Dear Editor,
I imagine Plato back for a visit among us, searching the Internet for opinions on President Trump’s rhetoric. He would be pleased to discover that his disciples are still a force to be reckoned with.
Here is an example of a certain consensus on the matter. It was penned by an op-ed columnist for The New York Times : Trump’s language “is a jumble of incomplete thoughts stitched together with arrogance and ignorance […] Trump employs reduced rhetoric […] Degradation of the language is one of Trump’s most grievous sins.” (Charles M. Blow, The NYT, May 1, 2017). And Mr. Blow quotes Mark Thompson, CEO and President of The NYT who opines that Trump “uses parataxis [Fragmented clauses] the way generals and dictators speak,” seemingly implying that such usage points to Trump being an autocrat, a despot. Mr. Blow and the CEO of The NYT are, it would appear, faithful adherents to Platonism as it relates to rhetoric.
Plato turned the irony of his Socrates (Plato’s own awesome rhetoric!) on the Sophists and their rhetoric, and it had such an impact on rhetoric that even the novel work on the subject by Aristotle (Plato’s illustrious student who rehabilitated rhetoric to some degree) would suffer from a stigma and neglect that scholars associate with the fallout from Plato’s onslaught on rhetoric.
But starting in the mid-20th century, the study of rhetoric returned with vigor, thanks to the work of C. Perelman and L.O-Tyteca in Belgium (La nouvelle rhétorique), 1958; of S.E. Toulmin in England (The Uses of Argument), 1958; of C.L. Hamblin in Australia (Fallacies), 1970; their students and others too numerous to cite here.
Trump’s argumentation relies heavily on a few tropes (figures of speech) the way most people communicate in their daily lives: on quasi-logical syllogistic (deductive) reasoning. According to Chaïm Perelman, father of The New Rhetoric – the rebirth of rhetoric – the logic of theses syllogisms resembles formal syllogistic logic, but it is less restrictive. Perelman was trained in formal logic, but he became interested in neglected, but vitally important, elements of Aristotle’s rhetoric. Aristotle himself regards such quasi-logical (deductive) rhetoric as “strong rhetorical proof.” Like formal syllogisms, Trump’s syllogisms have three terms, or premises: a major; a minor; and a deductive leap (a therefore) to a conclusion.
Those in attendance at Trump’s rallies are already persuaded that he is their champion. The “meeting of the minds” (between Trump and this audience) has already taken place: the “deal” is already clenched. The attendance is there to celebrate in unison the “good news” he has brought them, the message he keeps bringing them. The stage setting at Trump’s rallies and his delivery (his rhetoric) reaffirm the bond between him and the celebrants assembled; they also aim at persuading others who are not present at the rally, for his speeches are media events, his audiences multiple.
Trump’s master enthymeme, his master “meme”: “Make America great again!” is, obviously, the conclusion of a truncated (“reduced”!) syllogism that his audiences have no problem following. They complete it by supplying the missing terms while adding flourishes of their own. Example: Major: “America used to be great, but those days are over, due to the policies of previous administrations – Democrats and Republicans.” Minor: “We can make America great again”; therefore, Conclusion: “(Let’s) make America great again!”
Here is another example of Trump’s short-cut narratives, another one of his “memes”: “We don’t win anymore.” He is stating the minor premise here, and his audiences can, indeed, gleefully complete his downsized rhetoric, his syllogism; Major: There was a time when we used to win…; Minor: “We don’t win anymore because of … (And they complete it with their reason(s).) “; Conclusion: “We must start winning again.”
One last example of Trump’s quasi-logical arguments! Consider this sales pitch to African-American electors who, as a matter of record, have voted solidly Democrat for the last 50 years, and who, Trump (and many others) believe have been neglected, and are taken for granted by the Democrats: “Give me a chance, you have nothing to lose.” This is another conclusion to a syllogism, the missing terms of which, would run as follows: Major: “You have been voting Democrat and losing for the last 50 years.” Minor: “If you vote Democrat again, you’ll continue losing;” therefore (Conclusion): “You have nothing to lose (if you vote for me, and you may win), give me a chance.”
Whether he is conscious of it, or not, Trump’s campaign rhetoric is mostly enthymematic quasi-logical reasoning. According to Aristotle, Perelman and other proponents of “The New Rhetoric,” this kind of informal everyday reasoning is “strong rhetorical proof” that is anchored in the “reasonable,” and in the “probable” as opposed to the “rational,” the “theoretical,” the “formal”. It is rooted in the “plausible” as opposed to the “certain”; in what is “likely” as opposed to what is “metaphysical.” (See Marc Angenot in Renaissance de la rhétorique: Perelman aujourd’hui, 2016).
It is very unfortunate that rhetoric continues to suffer so much disrepute, such a stigma as a result of Platonism. Mr. Charles M. Blow, his boss at the reputable NYT and others may continue to regard President Trump’s rhetoric as “incomplete thoughts stitched together with arrogance and ignorance,” to their uninformed detriment.
Gérard M. Hunt
