Un-Conventional Speech: The Hobbesian take — 8/10

EDITOR’S NOTE:  This is the second half of our post on Donald Trump’s RNC speech. It focuses on the Hobbesian aspect of the speech.

I couldn’t get over the overt Hobbesian tone of Trump’s convention speech. Suzanne told me to keep it in my pants, but I figured I should post about it. So, Fear in Philosophy head researcher Serge Engine and I combed through the transcript of the speech to find quotes that highlight Hobbesian ideas. The three excerpts below were picked because they are great jumping off points for our discussion of Hobbes.

“I have a message for all of you: the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th 2017, safety will be restored. The most basic duty of government is to defend the lives of its own citizens. Any government that fails to do so is a government unworthy to lead.”

This quote, from early in Trump’s address, hits on Trump’s use of Fear as well as the Hobbesian idea that the Sovereign’s power is supported by his ability to keep his subjects safe.

First, the Fear – The first sentence assumes that crime and violence is a problem that needs to come to an end. The second sentence promises that he is the man to make it happen. “Safety will be restored” implies that America is currently unsafe. In Hobbesian terms, this is the “diffidence” that Hobbes cites as a natural characteristic of Man in Chapter XIII of the Leviathan. “Diffidence” is similar to insecurity, and insecurity creates Fear. Diffidence has a connotation of “distrust” along with “insecurity,” and so creates the dynamic by which we come to fear people in the State of Nature.

And now, the Sovereign – I’ve written before about Hobbes’ belief that this Fear in the State of Nature creates a State of War. Hobbes believed that Man was first and foremost concerned with self-preservation, so that State of War thing couldn’t work forever. So people would come together to form the Social Contract. The Social Contract would create a Sovereign who is given total authority to limit people’s liberty’s for the sake of security. In Chapter XVIII of the Leviathan Hobbes claims that the sovereign is bound by the Social Contract to promote security and safety, and that failing to do so is just as unjust as a subject rebelling against the sovereign. Isn’t Trump saying the same thing here? The third and fourth sentences above assert that government exists to promote security and that it is required by the Social Contract.

Trump is painting himself as the candidate more capable of fulfilling this requirement of the Sovereign’s. I don’t know if Trump knows his Hobbes, but this is a clear example of Hobbes’ ideas showing up in Trump’s rhetoric.

——-

“Nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens.

“The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources.”

If the first quote tells us we have things to fear, this quote tells us “what” and “who” to fear. Here, as he has done over and over again, Trump points at immigrants as the cause of our Fear. This is an example of ‘norming’ (refresh your memory here). Norming is the process that associates certain groups with the State of Nature. The State of Nature is not a physical place, but our Fear of the State of Nature exists in the modern world because certain groups have come to represent the idea of the State of Nature. In this quote, illegal immigrants clearly personify the State of Nature.

Take a look at Trump’s language here. Illegals have been “released…into our communities” and are “roaming free.” Putting aside that this is language usually used to describe animals, it struck me as similar to Hobbes’ writing about the modern State of Nature in the Leviathan. He says that locking our doors and carrying arms when we travel is evidence that we are guarding against the State of Nature. He describes the State of Nature as lurking in the dark, etc.

Trump’s campaign is all about ending any feelings of Fear that Americans have regarding their physical security and their cultural identity. But to campaign on this, he must convince voters that real threats to their security exist. This is why the Hobbesian model is so useful here. The Hobbesian Sovereign is created when people are motivated by Fear to create the Civil Society. Trump knows that the Trump Administration can only be created if people are motivated by Fear to vote for him.

 ——-

“…We will also be a country of law and order.

“Our Convention occurs at a moment of crisis for our nation. The attacks on our police, and the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life. Any politician who does not grasp this danger is not fit to lead our country.”

…

“My plan will begin with safety at home – which means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity without law and order.”

…

“I have a message to every last person threatening the peace on our streets and the safety of our police: when I take the oath of office next year, I will restore law and order our country.

I will work with, and appoint, the best prosecutors and law enforcement officials in the country to get the job done. In this race for the White House, I am the Law and Order candidate.”

I’ll discuss this set of three quotes together, because they all touch on the same Hobbesian theme, which Trump captures in the phrase “law and order.” Trump stressed law and order throughout the speech, and it’s clear that he intends to enforce the laws harshly. He argues that “weak leaders” have let crime and violence go unchecked, and that he can fix it with a little Law and Order. Pair that with his blatant disrespect for judicial authority and willingness to ignore the Constitution in his policy proposals, you have a candidate who believes in trading Liberty for security.

Sound familiar?! It’s Hobbes. In signing the Social Contract, each person agrees to transfer all of the Liberty they possessed in the State of Nature into the figure of the Sovereign. This is what Trump is asking of voters. Give up your right to travel freely in name of fighting terrorism. Crush freedom of the press in the name of personal gain. Brush off your right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment with Law and Order as a goal. Trump argues that these are necessary to ensure the security of our country, and he believes that we should be willing to sacrifice our rights in order to achieve them. This is the Hobbesian belief as well. Hobbes said that humans would give up any right to gain security (Trump’s success at overpowering a group of liberty-loving Republican primary opponents tells me that Hobbes is on to something!).

The Trump-Hobbes dynamic is so strong here, but Suzanne says people get the picture. So I guess I’ll leave it at that for today. In a few days a new post will be up and Trump won’t be the topic for the first time in a couple of weeks.

My thanks to “Fear in Philosophy” head researcher Serge Engine for finding gems in the coal mine we call the World Wide Web.

Un-Conventional Speech: a language analysis–7/28

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the 1st part of a 2 part posting about Donald Trump’s RNC speech. Today focuses on the language used in Trump’s speech. The second part will focus on selected quotes from the speech and apply our sites trademark Hobbesian analysis. Enjoy!

It’s had a few days to settle, but it’s still unsettling. Donald Trump’s Republican National Convention speech was ‘dark’—that’s the word the media seized on to describe it the next day. It described an America in which crime was out of control, foreign policy was failing around the world, and economic policy was hurting American workers. And it was full of Fear. Trump made it very evident that he believes in an America that resists shifting social norms and embraces the ‘norming’ process that attaches certain groups to the State of Nature. His speech was a high profile exhibition of fear-based politics, and our Hobbesian view is a perfect fit to explain it all.

I’m not a linguist, but Trump’s speech was striking for its total lack of any rhetorical flair. It rarely appealed to the audience’s emotions, it didn’t use lofty language, it stuck to a no-frills style to deliver Trump’s message. I wanted to see how the speech compares to other convention speeches, so the Fear in Philosophy research team led by Serge Engine analyzed the text of the speech using a software called Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. The software isn’t free, and Suzanne controls the checkbook around here, so I used a free sample page that they made available which does a basic analysis of texts. So, I entered the text of Donald Trump’s 2016 RNC acceptance speech, Mitt Romney’s 2012 RNC acceptance speech, Barack Obama’s 2008 DNC acceptance speech, and Obama’s legendary 2004 DNC keynote. The analysis measures usage of ‘self’ pronouns, social words, positive and negative emotion words, “cognitive words,” articles, and big words. The numbers in all the charts below are the percentage of words from that speech that fit that category.

Let’s provide some context before we analyze Trump’s speech. Mitt Romney was the GOP’s most recent nominee, so his acceptance speech should provide a valuable comparison.

A statistical analysis of Mitt Romney’s 2012 RNC speech.

An analysis of President Obama’s 2008 DNC acceptance speech.

 

The LIWC analysis on the left shows that Romney used nearly 4 times as many positive words as he did negative words. The acceptance speech should serve to unite and excite people behind the candidate, so offering a positive message makes sense. To judge the other variables, we need to compare with another text, so on the right are the numbers on President Obama’s acceptance speech from 2008:

 

In every category, they are nearly identical! Romney used more positive words relative to negative words, but not overwhelmingly. Let’s take these as examples of ‘typical’ convention speeches, and now look at two atypical speeches.

Barack Obama’s keynote address from the 2004 DNC.

An analysis of Donald Trump’s speech at last week’s Republican convention.

First, Obama’s 2004 convention speech. At the time he was an unknown Illinois state senator campaigning for a U.S. Senate seat. John Kerry, the Democrats ’04 nominee, was an early booster of Obama and he gave Obama a prime time, keynote speaking slot on the Tuesday of the convention. The speech was well received and has been remembered as an all-time convention speech–swept Suzanne off her feet. The specs are on the left.

 

One obvious divergence between this speech and Obama’s 2008 speech stands out:  This speech has 5 times as many positive words as it has negative. This is consistent with the speech’s reputation as an uplifting coming-to-America story and rejection of divisive politics.

And now for the main event! Take a look now at how Obama’s speech contrasts with The Donald’s address from last week:

This speech expressed far fewer positive emotions than Romney’s RNC speech in 2012, and far more negative emotions than any speech we analyzed above. By my count, there were only 18 negative emotion words in Obama’s 2004 speech, contrasted with 106 in Trump’s speech. The ratio of positive to negative is given as 1:1 here, but anyone who watched the speech knows that this doesn’t really capture the extent of the pessimism, cynicism, and Fear that characterized the speech. For example, Trump sought to align himself with “law and order” (used 4 times), which is not a negative phrase on its face, but in context of the speech and the speaker it is clear that it is a euphemism for “security at the expense of civil liberties” (a hallmark of the Hobbesian sovereign!).

Additionally, the lower percentage of cognitive words stands out, and it seems to confirm my sense that Trump’s speech kept it simple on purpose. Perhaps this was intentional to appeal to his base of voters without a college education, but I can’t say for sure. On the other hand, Trump used the most big words of these four speeches (big words to compensate for his small hands?).

One other interesting note that I picked up on:  Trump used the phrase “oath of office” four times, and it seemed to me that he was intentionally repeating the idea that he will take the oath of office in January. He might do this to make the idea of a Trump presidency more concrete, or to convince voters that he is serious about this campaign.

My theory is that as a savvy television star, he understands that a statement is truer every time it gets repeated, because people are more familiar with it. There is a famous saying in advertising that a consumer has to see an ad at least six times before it can be effective. For this article, Fear in Philosophy’s intrepid research team (a.k.a. me and my colleague Serge Engine) came up with this gem authored by Thomas Smith in his book, Successful Advertising, published waaaaay back in 1885 (no, Suzanne, I don’t mean 1995). It describes what happens every time a person sees an ad again.

Where are you regarding Trump? Most Americans have gotten at least to number 5. Many people, are sitting at 6, 7, or 8 and will not go any further. Lots of people are at 9 or 10. Regarding #11, how ‘bout those tax returns, Don? #14 and 15 represent the people who gravitate to Trump because they, too, want to Make America Great Again. Some people have progressed all the way to the end, drinking their authentic snake oil like it was Kool-Aid. To those people:  check the date—it expires November 8^th.