If any single strategy may be said to define Donald Trump’s victory speech, broadcast on the 9th of Nov., 2016, it is one based on “speaking the language” of the ordinary person. As will be seen, Trump very much relies on pathos and ethos, with some appeal to logos added, but the primary impression he seeks to make is that he is as one with all the people of the nation, and particularly working men and women. The over-all effect appears to be casual but it is not. At this level of import, certainly, a new president-elect has access to the best writers, but Trump instead insists on speaking in popular jargon and familiar phrases used by ordinary citizens. He also falters at times and relies on colloquial language, as in his remark about Hillary Clinton: “I mean, she — she fought very hard” (Trump). If the meaning may be ambiguous, what matters is that Trump is likely using the vague language to his advantage; he is admiring, but only of Clinton’s efforts, not her character. The casual phrasing here also reinforces his image as a decent man, not given to elaborate speech.
In terms of more traditional appeals, Trump does attempt to use logos, but the rhetoric here is vague at best. Aware that the nation has many problems, his appeal to logic essentially rests on a generalized promise to make everything good: “We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals.” There is no mention of how all of these remarkable achievements will be done, so the logic is greatly flawed and in fact more relies on ethos. This is Trump’s primary focus in the speech. He presents his own character as good through the commitment to fix all of America’s issues, and this is in turn reinforced by his verbally placing himself with all Americans, in “We.” Then, Trump more subtly presents himself as ethical and decent in his reference to the campaign: “This was tough. This political stuff is nasty and it’s tough.” The appeal and the implication go to stressing that he is not comfortable with the “nastiness” of campaigning. Moreover, ethos is maintained through further generalized beliefs in changing the nation for the sake of each person: “It’s going to be a beautiful thing. Every single American will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential” (Trump). In terms of ethos,this is a classic example of appeal based on knowing what the audience most wishes to hear. Lastly, pathos is used in brief ways, particularly in Trump’s expressing gratitude to his family. He makes a point of thanking, “My late brother, Fred. Great guy. Fantastic guy,” and the effect of pathos lies in his relying on the listeners’ sympathy for himself, as well as his goodness in so affectionately remembering a deceased brother. In this remark as well is the consistent reliance on the most commonly used adjectives of praise.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Donald Trump Victory Speech Rhetorical Analysis".
All of this then leads to a relatively easy means of criticizing the speech as amateurish and vague. In a larger context, however, it is entirely possible that Trump knew exactly what he was doing. It may be argued that he depended on the nation as not eager to hear the carefully constructed and formal language so heard from leaders. Speaking as a man of the common people, he wanted to be regarded in precisely that light. Then, even the generalized promises to radically improve the nation are a device themselves. They allow the audience to translate the vague promises in whatever ways most satisfy each listener. Simply, by not presenting any actual strategy, Trump’s audience is encouraged to “fill in the blanks,” as there is also no opportunity to dispute what is not presented in the first place. If the Trump victory speech fails as good rhetoric in any standard sense, it nonetheless succeeds when placed in the context of setting and the speaker’s true ambitions.
This element of Trump’s audience “filling in the blanks” also requires more examination. Rhetoric usually exists to make an impression, but the power of it is not limited to speeches made by world leaders. For example, actors have always claimed that audiences come to shows with a certain expectation; they want to like the play, and they want to like the actors. There are exceptions to this, of course, but it seems generally true that any audience gathered to hear a speech or see a performance is there because they expect to be pleased or satisfied in some way. This being the case, it is no accident or coincidence that rhetoric relies on the elements of logos, ethos, and pathos. It always has, in fact, because human beings consistently respond to appeals to reason, morality, and emotion. What a speech or performance actually is, then, goes more to a relationship than to a cause and effect situation. The “cause” of the speech or performance is created to have a desired impact, which means creating it in ways most likely to please the audience. Then, and as noted, the audience does its part by offering itself as more than willing to be moved and/or convinced of a rationale.
This relationship factor in rhetoric is also an active one. Just as an actor on the stage “feels” how the audience is reacting, so too can the leader gain a sense of their impact as the speech goes on. The experienced speaker, like the experienced actor, then adjusts their style, and sometimes even the language, when this is felt to be needed. As a speaker senses a restlessness in their listeners, they understand that a different verbal strategy is required and they know they are successful when they can perceive the audience as more attentive. Rhetoric is a powerful and complex tool, but it is also one completely linked to the nature of the relationship between those who are passively listening and those who are presenting.
- Trump, Donald. “Victory Speech.” The New York Times, 9 Nov. 2016.
