The Rhetoric of Donald Trump identifies and analyzes the nationalist and populist themes that dominate the rhetoric of President Trump and links those themes to a persona that has evolved from celebrity outsider to presidential strongman. In the process Robert C. Rowland explains how the nationalist populism and strongman persona in turn demands a vernacular rhetorical style unlike any previous modern president—a style that makes no attempt to lay out a case, requires constant lies, and breaks every norm for how a presidential candidate or president should talk. In stark contrast, our most effective presidents have used rhetoric to present a positive vision of what the nation could achieve. The three most effective presidential uses of rhetoric in the past century—FDR, Reagan, and Obama—all presented a coherent ideological message that, while focused on problems of the moment, was also rooted in a fundamental optimism. In contrast, Trump’s message is fundamentally negative. The Rhetoric of Donald Trump explores how the nation could so abruptly shift from a president such as Barack Obama, who emphasized the audacity of hope, to one who in his inaugural address spoke about “American carnage.” At its core, Trump’s message is well designed to appeal to voters with an authoritarian personality structure, especially in the white working-class, who feel threatened by the pace of societal change, especially demographic change. Rowland’s work illustrates how President Trump’s ceremonial speeches violate norms calling for a message of national unity and instead present a divisive message designed to create strongly negative emotions, especially fear and hate. It further reveals how Trump sustains those strong visceral reactions with his use of Twitter to make the rally atmosphere a daily reality for his supporters, a prime example being the Coronavirus Task Force briefings, which he transformed from an exercise in desperately needed public health education into a partisan rally. The Rhetoric of Donald Trump is essential reading for scholars, students, and the informed citizen to understand how Trump’s rhetoric of nationalist populism with a strongman persona undermines basic principles at the heart of American democracy.

Winner, Bronze, 2020 Foreword Indies, Political and Social Sciences Winner, 2021 PROSE Award for Government & Politics "Deserves a place alongside George Orwell’s 'Politics and the English Language'. . . . one of the most important political books of this perilous summer."—The Washington Post "A must-read"—Salon "Highly recommended"—Jack Shafer, Politico Featured in "The Best New Books to Read This Summer" and "Lit Hub's Most Anticipated Books of 2020"—Literary Hub Historic levels of polarization, a disaffected and frustrated electorate, and widespread distrust of government, the news media, and traditional political leadership set the stage in 2016 for an unexpected, unlikely, and unprecedented presidential contest. Donald Trump’s campaign speeches and other rhetoric seemed on the surface to be simplistic, repetitive, and disorganized to many. As Demagogue for President shows, Trump’s campaign strategy was anything but simple. Political communication expert Jennifer Mercieca shows how the Trump campaign expertly used the common rhetorical techniques of a demagogue, a word with two contradictory definitions—“a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power” or “a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times” (Merriam-Webster, 2019). These strategies, in conjunction with post-rhetorical public relations techniques, were meant to appeal to a segment of an already distrustful electorate. It was an effective tactic. Mercieca analyzes rhetorical strategies such as argument ad hominem, argument ad baculum, argument ad populum, reification, paralipsis, and more to reveal a campaign that was morally repugnant to some but to others a brilliant appeal to American exceptionalism. By all accounts, it fundamentally changed the discourse of the American public sphere.

Donald J. Trump’s speaking and writing invite passionate reactions — maybe he’s a bluecollar, billionaire hero who speaks the language of the common man or maybe he’s a gleefully illiterate, tremendously unqualified idiot. Whatever the case, he was persuasive enough to get himself elected President of the United States and he’s been persuasive enough to keep a majority of his supporters behind him. In Faking the News: What Rhetoric Can Teach Us About Donald J. Trump, eleven prominent rhetoric experts explain how Trump’s persuasive language works. Specifically the authors explain Trump’s persuasive uses of demagoguery, anti-Semitism, alternative facts, populism, charismatic leadership, social media, television, political slogans, visual identity/image, comedy and humor, and shame and humiliation. Faking the News is written for readers who may not know anything about rhetoric, so each chapter explains a feature of rhetoric and uses that lens to illuminate Trump’s rhetorical accomplishments. Specifically, about how he has used and still uses language, symbols, and even style to appeal to the people in his various audiences.

This book examines Donald Trump's longstanding connections to professional wrestling in relation to how he uses and exploits language, and the ways in which he has weaponized going public never before seen in previous administrations. Trump utilizes the language of wrestling to make rhetorical appeals and draws upon its theatrical tactics to redefine expectations of spaces to fundamentally change the nature of political expectations and expression. Wrestling is almost always about stories within a confined space, and Donald Trump inculcated many of its techniques to command an audience with rhetoric. The emotional performance supersedes truth or accuracy; factual exactness matters less than your presentation of the material. As Donald Trump blends performance and public service, social confusion over boundaries has occurred. Theatrical norms, when applied to daily life, generate vastly different reactions than within the artificial confines of an arena. It is not simply a muddling of public and private, but rather a jumbling of theatrical and generalized social standards. This book examines these aspects and explores how Donald Trump has also utilized well-established presidential tools in completely new ways in an attempt to build the strongest executive branch in American history.

Rhetoric and Governance under Trump: Proclamations from the Bullshit Pulpit analyzes the rhetoric of Donald Trump to argue that Trump’s deeply illiberal rhetoric, cruel policies, corruption, disruptive foreign policy, and disdain for the rule of law makes him a textbook populist. However, his embrace of mainstream conservative policies and the culture war narratives that come with them made him a rather conventional Republican. Being more plutocrat than populist, Trump had to bridge this fundamental contradiction by employing populist and polarizing rhetoric, alongside fabricated crises, to uphold the veneer of being an anti-status quo politician. Bernd Kaussler, Lars J. Kristiansen, and Jeffrey Delbert argue that, for Trump, bullshit, confrontational politics, and fear has emerged as a vital political strategy. Through an analysis of Trump’s first three years in office, the authors find that President Trump governed using a communication strategy that a) denied facts, relied heavily on bullshit, lies, and fabricated counter-narratives; b) attacked news outlets and the opposition to foster identity-based polarization in order to sideline critics and stir up factions for specific political ends; and c) dismissed legitimate criticism of policies and the conduct of the administration and the president himself as “fake news.” Kaussler, Kristiansen, and Delbert argue that the repeated use of this strategy, along with a mixture of public complacency and concerted efforts on the part of his own party, has allowed Trump to work toward normalizing these lies and cover-ups throughout his tenure, only further exacerbating the highly polarized and partisan political environment in the United States. Scholars of rhetoric, communication, political science, and media studies will find this book particularly useful.

Talking Donald Trump examines the language of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign from the perspective of sociocultural linguistics. This book offers an insight into the many stages of Trump’s political career, from his initial campaign for the Republican nomination, up to his presidency. Drawing from speeches, debates, and interviews, as well as parodies and public reactions to his language, Sclafani explores how Trump’s language has produced such polarized reactions among the electorate. In analysing the linguistic construction of Donald Trump’s political identity, Sclafani’s incisive study sheds light on the discursive construction of political identity and the conflicting language ideologies associated with the discourse of leadership in modern US society. Talking Donald Trump provides a crucial contemporary example of the interaction between sociolinguistics and political science, and is key reading for advanced students and researchers in the fields of sociolinguistics, language and politics, communication studies and rhetoric.

Through the analysis of eighteen years of presidential data, this book shows how Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump have conducted and framed the war on terror since its inception in 2001. Examining all presidential speeches about terrorism from George W. Bush’s two terms as President, Barack Obama’s two terms as President, and Donald Trump’s first year as President, this book is the first to compare the three post-9/11 presidents in how they have dealt with the terror threat. Presidential Rhetoric on Terrorism under Bush, Obama, and Trump argues that when policies need to be “sold” to the public and Congress, presidents make their pertinent issues seem urgent through frequent speech-making and threat inflation. It further illustrates how after policies are sold, a new President’s reticence may signify quiet acceptance of the old regime’s approach. After examining the conduct of the war on terror to date, it concludes by posing policy suggestions for the future.