Trump’s dark rhetoric tests a polarized electorate – and media
| Washington
It’s a question as old as Donald Trump’s nearly nine years in politics: How should the public interpret the once and possibly future president’s sharp rhetoric?
From calling Mexican migrants criminals and rapists in announcing his first presidential run to using the word “bloodbath” last weekend in a speech about potential job losses if he were not elected, Mr. Trump has a knack for commanding attention with incendiary language.
Why We Wrote This
When Donald Trump makes incendiary comments, how do we assess the impact of the Republican candidate’s language – on voters, on the campaign, on the political environment?
To supporters, Mr. Trump’s verbal style is refreshingly blunt. To detractors, it’s dehumanizing or inciting. Caught in the middle are the news media, criticized for “platforming” him when they cover his speeches and slammed when they ignore him.
One concern is whether his tone as the de facto Republican leader is deepening political rifts and making the United States harder for anyone to govern. A related worry is that words can beget actions. Some observers say he has, if anything, stepped up the use of violent and dehumanizing language.
“The question is whether we should take his remarks literally or not. If we do, he can argue he’s being held to a different standard. But if we don’t, we’re ignoring his political history,” says Dan Schnur at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communications.
It’s a question as old as Donald Trump’s nearly nine years in politics: How should the public interpret the once and possibly future president’s sharp rhetoric?
From calling Mexican migrants criminals and rapists in announcing his first presidential run to using the word “bloodbath” last weekend in a speech about potential job losses if he were not elected, Mr. Trump has a knack for commanding attention with incendiary language.
To supporters, Mr. Trump’s verbal style is either refreshingly blunt or entertaining. To detractors, it’s dehumanizing or inciting. Caught in the middle are the news media, criticized for “platforming” him when they cover his speeches and slammed for normalizing abhorrent language when they ignore him.
Why We Wrote This
When Donald Trump makes incendiary comments, how do we assess the impact of the Republican candidate’s language – on voters, on the campaign, on the political environment?
It’s all taking place within an increasingly polarized environment – a trend that was developing long before Mr. Trump entered politics, but has grown since then.
One concern is whether his tone as the de facto Republican leader is deepening the rifts and making the United States harder for anyone to govern. A related worry is that words can beget actions. In some polls a majority of Americans blame Mr. Trump for the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Some observers say he has, if anything, stepped up the use of violent and dehumanizing language in his current campaign.
Now that the longest general election campaign in history is upon us, the challenge in assessing the impact of Mr. Trump’s language – on voters, on the campaign, and on the political environment – will be especially acute. But what’s clear is that it will be a factor all the way to Nov. 5.
“Trump understands that his most loyal supporters are likely to be motivated by what they hear, but he usually – although not always – keeps his language broad enough so he can argue that his critics are misreading his intent,” says Dan Schnur, a professor at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communications and a former GOP strategist.
Mr. Trump’s use of the word “bloodbath” in a speech March 16 in Dayton, Ohio, is just the latest example. He was addressing challenges to the auto industry, particularly over electric vehicles.
“We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single [Chinese] car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected,” Mr. Trump said. “Now if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole – that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”
Many mainstream news outlets reported that Mr. Trump promised a “bloodbath” if he’s not reelected. But even some high-profile Trump detractors defended him, saying he was talking about the auto industry and not post-election violence.
Former Vice President Mike Pence, who has declined to endorse Mr. Trump, is one. On CBS last Sunday, he said that “the president was clearly talking about the impact of imports.”
Still, Mr. Trump’s comments were sufficiently ambiguous so that activists on both sides can justify their views. And that’s how the former president wants it, analysts say, stirring up controversy and leading some to defend him when others won’t.
“His approach to language is very combative and aggressive,” says Jennifer Mercieca, a professor of communications at Texas A&M University. “It’s about reinforcing division and polarization, and he benefits greatly from having every issue a comment on whether or not you support Donald Trump.”
The Trump campaign has fundraised off the “bloodbath” comment, a sign of just how much traction the comment got.
Commentators question whether the news media can handle the challenge of Mr. Trump’s rhetorical style. Public trust in the media has declined to a record low, according to Gallup, with only 32% of Americans saying they trust the media “a great deal” or “a fair amount.”
This creates a big opening for many political players in 2024, including Mr. Trump. Efforts at “fairness,” which many mainstream media outlets say they strive for, are likely to fall short in public perception.
“Fairness is problematic because it’s subjective and it’s hard to even define,” says Matthew Levendusky, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, in an email. “No matter what the media does, Trump will say they’re being unfair. The challenge for the media is to explain to people what is at stake.”
Professor Levendusky frames the challenge of covering Mr. Trump in the larger context of his long pattern of norm-busting behavior – from the launch of his 2016 campaign to his recent rhetoric about immigrants (“poisoning the blood of our country”) to his embrace of those convicted for their role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
“The danger is that in covering this as just more ‘Trump being Trump,’ it can become normalized when it is not,” Mr. Levendusky says.
Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, stresses the need for journalists to emphasize “not the odds, but the stakes.” In other words, focus on the consequences for democracy in the 2024 election and not the horse race. But the danger is that the public has become inured to Mr. Trump’s rhetoric, raising the bar ever higher for incendiary comments to alarm people.
Another challenge for reporters is that the public is increasingly avoiding the news – especially young people – or just following events in snippets via social media, which strips away nuance.
“We have crisis levels of polarization, cynicism, frustration, and mistrust in this country,” says Professor Mercieca. “So a democratic-oriented political leader, someone who would be using rhetoric for the common good, would use strategies to try to ameliorate all of those negative qualities in the electorate.”
Back in September 2016, conservative journalist Salena Zito urged voters to take Mr. Trump “seriously but not literally.” The press, she said, was being too literal in its approach to Mr. Trump. Now, high-profile commentators are saying, the former president must be taken both literally and seriously.
And even if much of what Mr. Trump says is performative, the public can’t be certain that he’s not being serious about his stated intentions for a second term.
“People have been using war analogies or military analogies in politics ever since Machiavelli and Sun Tzu,” says Professor Schnur, who was communications director for Republican Sen. John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.
“The question is whether we should take his remarks literally or not. If we do, he can argue he’s being held to a different standard. But if we don’t, we’re ignoring his political history.”
