In calling Donald Trump an “excellent orator”, you are blithely confusing effectiveness with excellence. He is distinctive and can, at times, capable of commanding attention, but the techniques cited are hardly evidence of exceptional oratory in themselves. His speeches are increasingly rambling, lacking coherence and often rely on simple, sweeping formulations rather than developed arguments, such as “Build the wall,” “Make America Great Again,” and his repeated description of opponents as “losers” or “weak.” His use of superlatives, claiming things are “the greatest,” “the worst,” “tremendous” or unprecedented, creates energy and certainty among simpletons, but not necessarily precision or substance. His improvisational style has its moments, such as when he pretends to <deleted> two men, much to the enjoyment of the crowd, but it can equally produce rambling digressions and factual or logical inconsistencies. Just because he shows confidence, it doesn't mean he is competence. Memorability is not eloquence, and provoking an emotional reaction is not proof of rhetorical mastery. Indeed, if attention, repetition and emotional intensity are sufficient to establish great oratory, then you must believe pretty much any demagogue or propagandist qualifies. Great oratory requires more than making an audience cheer or anger—it requires command of language, coherent argument, intellectual precision, evidence and the ability to persuade beyond one’s existing supporters. And the final claim that Trump is “Making America Great Again” is not evidence of his oratorical ability at all; it is simply a political assertion. The defensible conclusion is therefore that Trump is an exceptionally effective political communicator, particularly at mobilisation and emotional persuasion—not that he is, by virtue of those qualities, an excellent orator. History is full of demagogues who were extraordinarily effective speakers. Their ability to command crowds, generate emotion, simplify complex issues, repeat memorable phrases and create a powerful sense of collective identity is precisely what made them effective. But we do not normally infer from those qualities alone that their speeches constitute great oratory. If anything, the history of demagoguery demonstrates why “he makes people feel strongly” is an inadequate standard for judging rhetorical excellence.
Create an account or sign in to comment