Deconstructing the way that politicians use language is vital for the citizens in any democratic society. We would like to believe that we, the people, are careful judges of “politician speak,” capable of recognizing inconsistencies and lies, and proud of our capacity to rationally select decent candidates. Or, perhaps not. Actually, definitely not this election season.
It seems that we have entered an era of “post-truth” politics where what feels right is right, even if it has no basis in reality. Facts are for losers who want to destroy America, implies the Trump paradigm. And here we are—besieged in a “sound and a fury signifying nothing,” also known as the Trump phenomenon. Yet, this world devoid of reality has attracted a sizeable proportion of the American electorate. How can this be so? We have heard many explanations for the rise of Trump, two of which figure prominently in the minds of most scholars and political analysts. First, many people are fearful of an increasingly post-industrial, globalized economy and are venting their frustration by supporting a protectionist strongman. Second, given significant demographic shifts in the United States, there is a growing cultural backlash among the economically depressed, particularly white-working class males. The economic insecurity and cultural backlash theses can explain some of the Trump phenomenon, but they might not provide with us the entire picture.
Trump’s rise can also be attributed to the language that he uses, the structure of that language, and the language’s emotional messaging, which all resonate with his target audience on a deeply personal level. Linguists refer to the deeply personal language Trump uses to address his supporters as “private speech.” This is contrasted with “public speech,” which is the prevailing political discourse that dominates mainstream American politics. Hillary Clinton, for example, employs public political speech. The difference in communication structure between Clinton and Trump is evident: she uses a public platform to address public issues through public speech discourse; he, on the other hand, uses a public platform to incite personal and collective anxieties and nationalism through private speech discourse.
Private vs. Public
The private-public dichotomy is present in every facet of life. The way one interacts with close family members, friends, and intimates is often different from the way one interacts with work colleagues, figures of authority, and strangers. Generally, the interactions in the former (the private space) are more coarse, colloquial, and honest. Alternatively, the interactions in the latter (the public space) are more reserved, cautious, and deliberate. Conventional political rules have long dictated certain acceptable forms of speech for politicians. When D.C. bureaucrats and politicians speak “Washingtonese,” which has both a negative and public connotation, the American public disengages from the conversation.
To the millions of Americans disenchanted by economic and cultural insecurity, deliberative public speech is anathema. Trump’s jumpy, often incoherent speech appears uniquely suited to this portion of the electorate. He comes across as trustworthy to this group of voters by virtue of his indecisive, yet blunt, language. A recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Miami concluded that the usage of high-intensity, emotive language during times of “crisis” builds trust in a candidate. The vast majority of Trump supporters are voters who are “dissatisfied with the direction of the country” and are most likely to perceive the country as in “crisis.” Trump’s emotive language mirrors the “real” or “leveled” type of language that we might use with relatives or friends around the kitchen table. This “kitchen table appeal” is crucial to understand. It is not that each of Trump’s supporters necessarily agrees with what Trump says. Rather, the way he says things and the frame through which he offers one-dimensional solutions outweigh what he actually says. By unleashing the private into the public, he has become a linguistic liberator of sorts for his most loyal supporters on one hand, and paradoxically a change agent for his more hesitant supporters who see him as the ultimate challenger of “political correctness” that, according to them, erodes the soul and fabric of American society. Trump speaks in public, openly and unapologetically, the way many people whisper at home. His use of private speech, and its associated demagoguery and xenophobia, is reaching many Americans who perceive him as one of them. This is why a West Virginia coal miner who might have benefited from Obamacare can perceive Mr. Trump, a Manhattan billionaire, as his or her champion. Trump’s linguistic framework is designed to trigger emotive and fear-based response and it has, unfortunately, framed the 2016 presidential race. Thus, addressing the question of framing becomes imperative.
Opposing Frames
For much of the past two decades Distinguished Berkeley professor and cognitive linguist George Lakoff has researched, examined, and written extensively about the cognitive and linguistic distinctions that drive differences in policy positions between conservatives and progressives. His findings shed light on the interplay between Trump’s and Clinton’s opposing world views. Lakoff argues that as a society, we tend to view political issues in familial metaphoric (i.e. “Founding Fathers”) terms. Not surprisingly, a person’s political ideology has a strong correlation to his or her moral and social worldview. On the right of the political spectrum, there tends to be a “Strict Father” worldview, while on the left, there prevails a “Nurturant Parent” worldview. The “Strict Father” view values law and order and traditional gender roles. This uber-masculine view employs either/or logic and direct causation which triggers direct, swift action. The “Nurturant Parent” worldview is rooted in empathy, parental responsibility, community and protection of the vulnerable. This view employs systemic causation which recognizes that problems emerge for a variety of reasons. In an interview with the HPR, George Lakoff explains “every language in the world has in its grammar, the ability to address direct causation, but no language in the world can direct systemic causation.” Because of this, authoritarian demagogues throughout history have been able to capitalize on people’s fears and their instinctual inclinations for direct causation, rather than reasoned systemic causation. The applicability of these two frameworks to the modern political context is clear.
Trump’s Approach
Throughout much of the Republican primary, Donald Trump consistently distinguished himself from the other candidates by using private speech language. Trump’s rhetorical inclinations are rooted in his insistence on using direct causation to deal with all problems. If you have a problem with immigrants, simply deport them. If you can exploit loopholes within the tax system to better your lot, you would be a fool not to do so. His blunt approach to language allows him to construct a façade of trustworthiness because he “tells it to us like it is” or in the very least, he says what others are too afraid to even think in this era of “political correctness totalitarianism.” Although Trump has no general message discipline, his constant, repetitive appeals to the “Strict Father” framework have been remarkably consistent and have entrenched a loyal following. The truth in Trump’s world is irrelevant and facts are cold and bureaucratic. The fact that so many Trump voters appear unfazed by his espousal of blatant falsehoods has surprised many; however, upon closer examination, a growing indifference to truth among Trump supporters should have been anticipated. Because of Trump’s private speech framework, he forges “emotional spaces” and connections with his followers where his meaningless declarative statements, simplistic, directly causal prescriptions of the world, and abundance of factual inaccuracies, somehow echo to many voters as marching orders of an American savior who will make our country “great again.”
Clinton’s Approach
For much of the presidential campaign, Clinton fell into the same messaging trap many Democratic politicians do. Rather than appealing to voters’ moral worldviews, she routinely referred to herself as a policy wonk and a problem-solver. As we will see shortly, her overemphasis of the “instrumental rationality”—rational achievement of pragmatic goals in the political sphere—is partly due to patriarchal, male dominated ways of thinking and being that control our social structures. These gendered structures of inequality constantly question females in our society (i.e. too weak, too strong, too shrill, too…). Despite this early insistence on appealing to the classical rationalist within all of us, Clinton’s new strategy in the first debate showcased her multi layered personality capable not only of logos, but also ethos and pathos. For an hour and a half, Hillary Clinton launched perhaps one of the most concerted and effective rebukes of the “Trump frame” yet. Through her words and framing, she questioned the authenticity of Trump’s private speech approach, which represents one of the key appeals to many of his supporters. In doing so, she not only undercut key appeal, but also expanded the language of her progressive frame, making it more straightforward, authentic and inclusive. Speaking in regards to Hillary Clinton, Lakoff told the HPR, “She believed for many years that she had to be stronger than any man. She had to come as knowing more policy than any man… Last night she positively framed the issues from her perspective. What you saw last night was the real Hillary.” In directly affirming her own positions, (i.e. invoking her own father and his small business in contrast with the business dealings of Trump) Clinton seized the frame of the election from Trump. Her reasoned and informed references to systemic racism within the criminal justice system, implicit bias in race relations, proposals for making a fairer economy, and approaches to foreign policy, all stood in stark contrast to the flailing of her opponent. But her framework did not stop there. She clearly defined the focal point of this election, in a language of clarity. She said: “The central question in this election is really what kind of country we want to be and what kind of future we’ll build together.” Unfazed by her opponent’s’ personal attacks and his proclivity for veering off into rants, she focused on a unifying question. She took the power of the frame away from Trump and he was lost without it.
What does it all mean?
“Words create. Know what you want to create before you speak.” wrote Bangambiki Habyarimana. Those in public office carry inherent responsibility for the way in which they use language. Their words can unite or divide us; their words can lead to peace or war. If the extent of our language is the extent of our thought, and by extension, our reality, then we must pay attention to the language codes and political messaging that our politicians use. We must pay attention to words as if our democracy depends on them—because it does.
Image Credit: Bill B/Flickr