Paul Achter is chair of the Department of Rhetoric and Communication Studies and an associate professor of rhetoric at the University of Richmond. Via email, he spoke to the Trib regarding the rhetoric of Donald Trump, currently atop the polls in the Republican presidential nominee race.
Q: Trump keeps making incendiary statements, but his polling numbers keep going up. Does that surprise you?
A: No. None of us should be surprised that his or any candidate's controversial statements make news.
News organizations need to feed a 24/7 news cycle with headlines that grab readers and viewers, and Trump knows it. His complaint that his (Arizona Sen. John) McCain insult is getting more attention than his explanation is thus deeply disingenuous. Praising McCain is not a news story, but insulting McCain is.
Also, I would caution us against reading too much into polling 16 months ahead of the election.
Q: Do you believe Trump's recent polling success will give other presidential candidates incentive to resort to Molotov cocktail verbal tactics?
A: Yes, but I believe it began earlier — perhaps with Sarah Palin, who leveraged a failed campaign into a television show, a position at Fox, high speaker fees and more.
Trump's campaign is an extension of the Trump brand. Saying patently racist things about immigration gives him attention and extends his brand. Insulting John McCain gives him attention and extends his brand.
So again, as long as news organizations are competing for viewers and readers to make money, the Trumps will be a part of our politics.
Q: Is there a danger of losing focus on relevant issues in the campaign because of all the attention being paid to a Twitter war between Trump and a Mexican drug lord?
A: This is the crucial question and the answer is absolutely yes. We live in a time of crises — environmental, racial, economic and more — and here we are talking about Donald Trump.
What's the downside of candidacy for Trump or news organizations? I don't know if there is a downside.
Q: Are we witnessing the beginning of an irreversible dumbing down of presidential campaigns?
A: I'm optimistic that serious and thoughtful candidates will always have a place in our politics and that many Americans understand how a for-profit media environment distorts what matters in a candidate.
For example, we have not had a bald president since Dwight Eisenhower, who left office just as TV took off in the U.S. In the information age, physical attractiveness has become a measure of fitness for office and I'm certain that this is wrong.
It's also worth remembering that anti-intellectualism appeals to many voters on the political right, so “dumb” is not always a drawback.
Q: What might Thomas Jefferson think of Trump's rhetorical flourishes?
A: I'm not a Jefferson expert, but my colleague Dr. Jennifer Mercieca at Texas A&M University is. So I asked her.
I'll paraphrase two things she said. First, Thomas Jefferson hated the public spotlight and refused to give speeches, even as president, because he was so shy. So in a sense, the question is anachronistic because it's impossible to be a candidate today without an understanding, if not a mastery, of publicly performed speech. Presidents give six to eight speeches per day.
Second, Jefferson's rhetoric is characterized by musicality, balance and rhythm. Trump's is heavy on bombast and provocation.
In her mind, there could hardly be a bigger mismatch than Trump and Jefferson.
Eric Heyl is a Trib Total Media staff writer (412-320-7857 or eheyl@tribweb.com).
