Kruse Review | Demagogue for President, by Jennifer Mercieca

— Book review by Jens Kruse —

In the last two years or so I have reviewed many books in this space with the aim of aiding myself and my readers in the urgent task to make sense of our current historical and political moment. Jennifer Mercieca,
an associate professor in the Department of Communication at Texas A&M University, has just published a book that is an important, and in some ways unique, contribution to our ability to gain that understanding.

Unique, because instead of using the tools of political science, history, sociology, economics, or demography, she uses almost exclusively the
tools of rhetorical analysis. Her time frame is the period from Trump’s
announcement of his candidacy to his election to the presidency. Within
that frame she describes her method like this:

To write this book, I’ve watched and rewatched every Trump rally. I’ve transcribed most of them. I’ve read Trump’s books. I’ve watched all of his interviews and read his tweets. I’ve read as many articles as I could about what Trump was doing and why in traditional and nontraditional media. I’ve read white nationalists, conspiracy theorists, and the manosphere – all Trump’s people – which helped me to make sense of Trump’s more perplexing appeals. I’ve studied Trump relentlessly, in order to be able to explain his rhetorical strategies clearly. In October 2018 Jonathan Tilove of the Austin-American Statesman called me “probably the leading authority on Trump’s rhetoric.” I maybe probably am. This is my take on how Trump used demagogic rhetoric to take advantage of preexisting distrust, polarization, and frustration to win the presidency in 2016. (xi)

The three terms at the end of that description organize the three parts
of her book: “Trump and the Distrusting Electorate,” “Trump and the
Polarized Electorate,” “Trump and the Frustrated Electorate.” Within
these three sections Mercieca analyzes in six chapters each the
following rhetorical tools and strategies used by Trump: Ad Populum
(“Derived from the Latin for ‘appeal to the crowd’ arguments ad
populum feature praise for the audience in order for the speaker to gain
credibility and likeability.”); Ad Baculum (“Derived from the Latin for
‘appeal to the stick,’ arguments ad baculum feature a threat of force or
intimidation.”); Reification (“From the Latin for ‘thing,’ reification
describes a general ‘thingifying’ of people or persons, especially those
identified as the speaker’s enemies.”); Ad Hominem (“Derived from the
Latin ‘appeal to the person,’ arguments ad hominem feature an attack
against a speaker instead of against their argument.”); Paralipsis (Literally translated as ‘to leave to the side,’ paralipsis can now be best
understood with the phrase ‘I’m not saying; I’m just saying.’ Paralipsis
involves affirming something in the very act of denying it.”); and
American Exceptionalism (“The belief that the United States, as a nation,
is not only different than other nations but better than other nations.”).

In these 18 chapters Mercieca methodically, comprehensively, and
illuminatingly analyzes the textual sources that she describes in the
extended quote above to build her case about how Trump used
demagocic rhetoric to present his authoritarian narrative, to galvanize
his followers, and to win the election. But she also makes clear that
Trump could not have done so if the conditions had not been ripe for
him to exploit. She writes in her “Conclusion”:

Trump attacked America’s public sphere in 2016. An important part of the story of Trump’s presidential campaign is the context within which it succeeded: a nation in crisis. Within a crisis of public trust in which the very viability of democracy was at risk, Trump ran a campaign that was designed to increase distrust for government and traditional leadership. Within a crisis of polarization in which Americans believed that they had little in common with their political opposition, did not share the same values, and that their opposition was an enemy of the state, Trump ran a campaign that was designed to increase polarization. Within a crisis of frustration in which Americans believed that government was the biggest issue facing the nation, that the nation was on the wrong track, and that anybody else would do a better job running the country than the current leaders, Trump ran a campaign that was designed to increase frustration. Trump’s campaign of distrust, polarization, and frustration was designed to take advantage of the rhetorical possibilities inherent in a nation in crisis. Trump’s dangerous demagoguery used rhetoric as a weapon – as a “counterpunch” – and in so doing, Trump attacked America’s public sphere and its democratic process.

Toward the end of her book Mercieca cites the work of Steven Levitsky
and Daniel Ziblatt (How Democracies Die; see my review in this space
here. Their typology of what authoritarian leaders do to erode democracy, lists the following four things: authoritarians reject or show weak commitment to the democratic rules of the game; deny the legitimacy of political opponents; tolerate or encourage violence; and curtail the civil liberties of opponents and the media. Doing even one of these things indicates dangerous authoritarian tendencies.

Mercieca adds:

Likewise, we could say the same about any political leader who weaponizes rhetoric in one of these four ways. Such a person would be a dangerous demagogue who would be difficult to hold accountable to the rule of law once in power. Trump was such a person. He violated these four standards repeatedly throughout the campaign (207)

She concludes her book with these words:

Part of Trump’s rhetorical genius was that he correctly understood one important thing: in 2016 the United States was vulnerable to dangerous demagogues. We were alienated, distrusting, polarized, and frustrated. Trump didn’t cause those conditions, but he did take advantage of them. Dangerous demagogues like Trump use rhetoric as a weapon to take advantage of weakened democracies, arguing that only they are the hero who can solve the nation’s problems. The way forward is to create and maintain a political community that never reaches crisis levels of alienation – a democracy based on the majority principle in which people trust one another and their government. Dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump have no power in a properly functioning democracy. This is the political project of our time. We must defend democracy. (214)

Jennifer Mercieca’s Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump. (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2020) can be checked out, by way of curbside pickup, from the Orcas Library or obtained through Darvill’s Bookstore.