Wallace evokes feelings of righteousness and unity within his audience by appealing to their fears, anxieties, and subconscious hatred.
One of the most noticeable fallacies found in Wallace’s speech is the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy can be defined as making a claim that one idea or action will lead to something completely awful and disastrous. Wallace uses this in his speech, stating, “[b]ut we warn those, of any group, who would follow the false doctrine of communistic amalgamation that we will not surrender our system of government, our freedom of race and religion…” (76). In other words, he is claiming that if the federal government desegregates Alabama the “true Southerners” will have to surrender to a communist government and lose their freedom of race and religion. This is a perfect illustration of how Wallace uses the slippery slope fallacy to intimidate and instill fear in his audience. Realistically, the federal government is not communist for trying to implement a new law, which is their job. Realistically, the government is also not going to take away its people’s freedom of religion.
The same elements of demagoguery present in Wallace’s speech can be examined in Trump’s presidential announcement speech. In many of the same ways that Wallace uses the strategy of polarization, Trump does as well. Trump begins his speech, instantly attacking and creating a separation between two sides, claiming, “[w]hen was the last time anybody saw us beating, let’s say, China in a trade deal? They kill us” (1). By using language such as “us” and “they”, Trump creates a distinct division between all those who support him against all those who disagree with him. Trump also intensifies his argument by using such extreme metaphors, such as: “they kill us”. He is repetitive with these aggressive metaphors, using them frequently. When using the word “they”, Trump is able to address all of his outgroups, such as: China, Mexico, Japan, Muslims, other politicians, etc., therefore resulting in ambiguity and interpretation from his supporters. “They” are made the enemy, while Trump’s ingroup are the victims. Trump illustrates how his in-group are the victims, stating, “[a]nd we have nothing. We can’t even go there. We have nothing” (3). By simply flipping the word choice when addressing his in-group, Trump is able to create a much different tone. The word “they” is used much more harshly and negatively compared to the use of the word “we”. This strategy used by Trump is very similar to Wallace’s use of word choice and manipulation to gain support and evoke feelings of righteousness and unity from supporters, while simultaneously putting the blame for America’s problems on the outgroup. Both Trump and Wallace use polarization, as described by Roberts-Miller, in their speeches to separate their audiences into two distinguished groups of good and evil.
While Trump’s speech is rich with many fallacies, the one that stands out most is Ad Hominem. The Ad Hominem fallacy, can be defined by Roberts-Miller as, ” [a] personal attack; it generally involves some kind of name-calling. It’s really a kind of red herring, as it’s generally irrelevant to the question at hand, and is an attempt to distract the attention of the audience” (www.drw.utexas.edu). Trump illustrates this fallacy, as described by Roberts-Miller, frequently, claiming, “[t]he Mexican government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc….” (www.townhall.com). Trump generalizes The Mexican people of the United States, calling them “criminals”, “drug dealers”, and “rapists”, which is completely inaccurate and stereotypical. However, it appeals to the hatred, jealousy, and racism that lie in many American’s hearts making it a powerful strategy to use.
People are exposed to many forms of rhetoric every day. It is very important, as a society, to know when the words being spoken are being used maliciously. By becoming more informed and educated on the different forms of rhetoric, including the negative side, we are more able to delegate what is honest and what is being used to manipulate us. Roberts-Miller’s description of demagoguery is especially important in modern day society. With upcoming presidential elections, our nation has been exposed to a higher amount of manipulative rhetoric. It is important to remember that while rhetoric is essential, it is also important that our democratic nation keep its ability to debate.
breeaunnalewis 