Political speeches in general, and Donald Trump’s speech last night in particular
There are four main things to say about any political speech.
The first is whether you liked it. The second is whether you agreed with it. The third is whether you thought it was effective in political terms. And the fourth is whether you thought it could hurt the speaker.
For me, these four things are quite separate, in part because (as I’ve probably said too many times already) I really don’t like to listen to speeches at all, and consider political speeches “the worst of the worst.”
So it takes a lot to get me to like a speech, and it’s very rare that I do. Donald Trump’s speech last night didn’t even begin to come close to what I look for in a speech—as Paul Mirengoff writes, it was a “sledgehammer” of a speech, loud and long and pounding away.
So let’s just stipulate that I didn’t like it, and go on to whether I agree with it. I certainly agree with a great deal of it, just as I agree with a great deal of the stated Trump platform, although hardly all. I certainly agree with the need to metaphorically hit Hillary with that sledgehammer, reminding people constantly of her myriad and deep flaws.
Now we get to the heart of the matter—because really, except for the purposes of this blog and you readers, whether I like the speech or not is hardly of importance. But was it effective? The answer is yes.
I have no idea how many people watch these speeches, but it’s a lot, and it matters. Just recall what happened to Obama in 2004, when he gave a speech at the DNC—not as the nominee, but the keynote speaker. He hadn’t even been elected to national office at the time—he’d been an Illinois state senator prior to that, and had just won the Democratic primary for the US Senate for the state of Illinois. But the Democrats knew a rising star when they saw one, and they gave him a platform to rise some more. His speech was apparently electrifying (I didn’t watch it) and brought him national fame. People remembered it a few short years later when he ran for the presidency despite his inexperience, and they liked him in great part because of the message of togetherness expressed in the speech—a message that turned out to be completely bogus.
Now, that’s an effective speech.
But back to Trump. People have called the speech “red meat,” and I think that’s an apt description. My definition of “red meat” is something that satisfies hunger but is a bit raw and bloody, and in speech terms it means it touches most of the bases and rouses whatever emotion needs to be roused. In Trump’s case the emotion is anger and outrage at the mess that has been made of the country and the world during the Obama administration and the resultant pickle we’re in, and anger and outrage at Hillary Clinton’s manifold errors and deceitful (perhaps even criminal) ways. Trump also reached out to the non-conservatives and non-Republicans he thinks can be enticed into his populist camp, and he did it in his own style: no eloquence and no finesse, just give it to ’em straight and hard.
With Trump, the fourth question—did he hurt himself?—is always especially important. Usually it’s difficult to say, because what would be harmful in another candidate seems only to have enhanced his appeal, at least in the primaries. But last night it wasn’t difficult to say that he did not hurt himself. The teleprompter helped in that endeavor (although there were some ad-libs, which is a Trump signature). That’s why some of his opponents on the left say the speech scared them—they are smart enough to see its general appeal, and it made them believe he just might win.
I agree that the speech might help him win, and that it won’t hurt him one iota. Whether speeches should have much influence is another question. But the fact that I think they should be largely irrelevant in assessing what you yourself think about a candidate (unless they’re the only thing you know about that candidate) is in itself somewhat irrelevant, because people are influenced by them, and sometimes a very great deal.
The fact that I tend not to be influenced by any speeches (except Churchill’s and Lincoln’s, but in that case it’s not just their speeches that influence me, and I already know how things turned out with them) isn’t just due to my problem with auditory processing. And it’s not just about Trump, either. Political speeches almost always sound to me like con artists talking, or snake oil salesmen: “This will cure rheumatism, gout, lumbago, indigestion, female troubles, hangnails…all for one low low price…”
Trump may sound more like that than most, but the tendency is nearly universal. There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare and getting rarer.
Which brings us to something that commenter “Beverly” wrote last night:
Well, if Trump says the right things and you still don’t believe him, there’s nothing, literally, he can do to persuade you: that sounds emotional to me.
No; not emotional. Rational. If a person doesn’t believe Trump at this point, it is almost certainly because Trump has lied consistently throughout the campaign and throughout his life—on big things, on small things, on medium-sized things. I’ve written about that so many times in so many ways and with so many examples that it’s tedious to have to mention it again. He has also changed position on big things and small things, both long ago and relatively recently (last few years, anyway). He also says frightening and irresponsible things on a regular basis in the realm of foreign policy. He insults people in the most vicious and personal of ways, and he lies about them in extreme and abusive ways, over and over and over.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
One of the things I’m angry about in this Year of the Trump is that I just might have to vote for someone as despicable as that, and I resent deeply being placed in that position. But that’s the position I’m in. I’ve known for almost a year it might be the position I (and many of you) would be in, and I’ve known since about March or April that it almost certainly would be the position I’d be in. I been wrestling with it all that time, and I think I know what I must do, but don’t ask me to like it, because I hate it with every fiber of my being.
After all, why on earth what anyone trust what a liar promises in a political speech, particularly if the liar is saying the things that he or she thinks that voters wants to hear, and particularly when that person has proven his or her views to be mutable and has no track record of political actions (other than contributing money to both sides, including a lot to the opposition) because he or she has never held public office?
We also get a gut sense of character, but we can be wrong about that. We evaluate all people when we first meet them, and then we continue to evaluate them over time, using a combination of their behavior and their words, with behavior far more important than words if the two conflict. Trump—or any other politician—is no different.
So no, there’s nothing he can say in a speech right now to persuade me to believe him, and that’s because there is so much else he has done and said till now, and I’ve been paying close attention. What would persuade me is if he were to become president and starts following through on what he’s promised, with success and with respect for the Constitution, actually accomplishing much of what he has set out to accomplish. In that event, I will be happy to say I underestimated him on his ability to keep his political promises and to do the right thing for America. But a speech he makes is just as irrelevant in persuading me what kind of president he will be, good or bad, as the speech Obama made in 2004 was—which is to say, not at all.
We may even get to find out what kind of president Trump would be. God bless—and help—America.
[NOTE: I want to add that what sort of children Trump has, good or bad, is almost entirely irrelevant to me, and that’s true of all politicians as far as I’m concerned. But that’s another post for another time.]
I have disliked Trump for more than thirty years and cannot bring myself to vote for him (despite liking his children, whose character does matter to a small extent), but I feel increasing anger towards the anti-Trumpians, who seem not to care about helping to ensure the election of the thoroughly corrupt, mendacious and incompetent HRC. If for no other reason than the fate of the SCOTUS, conservatives at NRO and elsewhere should refrain from denigrating the Donald.
1. That speech will go some distance to persuade the undecideds. That’s 20%. More people paid attention. For me, it was old hat.
2. Neo covers a point for many of us here. We are similar. We are rational and analytic thinkers. But we are a small number. That’s why so many here backed Carly and Ted.
Trump has an emotional appeal to your lizard brain. The whole WWE thing. “We’re Americans and we are going to kick the butts of (fill in the blank).”
More people vote based upon emotion and facts. That’s how Obama won. Cool and historic young and likable black guy. Denzel Washington playing JFK and Michelle as Jackie.
The only emotional card Hillary can play is the woman card. On a rational basis, she is a historic liar and policy failure. Secretary of the Status Quo.
3. I think the speech is better in little sound bites. That’s what it really was.
Look, I’ve never been a fan of Trump’s and by that I mean going all the way back to the “Art of the Deal” days. But it’s really quite simple – the guy could be a whole lot worse and I would still vote for him with gusto against the Dowager Countess of Chappaqua.
You’re probably heard the line that voting for Trump is like getting in a fast car with a drunk teenage boy at the wheel – very scary, but you could actually survive it and get somewhere. Voting for Madame Herself is like soaking your clothes in gasoline and diving into a dumpster fire.
Listened to some of my co-workers earlier today. One of them was talking about how bad and scary Trump’s speech was (FYI – I didn’t watch it, nor did I watch any of the rest of the convention). Later on, I threw out a comment about how Hillary belonged in prison, and his response was basically –
1.). Everyone does it
2.). Trump hasn’t released his taxes
The comments have yet to address why Trump supporters continue to deem Cruz as an evil snake who is a sociopath.
If criticizing Trump is wrong, then is Cruz still evil for not criticizing Trump?
As for the anti Trump GOP establishment, were any of you upset at the anti Palin GOp Establishment?
Listened to some of my co-workers earlier today.
That same unthinking Loyalty to evil is what will happen to pro Trumpers as well, win or lose. If they lose, they’ll use Leftist psychology to blame others, like the GOP E or Cruz. If they win, they’ll use their Power domination to declare themselves kings, vassals of kings, and ultimately morally righteous (except now for white nationalists).
White nationalists, are basically 1830s Southern Democrat slave lords. White patriots, slightly different.
Blue-State conundrum
I disliked Trump immediately, but only became well exposed to him recently (this primary cycle). I have agreed pretty much with everything Neo has written about both Trump and Hillary and the dangerous direction Bernie has pulled the Democrats to. Sometimes, when Trump champions some of my issues, especially immigration, I feel like voting for him. I also feel like voting for Trump when I witness the Democrats pandering to their open-borders and pacifistic and BLM constituents.
But, as a voter in thoroughly blue California, I know my vote won’t make a difference in which one wins California’s electoral votes. Therefore my main question is, If Trump is going to lose California, don’t I want it to be in a landslide so that he and his enthusiasts are thoroughly defeated?
Even though I won’t lift a finger to support Trump, I might be glad if he wins the general election so that I can watch the spectacle he would create. I will be most fearful of a Hillary victory for its pacifism on national security and BLM threats.
Ymarsakar:
Why do so many Trump supporters continue to deem Cruz as an evil snake who is a sociopath? Some or all of the following reasons: (a) they are Alinskyites; (b) they are alt-right (c) they are following Trump’s lead (d) they are leftists trying to destroy the right (e) that’s just the way they roll: destroy the enemy with every tool available, and don’t think one iota about morality or truth.
Trump did it to every rival he had during this campaign (and he’s done it to rivals, opponents, and critics, for most of his adult life).
Interesting point, Alan. We’re all being told that lack of support for one candidate is essentially support for the other. But for citizens of about 43 states, a vote for one or the other doesn’t have any electoral effect. For citizens of about 7 states, a vote for one or the other has a one-in-a-million chance of having an impact. A third-party vote or no vote at all will have the exact same practical impact as a vote for either of the two major candidates.
But, as a voter in thoroughly blue California, I know my vote won’t make a difference in which one wins California’s electoral votes. Therefore my main question is, If Trump is going to lose California, don’t I want it to be in a landslide so that he and his enthusiasts are thoroughly defeated?
———————
As a fellow Californian, I think there might be a slight chance that the state is in play. Remember that Trump appeals to an unusual group of individuals, and he might be able to pull in some surprising allies.
Of course, also note that word “slight”.
I’d advise you to watch the polls going forward and keep an eye on things in general to determine the likelihood of the state being in play in November.
As for whether you should try and contribute to Trump being beaten in a landslide…
It’s California. If Trump *is* beaten in a landslide, no one’s going to care because it’s California.
Well, you could always vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Your 1 vote is probably not going to change the outcome in your state because Trump will either win by more than one vote, or lose by more than 1 vote. A vote for Johnson is a vote for less government. It is highly likely that Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states. https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map
Nick:
I believe that thinking like that is a fallacy. Maybe not technically a fallacy, exactly, but an error.
It is true for the individual vote, of course, but taken to extremes that sort of argument means no one should vote. Which is absurd, of course.
It’s somewhat like saying that the odds against any particular individual being born are astronomical.
And yet we have all been born, so we defy the odds.
Voters vote as individuals, but trends are aggregates. I don’t have time to find the quote now, but one excellent author who was a young man in Germany during Hitler’s time says that as one person there was nothing he could have done, but if many thousands of people had gotten together, something could have been done.
We are all unique, but we act as part of groups the individual members of which are all doing the same thing, and it adds up. Turnout is an unknown in this race. Almost everything is unknown in this race, actually.
In many elections I’ve felt I was voting for the lesser of two evils. This year it is literally true. In a country of 300 million people there are many more qualified but the failure of our political leaders has brought us two bad choices. I have no idea how to change the system except to pray that the winner turns out better than I imagine.
As for my personal vote, I’m in Texas which will almost certainly go to Trump. Consequently, I get to ease my conscience by voting for Gary Johnson. That’s what I did in 2012.
It’s a fallacy at the aggregate, but on the individual level it’s a correct response to the “then you might as well be supporting the other one” kind of argument. Such an argument depends on the practical impact of an individual vote.
Nick:
No, that’s not what the argument depends on, in my opinion. It seems to depend on that, but when you (or anyone else) make a decision, you are not unique; you stand for many people making the same decision in the same manner, and that’s what determines the outcome.
We are individuals, but we are also part of trends. My sitemeter is a great illustration of that fact. Everyone who comes here each day is an individual, but you’d be amazed how stable the traffic tends to be (unless there’s a big link from someone like Instapundit, or unless there’s some dramatic occurrence that day).
Trumps crazy CSPAN interview this morning had the effect on Scott Johnson at Powerline to say,
“The Republican Party has hitched its caboose to an utterly bizarre character. I would prefer not to see a President Hillary but I can’t celebrate Trump or pretend everything is copacetic. It’s not even within the realm of normality”
This is P.J. O’Rourke’s call that Hillary is awful but in a normal sense!
I gave Gary Johnson $100 today if only to make sure he is in the debates.
I was actually knocked out by his speech but maybe I’m being a bit of a sucker. He was on point, passionate, and I believed him. That was the crucial thing, or one, for me – I believed him. He also listed policy points I agree with and that are crucial now: law and order, destroying ISIS, very crucially NOT allowing in Muslim immigrants/refugees from the ME or countries that are full of radicals until we know we can vet them (and that may never happen). I am not as savvy about trade but “fair” trade deals sound right to me. However, I am not as sure about NATO, his ideas about that, and in general he is a bit authoritarian for my taste. However… I was impressed and I did not think I would be.
Now of course I am rethinking that for all the reasons you give in this post Neo. We can sum that up by saying his character… and his lack of record. I will probably vote for him but not with any enthusiasm, and while that can change between now and November I don’t think it will. I did get enthusiastic for a moment there listening to this speech. Maybe I am wrong about this guy? I hope so!
I did think throughout the speech that Hillary is in deep shit. He actually might win. The speech was framed to cast her as the old bad, the status quo, and it was successful. People are hurting these days economically and the police shootings and recent escalation of Jihadi terrorist attacks are very alarming. He just might win. I really hope that the man I glimpsed for a moment here and there in that speech, a man committed to certain principles, not just to winning, comes through. I really do!
Cruz said it best: “Vote your conscience.” Your conscience, no one else’s.
“The Republican Party has hitched its caboose to an utterly bizarre character. I would prefer not to see a President Hillary but I can’t celebrate Trump or pretend everything is copacetic. It’s not even within the realm of normality”
Yep. Cruz really, really gets under his skin. Maybe the greatest effect of Cruz’s speech was to set him off and give us an opportunity once again to see just how nuts Trump is.
Ann:
Nuts, plus immature, vindictive, and bizarre.
From a rally just a few hours ago:
Vox: Trump just held one of his weirdest, Cruz-bashing, JFK conspiracy theorizing rallies ever
Still after Cruz’ father, he is.
geokstr:
Yes, I was going to write about Trump’s Cruz Derangement Syndrome, except of course he does that sort of thing to anyone who angers him, so it’s not primarily (pun intended) about Cruz.
Trump is a Machiavellian, Alinskyite, vile, lying POS. I don’t usually use language like that in this blog, but he is, and he has been for a long time.
Unfortunately, he’s up against another person (Hillary Clinton) with roughly the same characteristics. Not exactly, but roughly. That is America’s dilemma, and it comes down to which Machiavellian, Alinskyite etc. POS has political viewpoints with which you agree most.
It’s like Trump is trying to throw the election Hillary by focusing on Cruz. It’s like that was the agreement. But come on Trump, the least you can do is pretend to fight to win. You want that White House in DC don’t you? Forget about Hillary RodDamn Clinton for once in their New York life.
Trump is a Machiavellian, Alinskyite, vile, lying POS. I don’t usually use language like that in this blog, but he is, and he has been for a long time.
He’s a 70 yo Demoncrat, Neo, what did you expect? If you had lacked the WIllpower to confront the evils of those zombies on the Left, and spent decades justifying your evil and refusing to repent, it’s high likely anyone can become like that. Especially with fame and fortune.
I chose the word “conundrum” carefully. It means “a confusing and difficult problem or question”. For me in blue California, I am thinking about how I alone should vote; I am not advocating for the #never Trumpers. If I lived in a swing state, it would be the devil I know vs. the one I don’t know. As bad as I know the Hillary and the Dems are, Trump could be worse or not nearly so bad.
I will watch polls carefully. A change there could really my calculation. Also, I might come to see the vote as a referendum on a critical issue, such as pacifism vs. strong defense.
Neo said above, “. . . that I just might have to vote for someone as despicable as [Trump], and I resent deeply being placed in that position.” If October polls show that California is hopelessly blue, I will feel comfortable in not voting.
Gary Johnson is just as bad as Hillary or Trump in my mind because of his rigid pacifistic isolationism.
Alan F:
“Conundrum” is absolutely the right word.
Trump is a Machiavellian, Alinskyite, vile, lying POS. … Unfortunately, he’s up against another person (Hillary Clinton) with roughly the same characteristics.
But what if he’s also just plain old-fashioned crazy? Hillary’s a lot of things, but I don’t think she’s crazy.
Ann:
Which would be worse, “crazy” or “Machiavellian, Alinskyite, vile, lying POS”? Both can do damage, but in different ways. And of course, if the latter, it depends what his true goals are.
Lovely dilemma, lovely people, lovely choice.
Coming to the airwaves this fall, the “Daisy” advert, target all republicans, but especially Donald.
Neo wrote:
Trump is a Machiavellian, Alinskyite, vile, lying POS. I don’t usually use language like that in this blog,
🙂 You are honest.
I’m half hoping Trump is elected – though I’m pretty sure I won’t vote for him because at least he would be held accountable by the press. Hillary will not be held accountable and could do ANYTHING she wanted with no recourse.
Wouldn’t this all be wonderfully entertaining if it were happening elsewhere? Wouldn’t we laugh at the French? Wouldn’t we feel superior to a Third World country?
I expect that there are chuckles and chortles in various parts of the world.
I have heard the pap about the wisdom of the electorate most of my life. After three straight election cycles, maybe we can put that fantasy to bed.
Baklava, your point is well taken; but, probably irrelevant because he won’t care what the press says, and his legions will applaud when he treats them with disdain, or worse.
.
Neo: “Trump is a Machiavellian, Alinskyite, vile, lying POS.”
Yep. But then so are/were Obama, Bill Clinton, and LBJ; just to name a few. Politics attracts a certain type of person. The voters are often fooled because most are LIVs.
We have to ask ourselves if we agree with any of the policy prescriptions of the Democrats. If not, why would we vote for Hillary or Gary Johnson. The Republican platform has the things in it that we support. Trump is a flawed human, but he’s not a one man band. He needs Congress. Unlike the first black president or the first woman President (should HRC be elected), both Dems, (and we know how the Dems can circle the wagons to protect a fellow Dems) he is vulnerable to impeachment and intensive scrutiny by the MSM (the communications arm of the Democrat Party). That is why I don’t fear his potential authoritarianism. Also, I think Mike Pence is an honorable man, (as honorable as politicians get, anyway) and I don’t think he would have gone for the VP job if he thought Trump was a total con man.
I did see the Obama speech in 2004 and knew then if no one else did that he was being set up for and probably would be the next president if the Dems were successful in jockeying him for the position as giving him the floor on that occasion was intended to do. I knew this because I saw in that moment the protagonist of Ralph Ellison’s novel Invisible Man shining through in Barack Obama. He seemed to step out directly from the pages of that book in every sense. Like that protagonist he seemed to have a poise and delivery that people reacted to and he was community organizer (rabble rouser). I knew instantly his intent and purpose which the last 8 years have realized as I suspected they would if all went according to plan. It feels strange to say that now. If you ever read the book I think you will see what I mean.
This election will continue and exponentially exacerbate the tarring of the conservative brand, regardless of the outcome.
Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain and Romney were all centrists, yet slammed as ultra-conservative by the Marxist slime machine. Now we have a nasty liberal Democrat poseur who will be attacked the same way, even if he gets elected and morphs into the second coming of BHO, because no matter what, there will always be a farther left to aim for.
Neo:
“He also says frightening and irresponsible things on a regular basis in the realm of foreign policy.”
Trump says demonstrably false Russian propaganda about the US things on a regular basis in the realm of foreign policy.
liberty wolf:
“He also listed policy points I agree with and that are crucial now: … destroying ISIS”
The problem with the ISIS part of Trump’s speech is it was a glove fit with the Russian, Assad, Iran strategy with ISIS:
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/russia-needs-the-islamic-state-to-save-assad/
In that regard, Trump’s ISIS strategy promises to pick up from Obama’s ISIS strategy.
Eric:
Regarding Trump and Putin: what will Artfldgr have to say about that? Trump being played by Putin, the Russian ex-KGB? Or worse, knowing, not being played, and agreeing with Putin?
Inconceivable!
“he’s not a one man band. He needs Congress… he is vulnerable to impeachment and intensive scrutiny by the MSM. That is why I don’t fear his potential authoritarianism” – J.J.
We expect that MSM pressure will move Congress to box trump in, is that a correct paraphrase?
Assuming so, it is a HUGE leap of faith that this will come to fruition.
What we have seen does not bear this out.
How much MSM pressure was there on GWB during the Iraq war. Dems wanted to impeach him, yet, did that stop him? NO!
The so called monolithic “establishment” that conservative media was harping on all these years, were they able to stop trump? NO! In fact, the party and much of that media embarrassingly, easily and quickly fell behind trump.
As to the honor of Pence, well, he is an example of those who will fall in line. He is near the end of his career, politically, and is offered a chance for VP (and later maybe President) – probably his only chance at high office, with a second term as governor on shaky ground.
Rather more incentive to fall in line vs much of the rest of the party. Otherwise hard to square the distance between what he had stood for and much of what trump has said.
It is rather easy to convince ourselves to believe that trump just cannot possibly be as bad as we fear he might, to defer to others who are somehow “smarter” than us and believe they are as principled to do the right thing, and that sanity and coolheadedness, will exist in others and in our governing structures to contain trump from ever getting to a worst case scenario.
If trump discusses extremes, or staggeringly alarming positions, we ought to believe he is willing to go there. We ought to believe his behavior, past and present, will continue.
If others, particularly in leadership positions, are prepared to suddenly and dramatically alter their stances that they had consistently espoused to us for a long time, we cannot trust their “judgement” as necessarily being in line with our own interests.
If we believe that the system is rigged and is working against us, we cannot expect that same system (and people) in blocking a rogue president, especially after p*ssing us all off for the past eight years at NOT blocking the current potus.
We cannot expect the process, that (might) get trump elected, would somehow have the ability to stop him afterward if he turns for the worse.
We are lulling ourselves.