The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump (Guest Post)

Trump speaks to the Evangelical "habitus"

JOHN SEEL

FEB 21, 2024.1/3 or 4EXCELLENT

This is a guest post by Dr. John Seel. He holds a PhD in American Studies from the University of Maryland and MDiv from Covenant Theological Seminary, and he is an Anglican cultural renewal entrepreneur and social impact consultant. Views expressed are those of the author. - Aaron.

There is a method to Trump's madness. While the media and his political opponents play rhetorical checkers, he wins by playing rhetorical chess. To understand him and his political success,you must understand the game he is playing. It is almost inevitable that we must learn to do that again.

To complement Trump's rhetorical skill is not an endorsement. I'm an independently oriented conservative Christian political voter, whose friends, and respected interlocutors (Pete Wehner, Mike Cromartie, and David Brooks) are all "never Trumpers." While it is true that my reaction to the Biden administration has made me become more politically conservative—the Afghanistan withdrawal in particular—I'm staunchly against forms of "Christian nationalism." As a student of contemporary religious culture, Trump is not a topic that can be ignored. Why is it that over 80 percent of American evangelicals voted for Donald Trump? And will likely do so again. It is for reasons that are deeper than public policy. Peter Leithart argues in "Why Trump Is Still Wildely Popular," that it is based on René Girard's theory of scapegoating. While this may be true, I think there is a simpler explanation.

I also teach classical rhetoric at an Anglican-micro-college in California. I'm attentive to the dynamics of successful rhetorical skills, which Trump demonstrates in spades. He does so in three ways.

First, he identifies with his audience.

Second, he gains attention space in the media.

Third, he reframes the arguments.

Trump may be infuriating to some, buthe is a uniquely gifted communicator. We'd all do well to learn his game.

There is public criticism over the increase in identity politics. However, it is a political truism that people vote for people who connect with them and reflect their identity. Pew Research found that "Partisans without four-year college degrees are more likely than those with degrees to say a major reason for affiliating with their party is because it 'sticks up for people like me'—and this is especially the case among Republicans."

There are two kinds of things that politicians can identify with: things on the surface and things in the deep. Class, race, and gender are surface markers.The deeper dynamics are the animating myths and stories that reflect our unconscious sense of self. These are much more telling and enduring.

They are historically derived biases and dispositions that shape our unconscious perception of reality.They are framing dispositions of mind. This is identity politics at its deepest and most effective level. Karl Marx correctly observed that "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."Our perception of reality is framedby these unconscious historically derived dispositions that have become second nature.

The academic term for this interior history is "habitus."Habitus is the inherent feel for the game within a specific sphere of social action. Originally an Aristotelian term, it was further developed by French social theorist Pierre Bourdieu.He described habitus as the "unconscious history," the "hearth of mental activity," the "forgotten history" that history has produced and has since become second nature.

Bourdieu writes, "Agents merely need to let themselves follow their own social nature, that is, what history has made them, to be as it were 'naturally' adjusted to the historical world they are up against, to do what they have to do, to realize the future potentially inscribed in this world where they are like fish in water."

https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/trump-rhetoric?

>>20457339

2/3 or 4

Historians and political scientists have often wonderedwhy American evangelicals do not seem to vote based on their theology or moral sensitivities. At this level Trump's biography and behavior would seem to create obstacles to their support. Historian George Marsden indicates that it is more than theology that is a play in these dynamics. He writes, "On the issues of culture and politics generalizations about evangelicalism are particularly hazardous. This is becausetheir behavior is based on a collection of useful myths—that is, selected truths and half-truths—that define the identity of a people, establish a model that they ought to emulate, and hence legitimates present action." American evangelicals vote based on their habitus not their theology: their "useful myths and selected truths."..

In this analysis, I acknowledge making sweeping generalizations, however, a clear pattern emerges. I haveobserved six cultural dispositional characteristicsof the current evangelical habitus—the water in which the American evangelical swims. Habitus do not have to be historically accurate only historically derived.

Here are my six characteristics of the evangelical habitus:

Reign: A Christian Nation (1630-1800) – majoritarianism and exceptionalism

Revivalism: Faith in Man (1800-1880) – populism, pietism, and nativism

Resentment: Loss of Hegemony (1880-1930) – grievance and resentment

Retreat: A Lifestyle Enclave (1930-1970) – isolation and parallel institutions

Reassertion: Take Back (1970-1995) – political assertion and functional Nietzscheanism

Reassessment: Cracks in the Habitus (19995-2020) – emergent and deconstruction

The Christian Nationalist movement is a loose mixture of these latent dispositions including American exceptionalism, populism and suspicion of elites, deep resentment coupled with nativism, and political reassertion.Collectively, these sound like themes of every Trump rally=. His coalition is not based on an evangelical theology, but an evangelical habitus—which is most pronounced among the large number of self-defined evangelicals who are less educated and attend church less frequently.Trump regularly hammers the habitus of reign, revivalism, resentment, retreat, and reassertion. These themes resonate with a deeply laden subconscious identity politics. Evangelical support is almost inevitable. Those who don't support Trump are generally less committed to the historic evangelical habitus. They make up those engaged in some measure of reassessment. While the habitus argument explains why people identify with Trump's message,there is more to his communication strategy.

At any given moment, there arelimits to the public's attention span. Editor and newsroom showrunners must decide what topic deserves airing or printing; what gets the A Block or the space above the fold in a newspaper. In every news cycle, there is a constant competition for attention space. What is true of the platform of media distribution is also true in the minds of a given audience.People are increasingly distracted, multitasking, and easily disinterested. There is a constant competition for the public's attention.For a message to gain influence with the public, it must first achieve attention space. Sociologist Randall Collins writes, "Cultural capital is apportioned around an attention space; the more valuable cultural capital is that which can be used most successfully in the next round of competition for attention."

Your message mustgain attention and sustain attentionto make a difference. Collins also observes that attention space is limited to about six topics.Trump knows how to get and sustain attention.

When pundits talk about Trump "sucking the oxygen out of the room" they are talking about dominating the attention space. He does this in various ways,but a common tactic is to make borderline outrageous comments. When the former president suggested recently that he would let Russia do "whatever the hell they want" to any NATO member that doesn't meet spending guidelines, the impact was acute sending a shudder across the entire foreign policy world.Every political candidate was forced to engage his remarks.

Headlines were made everywhere. Trump's point was that treaty obligations come with treaty responsibilities. The political rejoinder was that Trump would renege on his treaty obligations. Trump was warning NATO members, highlighting their obligations, and simultaneouslysucking the oxygen out of the room of his remaining political rival Nikki Haley whose political capital is in foreign policy..

>>20457349

3/4

Themedia was playing checkers with Trump's comments while he was playing chess—garnering media attention, speaking to NATO leaders, rebuking Nikki Haley's foreign policy credentials, challenging Putin, and advocating "America First" to his own voters all in one sentence.You do not have to like his style, but you cannot deny his rhetorical savvy. Trump was not saying what he would do in this given foreign policy scenario,rather he was making a wide-ranging rhetorical point amid a political campaign. He gave a right-brain challenge only to receive a left-brain critique. He got the media's attention and framed the debate via a hypothetical story thereby engaging the audience's imagination.

Most often he does this via Tweets. Berkeley cognitive scientist George Lakoff is an expert on linguistic framing. Everyone thinks first in frames. If the facts don’t fit the frame, the facts bounce off and the frame remains. So in this sense, frames rule.Winning the frame is the second most important communication step after gaining attention space. Trump does this via his Tweets.

Lakoff argues that Donald Trump’s Tweets are an exercise in framing andare not to be parsed as a series of factual propositions. They are tactical rather than substantive. Because thenews mediais addicted to "Breaking News" andhas a high proclivity for left-brain propositional thinking, media companies rush to report extensively on Trump's latest Tweet…playing directly into his rhetorical hand.

Media outlets inadvertently shift the focus off the substance under debate and on to the frame of Trump’s choosing in his latest Tweet. The media in this manner may well serve as co-conspirators of Trump's reframing and serve as amplifiers of his preferred perspective.

Trump's approach may be subversive, but it is also genius. While there may be some substance in some of his Tweets, their main purpose is to establish the frame rather than deliver the facts.

Lakoff has identified four kinds of Trump Tweets.

Preemptive Framing– be the first to frame an idea, establish an early frame and the facts will be hereafter seen only through that frame. Here is an example from January 7, 2017: "Only reason the hacking of the poorly defended DNC is discussed is that the loss by the Dems was so big that they are totally embarrassed!"Trump’s goal was to establish that the DNC was at faultfor the hacking—undefended, sloppy handling of classified information, deleted emails, questionable IT consultants and the like.

Diversion– divert attention from the real issues to in effect force a public change of subject, that is, controlling the narrative in the attention space.His early morning Tweets are designed to frame the day’s media discussion. Here is an example from January 9, 2017: "Meryl Streep, one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood, doesn't know me but attacked me last night at the Golden Globes." Here Trump is making Streep's comments at a TV award ceremony the night before they talked about news instead of the then pressing stories about the Russian hacking.

Deflection– attack the messenger, change direction. This is done frequently against the media by calling this or that story "fake news." Media information is suspect; the Trump administration is the source of truth. Here's an example from January 11, 2017: "Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to leak into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?" Here again he puts rhetorical blood in the water directly suggesting a parallel between the intelligence agencies and Nazi Germany. And the media sharks pounced. Everyone took the bait, as was his plan. It's not an argument of fact, but an exercise in framing, getting attention, and controlling the narrative.

Trial Balloon– test the public reaction. The media went crazy over Trump’s Tweet that his "red button" is bigger than Kim Jong-un. Dr. Freud has been immediately called to the public square. But again, this is to misread the purpose of these Tweets. Here is an example of a Trial Balloon from December 22, 2017: "The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes." This is not an ethical discussion of just war theory.Rather he is framing the controversy with North Korea and testing the public reactionto nuclear arms escalation.

>>20457357

4/4

Lakoff also notes thatembracing or attacking the frame has the same result of strengthening the frame. Confrontational argument or the piling on of alternative facts does not shift frames. This left-brain strategy is a non-starter.Rather frames shift when we engage the imagination, tell a better story, or use creative indirection. Poet Emily Dickinson put it this way:

Tell all the Truth but tell it slant —

Success in Circuit lies

Too bright for our infirm Delight

The Truth’s superb surprise.

We are to tell the whole truth, but not directly. She explains this in her second line, "Success in Circuit lies." We are to tell the truth in a roundabout manner, and she inverts the syntax of this line to demonstrate what she means.

How we process Truth is infirmed, weak, and unreliable. It is associated with our desires, what Dickinson refers to as "delights"—we are not thinkers first, but lovers first. We come to understand that which we love. Desire precedes thinking and therefore our apprehension of the brightness of Truth is impeded by our "infirm Delight."

Finally, finding truth is more like an "ah-ha" moment, a surprise, an unexpected self-discovery, than the relentless inevitable logic of a syllogism. Dickinson is talking about embodied truth seeking, how flesh and blood people go about being convinced on a topic day-to-day. This is not elite epistemology, but street epistemology. This is how actual people come to their conclusions.

It seems that Trump is playing a different game from the mainstream media.His rhetorical skills explain his success in a digitally oriented media world.

• He frames his arguments within his audiences' habitus;

• he controls the attention space of the media;

• and prioritizes winning the frame.

This has been for him a winning strategy.We are likely to see it play out again.

https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/trump-rhetoric?

22 Feb, 2024 16:07

Putin says he was right about Biden

The US leader’s “crazy SOB” comment only proved his point, the Russian president has said

US President Joe Biden’s recent insulting remarks are proof that it would be better for Russia if he stayed in office, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.

Speaking at a fundraiser in California on Wednesday, Biden had called Putin a “crazy son of a b***h.” Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin asked the Russian president to comment on this.

“When you asked me our preference for the next US president, I said we would work with any, but for us, for Russia, Biden was better,”Putin replied. “Judging by what he said, I was absolutely right.”

“That’s the appropriate reaction to what I said,”Putin continued. “It’s not like he could say ‘Good job, Volodya, thank you for the helping hand’.We understand what is going on there, in terms of internal politics.”

Biden’s insulting comments “mean I was right,”Putin said. In terms of who Moscow would like to see in the White House, he added, “I can say it again: Biden.”

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

(Is he saying Bidan is extremely manipulatable?)

https://www.rt.com/russia/592972-putin-biden-insult/

22 Feb, 2024 15:35

Russia secures ‘Victory’ in Donetsk

Moscow’s forces have liberated the settlement of Pobeda (Victory), also defeating several Ukrainian formations in the area

Moscow’s forces have liberated the settlement of Pobeda near the capital of Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), according to a battlefield update published by the Defense Ministry on Thursday.

In addition to capturing Pobeda – whose name translates as ‘Victory’ – Russian troops have also improved their positions along the front line in Donetsk, defeating Ukrainian formations near the villages of Novomikhailovka and Krasnohorivka, the ministry said.

The battles resulted in heavy casualties for Ukraine, according to the report, which claimed Kiev lost over 410 servicemen, as well as a range of military hardware, including Western-supplied systems.

The Russian military also said it haddestroyed the launcher and transport-loading vehicle of a US-made Patriot anti-aircraft missile system, along with other Ukrainian military equipment and manpower in 114 regions.

Last week, Moscow announced the capture of the key Donbass stronghold of Avdeevka, which had served as a pivotal fortress for Kiev since the early stages of the conflict.

After months of immense pressure from Russian forces, the Ukrainian military ordered its troops to withdraw from the town on Friday, explaining that the retreat was meant to avoid heavy casualties.

The Russian Defense Ministry, however, stated that Ukrainian forces had started fleeing a day before the official order came through. It shared drone footage purporting to show large groups of Ukrainian servicemen escaping the town on foot while leaving behind heavy equipment.

Moscow has estimated that Kiev lost over 1,500 troops during the retreat, and abandoned wounded soldiers, military hardware, and equipment.

https://www.rt.com/russia/592964-russia-liberates-victory-village/

(The Devil speaks)

22 Feb, 2024 13:54

Give us all your heavy weapons, Kiev’s security chief tells EU

With enough tanks and guns, the Ukrainian army can “destroy” Russia, Aleksey Danilov has claimed

The EU should donate all its heavy weapons to Kiev, Ukrainian national security council chief Aleksey Danilov has said, claiming that the arms will in any case be useless in future conflicts.

Discussing the perceived threats to the EU, Danilov told national media on Wednesday that the bloc is facing the potential rise of ultra-right forces, but suggested that nobody can predict what the security situation will be in two or three decades’ time.

“This issue needs to be tackled now.We have great experience, and we understand that Europe will not need those guns, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other hardware for its next war,” he declared. “They urgently need to donate them all to us, as Denmark did.”

The Danish government has decided to give all its artillery systems to Ukraine, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen announced last week.

”We have weapons, we have ammunition, we have air defense, that we don’t have to use ourselves at the moment, that we should deliver to Ukraine,”she added, referring to all EU states. (Why does EU have so many women leaders, its stupid?)

Danilov argued that in the future, current weapons will effectively be “scrap,” claiming that Kiev would have defeated Russia already if it had been given enough arms.

Ukraine remains determined to prevail in the conflict, the official insisted, suggesting that with more Western arms donations, Kiev would ensure Moscow is not a “threat” to European NATO members.

”We are prepared to achieve the task of destroying the Russian Federation,” he stated. (These leaders will be eliminated because they are so insane.)

Moscow perceives the Ukraine conflict as a US-led proxy war against Russia, in which Ukrainian troops are being used as cannon fodder. Russian officials have claimed that the “Kiev regime” is an accomplice in this Western scheme and a threat to the Ukrainian people themselves.

(Their propaganda and lies continue even after losing two meaningful towns in less than two weeks. The EU rants how much they support them but refuse to send more arms, they expect the US to provide everything. They refuse to understand Americans will not support this war that Ukraine can never win. Danilov is basically saying the EU is weak and they don’t need their weapons.)

https://www.rt.com/russia/592943-danilov-eu-heavy-weapons/