To understand the appeal of Donald Trump to a wide cross-segment of the American population you need only look to some of the ugliest racists and red-baiting demagogues in our nation’s political history. This is exactly what the New York Times found when they dissected Trump’s speeches, all 95000 words of them:
The New York Times analyzed every public utterance by Mr. Trump over the past week from rallies, speeches, interviews and news conferences to explore the leading candidate’s hold on the Republican electorate for the past five months. The transcriptions yielded 95,000 words and several powerful patterns, demonstrating how Mr. Trump has built one of the most surprising political movements in decades and, historians say, echoing the appeals of some demagogues of the past century.
Although his supporters may regard him as a unique phenomenon, there is nothing particularly original about Trump’s rhetorical tactics. Words matter, and throughout our history hateful, ugly words have mattered quite a lot. Duping American citizens with inflammatory "us versus them" rhetoric and the demonization of others has been a time-honored and effective political strategy throughout the 20th century:
This pattern of elevating emotional appeals over rational ones is a rhetorical style that historians, psychologists and political scientists placed in the tradition of political figures like[Barry] Goldwater, George Wallace, Joseph McCarthy, Huey Long and Pat Buchanan, who used fiery language to try to win favor with struggling or scared Americans. Several historians watched Mr. Trump’s speeches last week, at the request of The Times, and observed techniques — like vilifying groups of people and stoking the insecurities of his audiences — that they associate with Wallace and McCarthy.
Just like McCarthy exploited Americans’ fear of Communists during the 1950’s, Trump exploits the economic insecurities of his cadre of white support by re-directing their frustrations towards Latinos, Hispanics, and other groups who they see as “threatening.” And while often delivered in a jocular, bantering tone (one of the keys to his television-friendly appeal), Trump’s careful and deliberate race-baiting follows and echoes the virulent, hate-churning message of the segregationist George Wallace:
Historically, demagogues have flourished when they tapped into the grievances of citizens and then identified and maligned outside foes, as McCarthy did with attacking Communists, Wallace with pro-integration northerners and Mr. Buchanan with cultural liberals. These politicians used emotional language — be it “segregation forever” or accusatory questions over the Communist Party — to persuade Americans to pin their anxieties about national security, jobs, racial diversity and social trends on enemy forces.
The Times found that Trump has actually done the likes of Wallace and McCarthy one better, by tapping into Americans’ violence fantasies with his rhetoric:
The specter of violence looms over much of his speech, which is infused with words like kill, destroy and fight. For a man who speaks off the cuff, he always remembers to bring up the Islamic State’s “chopping off heads.” And he has expressed enthusiasm for torturing enemies beyond waterboarding. Last month, after several men hit a Black Lives Matter protester at one of his rallies, Mr. Trump said, “Maybe he should have been roughed up.”
Of course, Wallace and McCarthy are the kind of politicians who rose to power by stoking Americans’ worst impulses, among the country’s sorriest specimens. History has not treated them kindly. But much like Donald Trump at the time they found a willing and ready audience in Americans eager to blame others for their problems:
“His entire campaign is run like a demagogue’s — his language of division, his cult of personality, his manner of categorizing and maligning people with a broad brush,” said Jennifer Mercieca, an expert in American political discourse at Texas A&M University. “If you’re an illegal immigrant, you’re a loser. If you’re captured in war, like John McCain, you’re a loser. If you have a disability, you’re a loser. It’s rhetoric like Wallace’s — it’s not a kind or generous rhetoric.”
Dividing Americans this way not only plays to their fears and insecurities but also to their desire for simple, clear-cut solutions for thorny, complicated problems. In that respect Trump’s tactics are particularly well-suited to a Republican Party that has gradually abandoned the pretense of having any workable policy positions on issues Americans actually care about. Trump has no solutions either, but his hate-mongering fills the sorry vacuum left by the rest of the Party. This explains his appeal to a Republican electorate who are eager for solutions—any solutions, in an era of increasing economic anxiety and wage stagnation. It allows them to blame others. It satisfies their need for a comforting pat on the back and an assurance that ”everything will be taken care of.” In other words, it provides an excuse not to perform the heavy lifting of thinking:
It is the sort of trust-me-and-only-me rhetoric that, according to historians, demagogues have used to insist that they have unique qualities that can lead the country through turmoil.
Trump clearly doesn’t mind sharing the stage with the ghosts of George Wallace and Joe McCarthy, since his supporters probably have no idea who those people are. But for the rest of Americans not so easily duped, Trump’s rhetoric consistently evokes some of the worst characters in our history.