The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump (Guest Post)

Trump speaks to the Evangelical "habitus"

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, but he 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 framed by 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."

Historians and political scientists have often wondered why 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 because their 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 have observed six cultural dispositional characteristics of 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:

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

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

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

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

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

6. 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 are limits 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 must gain attention and sustain attention to 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 simultaneously sucking the oxygen out of the room of his remaining political rival Nikki Haley whose political capital is in foreign policy. The media 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 and are not to be parsed as a series of factual propositions. They are tactical rather than substantive. Because the news media is addicted to "Breaking News" and has 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 fault for 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 the 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 reaction to nuclear arms escalation.

Lakoff also notes that embracing 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.

Cover image credit: Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0