Rhetoric and the MAGA World: Newsletter for June 15, 2024
We need to shift from thinking about an argument to thinking about disrupting an unqualified and poorly considered world view.
A simple way to think about a system of thought—yes, there is thought in the MAGA world—is that the system begins with assumptions and then it uses those assumptions to build an entire view of the world in a linear, step-by-step process. Yes, this is simple, I hope not simplistic, but stay with me for a while.
If we play around with this view, Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy is structurally and procedurally not much different than Hitler’s Mein Kamp. Or, a television show like Finding Bigfoot. (Spoiler alert: they never find the biggen.) Or, for that matter, the thought in one of Trump’s speeches. While Trump’s assumptions and his line of thought might be submerged in a lot of other stuff, they are still there.
On this site, I will be explaining all this in more detail as essays on Trump’s rhetoric emerge. Here, I want to write about what seems hopeless to many people who oppose Trump—how can we possible engage the MAGA world?
So, how do we argue against a system of thought? We can argue in a very focused way and say that some of the facts are wrong, or we can engage the entire system by investigating the assumptions at the core of the system and by finding breaks in the series of thoughts that develop from these assumptions.
To look at the assumptions behind the MAGA world, we need to move outside of our typical ways of arguing about politics and into what we might call an open civics classroom. If a family member or friend keeps ranting about “fake news,” we could counter by saying, “I believe in the First Amendment and the importance of a free press for the survival of democracy.” Instead of arguing about whether or not the Washington Post is fake news, we can shift the discussion to a core democratic value. This might open an entire discussion about why a free press is important or how good journalism functions. In this kind of discussion, we might find more common ground. At the very least, we might move away from topics that have built-in, knee-jerk responses to new territory where the minds of both parties are not so rigidly fixed.
How do we question the series of implications that emerge from foundations and core values? First, we have to find the arguments or force the arguments to be constructed. Many of our current political “discussions” are devoid of arguments, if an argument makes a claim and then supports it with evidence. If we are willing to be curious, listen, and ask questions, we might be able to force a person who only asserts values to think, if “to think” means constructing extended arguments. If we force them to think, we might find some gaps in their thinking. Even with a careful philosopher like Descartes, the gaps are there.
We can also think about rhetorical argument as a form of disruption rather than logical analysis. To demonstrate this, let me share a part of a conversation I had a number of years ago with a friend, who is both conversative and Christian. The topic was abortion. (In my career as a writing teacher, I read far too many essays on the topic, so admitted I had a bit of a running start on the topic.) I will begin with one of her comments:
“Abortion is just wrong. It is in the Bible.”
“I don’t know the Bible as well as you do, but I am pretty sure there is nothing in it about abortion.”
“Well, it says murder is wrong, and abortion is murder.”
“Okay, but that’s the issue, isn’t it? Is abortion murder?”
“It is murder.”
“Again, that’s the issue. That’s why people argue about whether abortion is okay or not. That’s what we need to talk about. If it is murder, then that means it ends a life, right? I assume you mean not just any life. It is okay to kill a fly, right? But it’s not to kill a human being, right? So, how would you define a human life”
“A human life begins at conception.”
“So a fertilized egg is a human being?”
“Yes. It has the potential to be a human being.”
“I could say the same about an unfertilized egg and lonely sperm swimming around in the uterus trying to find each other. Does this mean that you are against birth control? Is taking birth control murder?”
I could go on, but I think this is enough to demonstrate what I mean by looking deeply into the series of inferences that build a system of beliefs, often over a lifetime. In many ways, I am demonstrating rather traditional rhetoric here, but I am also trying to provide a different way—a nontraditional ways—of thinking about rhetoric. We need to shift from thinking about an argument or a counterargument. We need to think more about disrupting an unqualified and poorly considered worldview. We need to disrupt.
Here is another way to think about disruption: People who are absolutely sure of their beliefs have rarely considered nuances (they haven’t refined their thought, chosen their words carefully, or examined their evidence) and they have refused to think about special cases (they haven’t considered exceptions or qualifications). Disruption means forcing them to think in a deeper way.
How can we disrupt a series of inferences? Often, by asking for definitions. We can also ask for the source of facts. We can talk about the history of an idea or value. Any move that shifts the ground of the argument is a form of disruption. When talking with MAGAs, I have found that a statement of compassion, one that comes out of nowhere, can often reset an entire argument. Here are some examples of compassionate statements:
“I love you.”
“I respect you.”
“I want to understand you.”
“I am afraid that our democracy will not survive.”
“I want our children to have a good future.”
In other words, instead of arguing, speak from the heart. Maybe even tell a story. Reagan was called “the great communicator.” He rarely presented arguments. He often shared anecdotes.
We can also disrupt a system of thought in more simple ways. We can simply say, “I don’t believe that.” Or, “I can’t vote for someone who sexually assaults women.” You might say to me, “I’ve tried that sort of response. It doesn’t do any good.”
Maybe not immediately. A system of beliefs develops slowly. Propaganda creates beliefs through making simple statements repeatedly, over and over, for years or decades. If we are going to disrupt a person’s system of beliefs, it is going to take many repetitions to break an engrained way of thinking.
Here is another way to think about disruption: A system of thought (a political theory, an ideology, a bundle of values) attempts to be whole and complete within itself, even self-sustaining. It always fails to achieve this. Countering a system is often a matter of adding in what is missing. What is typically missing from the MAGA world? History. Bringing in history can be disruptive.
Here is one of the ideas I am currently working on: We are in abnormal times, so we need a new rhetoric. What I mean by a new rhetoric is not entirely worked out yet. If you have some thoughts, you can send me some comments inside this Substack.
I want to rethink rhetoric in fundamental ways. For example, maybe it is useful to think of rhetoric as being alive. This might include moving away from a rhetoric focused on individuals to a rhetoric focused on how individuals function within groups. (I am here thinking of the work Sara Walker, author of the forthcoming Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life’s Emergence. I recently watched her on Lex Fridman’s podcast.) Part of being alive is adapting as we interact with out environment. If we disrupt the rhetoric of a group, any group, the group or individuals in it rarely adopt our rhetoric and everything that it entails—our values, our view of history, our trauma, our beliefs, our attitudes, etc. They react to the disruption by changing the nature of their own rhetoric.
So, what is the use of thinking of rhetoric as being alive? This is, ultimately, a shift from thinking “I must make them like me” to thinking “I want to help them change their own way of existing in the world so they can lead a fuller life.” Maybe, we need to think of rhetoric as a form of unconditional love. I am not trying to change your thought. I am nurturing the development of your own thought.
As a quick side comment: From the view of rhetoric that I am trying to develop, with rhetoric viewed as an organism that determines how a group of individuals relate to each other, the worst thing (worst in the sense of being maladaptive) is to be trapped in a rhetoric that never changes. This is one way to look at the MAGA world—it does not change. Disrupting a rhetoric forces it to change and adapt. This view of rhetoric is not agonistic. It is not a battle. No one has to win. We don’t even need to think about winning.
Disruption, I am arguing, should be an important part of our political dialogue. In the essays and newsletters on this site, I will attempt to find different ways to understand MAGAs and their world. I going to keep comiong back to the idea that we should not stereotype the MAGA. It is a diverse group. I am not so sure that we can even talk about a person being a MAGA outside of a Trump rally or a community that attempts to be monolithic—Hannah Arend might say, totalitarian. It is, in the end, a group identity. When I use the term, I will try to make it clear that I am, following one of Derrida’s ideas, writing it under erasure. This means that, while I have to use the term, I also realize that it is a distortion with its own dangers. To even utter the term MAGA means that I run the risk of essentializing an entire group of people who deserve to be understood as individuals.
Another quick aside here: I don’t feel comfortable referring to someone as a MAGA. I don’t even feel comfortable writing about the MAGA movement, which is at the core of people who support Trump. I just don’t, as of now, see any way around it. As I write about the MAGA world, I will be speaking about both the group identity, which has a kind of life, and the individuals within that group. Understanding the group identity of the MAGA world is important, but no single individual, in my view, is entirely absorbed into that world. That means every supporter of Trump can potentially change.
I have just tried to qualify everything I am saying in this post. One of the topics I will be developing on this platform is the importance of democratic thinking, which promotes democratic dialogue. One of the key features of democratic thinking is the use of qualifications. It speaks and writes under erasure. Nothing that is said should be regarded as an absolute. If someone is speaking without qualifications, then you should do your best to add in the qualifications they want to ignore.
With these qualifications, let me try to explain why it is important to think of the MAGA individual as only existing only in a crowd. A crowd is like a system of thought—it is self-contained and self-reinforcing. MAGAs hold onto their system of beliefs because they do their best to remain in a world where everyone thinks like they do. Even when they are outside of their crowd, they act as if they are still in it. This is why so many supporters of Trump start conversations with strangers with the assumption that this stranger must believe everything they do.
So, another way to think about disruption is that you are not allowing a MAGA to bring the MAGA world outside of a MAGA rally.
This is why disruption is an important strategy. Any statement that disrupts the hermetic seal around the MAGA world can be effective, although we might not immediately see the results. A disruption can be as simple as saying, “I don’t believe that.”