The Rhetorical Brilliance Of Trump The Demagogue

Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Raleigh, 
North Carolina on December 4 2015. Jonathan Drake/Reuters

By Jennifer Mercieca, Texas A&M University

Donald Trump’s December 7 Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration has attracted worldwide disdain. Nearly 500,000 Britons have signed a petition asking their government to prevent Trump from entering their country. In the US, Trump’s comments have been denounced by Democrats, Republicans, the media and religious groups.

Yet a recent poll has found that 37% of likely voters across the political spectrum agree with a “temporary ban” on Muslims entering the US.

Trump possesses an arrogance and volatility that makes most voters recoil. So how has he maintained a grip on a segment of the Republican base that – at least, for now – seems unshakable?

And how has his support persisted, despite the fact that some have called him a demagogue and a fascist, or that political observers have found parallels between him and polarizing figures like George Wallace, Joseph McCarthy, Father Coughlin – even Hitler?
As a scholar of American political rhetoric, I write about and teach courses on the use and abuse of rhetorical strategy in public discourse. Scrutinizing Trump’s rhetorical skills can partially explain his profound and persistent appeal.

Trump, Carson Lead Republican Primary; Sanders Edging Clinton Among Democrats, Harvard IOP Poll Finds

After Paris Terrorist Attacks, Solid Majority of America's 18- to 29- Year-Olds Support Sending U.S. Ground Troops to Defeat ISIS; Less Than 20% Inclined to Serve if Needed

A new national poll of America's 18- to 29- year-olds by Harvard's Institute of Politics (IOP), at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, finds Donald Trump (22%) and Ben Carson (20%) locked in a dead-heat as young Republicans' first choice in their party's presidential primary – and young Democrats giving the edge to Bernie Sanders (41%) over Hillary Clinton(35%) as the top selection in their presidential primary.  Overall, a majority (56%) of 18- to 29- year-olds prefer a Democrat win the 2016 campaign for president over a Republican, a net increase of five points since the IOP's spring 2015 survey was released.

The IOP's newest poll results also show – in the wake of the mid-November Paris terrorist attacks – a solid majority (60%) support the U.S. committing ground troops to defeat ISIS.  When asked how likely they would be to serve, 16% said they "have already," "would definitely" or "would strongly consider" joining the U.S. military to combat ISIS if additional troops were needed.  A detailed report on the poll's findings is available online: www.iop.harvard.edu/harvard-iop-fall-2015-poll.

Star Wars: Escapist Fantasy Or Dream Of The Future?

© 2015 Lucasfilm Ltd. & TM. All Right Reserved.

By Kevin Hunt, Nottingham Trent University

In certain corners of the internet a modern myth celebrates the idea that Ben Rich, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin “Skunk Works” – the legendary and highly secretive wing of Lockheed Martin concerned with aircraft development – concluded a 1993 presentation at UCLA with the blockbuster line: “We now have the technology to take E.T. home.”

How we engage with scientific and technological progress has long been influenced by science fiction. Science fiction provides a testing ground for future visions informed by areas as diverse as biological and mechanical engineering through to political, social and ethical concerns. Such visions often combine the optimistic with the pessimistic. They draw upon the genres of utopian and dystopian storytelling that date back to Plato’s vision of Atlantis.

Divided kingdom: How England Could Force A Brexit, Even If Others Vote To Stay

Black Zack, CC BY-NC-SA

By Rachel Ormston, ScotCen Social Research

As the debate over Britain’s future in the European Union gathers pace and heat, there has been much discussion of what might happen if voters in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales disagree. What if the UK were to leave based on the English vote alone?

Would such an outcome provide the “material change” in circumstances cited by the SNP’s leadership as a potential trigger for a second independence referendum? What would such a decision mean for support for independence in Scotland and Wales? Could there even be implications for the peace deal in Northern Ireland, as the Irish prime minister recently suggested?

At the same time, rather less attention has been paid to the potential for another, equally plausible, outcome. What if England votes narrowly in favour of leaving the EU, but is kept in Europe by its more Europhile UK neighbours? Could such an outcome trigger calls from England for further loosening of ties within the UK?

Toastmasters International Lists 7 Most Buzzworthy Speeches of 2015

Whether it was David Letterman signing off on the Late Show for the final time or Caitlyn Jenner accepting an award recognizing her courage, the most discussed and shared presentations of the year were thought-provoking, emotional and inspiring. After viewing hundreds of contenders, Toastmasters International considers the following seven speeches the most buzzworthy in 2015:

Scholars: Trump's Call To 'Ban Muslims' Is Un-American

Trump calls for a ban on Muslims entering the US. Randall Hill/Reuters

By Sahar Aziz, Texas A&M University ; Denise A Spellberg, University of Texas at Austin, and Muniba Saleem, University of Michigan

Q: Presidential candidate Donald Trump called Monday for barring all Muslims from entering the US. He previously called for surveillance against mosques and a database for all Muslims living the US. What can you tell us about the history of attacks against Muslims in the US? Are Trump’s comments unique?

Sahar Aziz is an associate professor of law at Texas A&M. She is author of Sticks and Stones, the Words That Hurt: Entrenched Stereotypes Eight Years after 9/11.

Trump’s desire to keep Muslims out of America goes back two centuries. The Naturalization Act of 1790 barred Muslims from citizenship because only white people were eligible. Muslims were viewed as either black slaves, who were not considered full persons, or Turks and Arabs who were deemed enemies of white Christianity – a hallmark of American citizenship.

Even after the end of slavery, Muslims continued to be excluded. Immigration laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries sought to exclude Chinese, Japanese and other Asians. Whiteness was still the prerequisite for naturalized citizenship. Islam was associated with Asiatic cultures deemed antithetical to American values.

What makes the contemporary period different is the exclusive focus on Islam and Muslims as the primary threat to American life – as opposed to Muslims being caught up in anti-black or anti-Asian prejudice. Mirroring the historic racist rhetoric against the Chinese and Japanese, a critical mass of Americans view Muslims as disloyal, suspicious, dangerous and possessing a culture deemed irreconcilable with American norms.

We witnessed the manifestation of such stereotypes most acutely in the months and years immediately following the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Individuals identified as Muslim – either by their headscarves, names, national origins or associations – were assaulted, spied on, investigated or subjected to “special registration” procedures. However, the post-9/11 discrimination is not merely backlash, but rather an entrenched form of bigotry.

At a time when most Americans are taught that our nation is post-racial and that we have moved beyond Japanese internment or Chinese exclusion laws, Trump’s statements and consequent rise in the polls remind us that our nation has not advanced as much as we’d like to believe.