Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and though a discipline that spans many forms, it has frequented the realm of politics with a hyperbolic undertone in recent years—especially as utilized by Donald Trump.
There is nothing new about using rhetoric for political reasons, but I question when it is used as a tool to distort the already growing dichotomy between optics—the way things appear—and substance—the reality behind those appearances. In fact, research supports this concern. A study from the American Journal of Sociology revealed that people knowingly support falsehoods when they align with their personal politics.
Optics-driven leadership looks impressive on paper and on screen, and it is frequently practiced by both Republicans and Democrats alike to gain power and win elections. However, it does not function to build meaningful, lasting relations with the public.
A poll from the Pew Research Center found that most Americans feel increasingly negative about political discourse and view it as a frequently divisive space. This polarization is largely due to an inflammatory usage of rhetoric. Interestingly, despite the public’s discomfort with such extreme partisanship, people still seem to label the opposing side with a plethora of nasty words. This discomfort with political discourse has prevented people from engaging in discussions that challenge their beliefs.
We are all familiar with Trump’s use of rhetoric. Whether through fervent lying or inflammatory remarks, his hyperbolic tendencies distract us from the wide range of internal and external problems. In our attention economy, Trump gets what he seems to desire most: attention and consequently power and wealth.
Even his demagoguery has swayed since Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee. Trump’s rhetoric largely consists of vicious ad hominem attacks. Rather than focusing on the policies of Harris, he has attacked her intelligence, putting his racism and sexism on display.
Before Harris took over for President Joe Biden, it was, for many people, an election between two old guys with some notable policy differences sprinkled here and there. Since Trump’s ascendance into the political sphere, he has given special attention to one thing in particular: the deployment of insult politics.
This is where, I think, his rhetoric has become most bizarre, and his demagoging is put on full display. Through using inflammatory language to describe Biden as a “bad Palestinian” at the debate in June or deploying trigger words that people associate with anti-Americanism—like “Marxist” or “communist” to describe Harris—this broad painting of all progressive beliefs erases nuanced political discussion.
Disagreeing on policy is normal and expected in a democracy—but pathological lying is a question of character, plain and simple. In a highly digitalized world where videos of Biden stumbling and looking wildly confused have frequented social media, people are bound to be more concerned than ever with how elected officials act and appear—not just the policy that is proposed, put forward and passed. Given how this country has continuously become more of a gerontocracy since 1990, I do not blame them. People want to feel represented by physically and cognitively capable beings.
This abuse of rhetoric has twisted the relationship between optics and substance—two terms that drove media discussions following President Biden’s disastrous debate performance this past June. Frequently, at least by left-leaning media, the debate was painted as Trump winning on optics and Biden winning on substance. I happen to believe that Biden did poorly on substance as well, but that is not the point.
Rhetoric is important but how to use and recognize it is even more so. When rhetoric is utilized for misleading and provocative reasons, take Jan. 6 for example, we know what can happen. Trump said, “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” One can see how that could be interpreted? Rhetorical hyperbole, as used continuously by Trump, has greatly distorted this relationship between optics and substance.
One of Trump’s boldest and falsest claims that he created the greatest economy (for workers)—echoed by MAGA and picked-up on by his vice presidential pick JD Vance—can be discredited by many statistical indicators, per FactCheck.org.
This past summer was filled with doomsday scenarios, and the looming battle of “joy” and “fear” has been adopted by the media. This sort of language can really grab your attention, right? America has an addiction to rhetorical hyperbole, not just politicians or the media.
We are so used to consuming this unregulated level of rhetoric that the lines between what can be easily interpreted are blurred. For example, Trump and Harris’ rhetoric is an echo chamber where people go to maintain their own biases, generally avoiding the perspectives of the other side due to uncomfort or disdain.
However, why is it that Trump, after all these years, still gets a pass for his hyperbolic comments? Because we are so incredibly used to it. Either you can see through his lies and distorted statements, or you continue to eat them up for what they are: inflammatory remarks designed to project his own insecurities and fear of his opponents, resulting in a fearful base that unconditionally accepts his lies as truth.
While Trump’s rhetoric paints a bleak and fear-driven picture of America’s future, Harris’ campaign leans on the idea of hope and optimism, creating a sharp contrast between the two. With “joy” fueling the Harris campaign, the “anger” behind Trump’s bid for a second term in the White House reminds us just how “weird” this election cycle has become.