Posts
What Donald Trump Learned (or not) from
Aristotle
by Larry Struck
It would be difficult to imagine a more incongruous pairing
of names in a headline than Donald Trump and Aristotle. The above title doesn’t
mean that the Donald actually studied Greek philosophy although the ancient
one’s name may have passed blankly beneath his eyes as a young enquiring
student. As J.M. Keynes is known to have quipped, “Practical men, who believe
themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually
slaves of some defunct economist.” Or in this case, philosopher.
The Republican Party in its currently distorted form has been
changing the conventional rules of political discourse. As outlined in Jeff
Greenfield’s POLITICO piece, Why the GOP Will Never Accept President Hillary Clinton , (8/18/16),
conservative leadership has shifted its focus over the past few decades from
debating issues to de-legitimizing the Democratic Party opposition. This change
of emphasis has altered the tone and substance, or lack thereof, in our
national political conversation. Whatever post-November consequences will
result for governance and life in the U.S. will be due in large part to this
new way of framing the debate, or what amounts to a different rhetorical style.
To the extent that campaign advisors craft messages to create impressions and
be persuasive, they are practicing rhetoric, which was invented by Aristotle. Knowingly or not, we are all his students.
Of course there have been a few developments in language and
society in the past 2500 years but the original concepts of rhetoric still
stand. In delivering a speech, or let’s call it a political performance, there
is a speaker, an audience and the speech itself. When Mr. Trump speaks publicly
he immediately overwhelms us with his high estimate of his own character, erasing
any notion of modesty or measured temperament. Then if he later attempts to
dial down this personal bravado or backpedals on an issue trying to appear more
reasonable and acceptable it comes across as contrived… a transparent ploy. So
a major criterion that voters use to judge candidates is largely lost to Trump
since one’s character is not expected to fluctuate like a strange weather
forecast. Nor are we used to grandiose candidates who present their qualifications as a
foregone conclusion, a contemporary divine right of kings.
Trump fares better addressing his audience of disaffected
citizens. This demographic doesn’t seem to be bothered, as yet, by their man’s
erratic behavior or condescending manner. Trump knows he has set the hook in
this group and believes they will stay on the line through Election Day. His
inability to reach other constituencies, however, is another matter and
probably a fatal weakness. Minorities are unlikely to respond well to his hostile
anti-immigrant positions or lame catch-up appeals, e.g., African-Americans
should vote for him because they have nothing to lose.
The political message, platform, or worldview, is usually how
we sort and rate candidates, although there is a blending of personality and
position. A “strong” individual will
seem less likely to favor cooperative projects—withdraw from NATO—and more
inclined to confrontational tactics—get tough with the Chinese. Given Trump’s
history of uninformed or erroneous statements, together with an attention span
not suited to prolonged deliberation, there is little solid ground on which to
judge a hypothetical Trump presidency. But that’s not really an obstacle for
his followers who are willing to roll the dice in a desperate act of faith. The
Donald will get them a better deal in a somehow better world.
The usual ways of evaluating candidates—who he/she is, what
they stand for, who their target voters are—suggest a shaky path to a Trump
presidency. So it’s not surprising that his campaign is descending to character
assassination, and worse, of his opponent as an election strategy. Why?
Rational debate and careful examination of political differences are not
Trump’s style and probably doomed to fail anyway. Instead we can expect his resorting to more
illogic, blatant fabrication, pettiness and sleaze…the current Trump political brand…in what should
candidly be described as a cynical bid for personal power.
If things don’t work
out, and Trump loses his chance to fully unleash his inner demagogue, well, so
what? The Donald has been covering his
behind by informing us that the election is rigged anyway. We’ve also been told,
just so we know, that in case of losing, either the general election or
interest in the whole affair and dropping out prematurely, he can go back to a
pretty great life, no doubt supervising beauty pageants and dreaming up new
schemes to fleece investors like the very demographic his candidacy is aimed
at. Returning to his private TrumpWorld would, in effect, be his middle finger
way of saying to the American people, “You’re fired!”
If Trump or his brain trust understood and applied effective
rhetorical principles we would now know a lot about the candidates’ differences
and have a more productive election cycle. (Aristotle, incidentally, also
invented and formulated the discipline of logic which is never a candidate’s
best friend.) As things stand, this
presidential contest is revealing a darker but no less true side of American democracy.
Either the Trump persona will turn stunningly malleable and hope to cajole or
flatter us with new-found contradictory positions, or his campaign will march
ahead using a scorched earth strategy to annihilate his adversary. Likely some of both.
Aristotle’s reputation for knowledge and wisdom led him to be
recruited as tutor to a promising young man who went on to accomplish great
things. Comparing Trump and Aristotle’s earlier young ward yields an
interesting contrast. Alexander the Great, no doubt a willing and attentive
pupil, went on to conquer the known world. The Donald, on the other hand, is
overawed by large buildings, loves the trappings of power and excels above all
in admiring his own image. Hail the new
conquering hero.
