The Populist Argumentative Strategy: An Analysis of Trump's Discourse

(1)

Discourse and Argumentation Studies Master Thesis

09-08-2017

The Populist Argumentative Strategy:

An Analysis of Trump’s Discourse

(2)

1. Introduction

Understanding populism as a concept and as a strategy is of the utmost importance in the contemporary political environment. With politicians such as Le Pen, Wilders and Farage trying to come to power, and Trump becoming president of the United States of America, it becomes more evident than ever that populism is a force to be reckoned with and therefore needs to be studied.

According to Bos and Brants (2014), populism historically originated from the People’s Party, established in the United States in 1893. This party aimed to ‘return political power to the people, the common man, through direct legislation in referenda and popular initiatives’ (p. 705). Ideologically, populism was associated with socialist and liberal

viewpoints, whereas nowadays populism is also claimed to be right-wing nationalistic (Bos & Brants, 2014). Thus, rather than stating that populism is solely focused on ‘returning the power to the people’, Lee (2006) argues that there are four themes of populism. While the themes suggested by Lee (2006) will not be adopted in this article, this article does adhere to the idea that populism is an umbrella term and that the common denominators for this umbrella term should be gathered in order to be able to analyze populism.

Although not its main focus, this article does aim to create a list of the most salient characteristics acclaimed to populism through a literature study, mainly in order to use that list to create a model of populist argumentative strategies. This will be done from a pragma-dialectic viewpoint, focusing on the concept of strategic maneuvering. On the basis of these populist characteristics, four main elements of the populist argumentative strategy will be deduced. These characteristics are indicators of strategic maneuvers, and all strategic maneuvers combined form the populist argumentative strategy.

Subsequently, the primary focus of this article is to create a model to help detect and analyze the argumentative strategy of populists. Through a literary study, many of the most important characteristics of populism are listed. These characteristics are used to divide the argumentative strategy of populism into four elements. Per element, the characteristics are translated into strategic maneuvers. The combination of several of these strategic maneuvers in populist discourse is hypothesized to indicate the argumentative strategy of populism. It is the hypothesis of this article that the model created can analyze and detect the argumentative strategy of populism.

(4)

2. Method

2.1 Literary overview

The aim of this chapter is to clarify the term populism through the introduction of the main characteristics found in other literature. The characteristics found and deemed to be of high importance for populism will be mentioned and discussed, in order to provide an adequate background regarding characteristics and goals of populism.

First, the list of characteristics this article deems relevant for the familial tendencies of populism will be presented. These characteristics will then be discussed and analyzed. In the next chapters, these characteristics of populism will be subdivided amongst the four elements of the populist argumentative strategy. Rather than that the characteristics are direct, concrete discussion moves, the notions of argumentative strategy and strategic maneuvering will be used in order to demonstrate how these characteristics manifest themselves as strategic maneuvers in line with one argumentative strategy typical for populism.

The characteristics that are most relevant to show the familial tendencies of populism are listed below;

1. “The people” is the main focus

2. The supremacy of the will of "the people" (Worsley, 1969)

3. “The people” should be in direct contact with the government in order to convey their will and ideology flawlessly. (Judis, 2016)

4. Populism has a focus on immigration policies

5. Populism has a tendency to convey situations as a critical situation (Taggart as cited in Bos and Brants (2014); Bos and Brants (2014); Moffitt and Tormey (2014); Wiles (1969))

6. Populism has a tendency towards nostalgia (Wiles, 1969)

7. Populism has an anti-elite tendency (Ieţcu -Fairclough (2008); Jansen (2011); Jagers and Walgrave (2006); Block and Negrine (2017); Oliver and Rahn (2016)

8. Populism has an anti-establishment tendency (Mudde (2004); Jagers and Walgrave (2006); Block and Negrine (2017))

9. Populism has an anti-politics tendency (Block and Negrine (2017); Mudde in Bos and Brants (2014))

(5)

11. Populism is nationalistic (Bos and Brants (2014); Jansen (2011); Oliver and Rahn (2016))

12. Populism rises in popularity in time of crisis (Judis (2016); Block & Negrine (2017)) 13. Populism tends to focus on shared values, patriotism and feelings of nationalism

(Block and Negrine, 2017)

14. The will of “the people” should be adhered to and trumps all expert knowledge (Judis (2016); Wiles (1969); Moffitt and Tormey (2014))

The first and most obvious characteristic of populism is that “the people” are their main focus. “The people” is written in this article like this to stress that there is no single stable entity identifiable as “the people”. This idea of “the people” is not an easily definable group, nor is the content of this group stable for every type of populism. Rather than that this is already a defined group, calling their target audience “the people” creates a certain group. It bundles groups of people that would not identify with one another, and gives them a united purpose. As claimed in Moffitt and Tormey (2014), “when a populist leader claims to speak for ‘the people’, this subject called ‘the people’ does not - and cannot, in reality - include all citizens within a given community” (p. 388-9). They continue to explain that “when populists claim to speak in name of ‘the people’, they are attempting to bring a subject called ‘the people’ into being” (p. 389). In other words, by calling their followers ‘the people’, they turn a heterogeneous group into a quasi-homogenous group of citizens which would not ordinarily identify with one another. This is reiterated in Jansen (2011), which states that in order to create this group of “the people”, populist “leaders downplay differences and emphasize similarities (or at least unity through functional interdependence)” (p 84).” Since all different groups feel addressed by the politician, they become one larger group with a united purpose: dethroning the elite and taking their rightful place in the political order and in society as the ‘rightful’ leaders. In order to create this group, “the people” are portrayed as the heroes, those who are honorable, hard-working, traditional and nationalistic. And this virtuous group should be in charge. As a result, the characteristics 1, 2, 3 and 14 are all related to “the people”.

Another important characteristic of populism is the anti-authority ideology they adhere to. Populism has a tendency to have a negative view on establishment, elite and experts. The characteristics 7, 8 and 9 are connected to this view. The establishment is the catalyst for “the people’s” aims. “The people” are portrayed as good, the elite and/or other enemy as evil, and the system, which holds the enemy in place at the top of the political

(6)

order, helps the evil side. The system is the forum through which the battle between elite and “the people”, between good and evil, takes place.

A third important set of characteristic has to do with the enemy. The characteristics that are connected to this point are 4 and 10. As mentioned above, the populists created “the people” through pointing at their similarities rather than their differences. Next to this, populists also tend to use a scapegoat, an enemy, to help create this feeling of unity within “the people”. This enemy can be divided into two main sub groups. Either those considered the enemy are the elitist in charge, for example the politicians ruling the political climate at the time. Another possible enemy can be the outsiders. This refers to the people that do not align with the created term “the people”. For example, in Trump’s campaign, the foreigners such as Mexicans, and maybe even more so Muslims, are the enemy. They are the groups that should be contained and deported, and that should be banned from entering the United States, as Trump recently tried to achieve with the “Muslim ban”. There are two aspects that help explain why this enemy, both inside or outside, is created. As Lee (2006) claims: “the enemy not only provides a sharp boundary rhetorically insulating “the people’s” identity, but the enemy also is a rhetorical purifier, a scapegoat for societal ills” (p. 359). First of all, having this outsider enemy helps create “the people” and thus helps the populist to create a more homogenous group of followers and active participators. Second of all, this outsider group can be easily blamed for problems in the country. For example, the fact that “the people”, the “common man”, has trouble finding jobs can be explained through illegal Mexican

immigrants that take their jobs. And this “enemy’s corruption of a once fair and democratic political and economic system creates a specific crisis that necessitates “the people’s” action” (Lee, 2006, p. 359).

This leads us to the next characteristics, 5 and 12, the tendency to convey situations as a critical situation and the fact that populism grows in popularity during a time of crisis respectively. These two characteristics are of importance to understanding populism. The fact that populism grows more popular during a time of crisis can easily be explained. If a crisis is present, that means the current authorities have not handled it well, and as a result a part of the public will want a change in authorities in order to fix this crisis, which would explain the growth of the opposition in a political environment. Next to this, populists present themselves as politicians who are willing to do whatever it takes, and who are not afraid to bend the rules or step on toes in order to resolve a crisis. As a result, the popularity of populism will rise during a time of crisis. These two reasons also immediately explain why populists are keen on presenting a certain situation as critical, or as a crisis. Due to the way they present

(7)

themselves and the way populism is perceived by the public, their success is partially contingent on crisis situations. This is also apparent when taking into account the last theme that Lee (2006) proposes: apocalyptic confrontation. This boils down to a confrontation between “the people” and the enemy, and this confrontation is the only route to change. Populism is not focused on long term, negotiation and compromising politics, but rather it is focused on direct and ‘necessary’ change.

Finally, the characteristics concerning nationalism, being numbers 6, 11 and 13, will be discussed. This tendency towards nationalism within populism can also quite easily be explained. Nationalism is a powerful tool to unite groups of people that cannot be united on aspects such as religion, political preference, class, etc. As a result, it is a very powerful and needed tool for populists, who try to target this very large, heterogeneous group that cannot be united through these other aspects. This is also a reason for the relatively small part ideology plays in populism, and the reason populists are often criticized for their lack of precision in their solutions and opinions. Nostalgia is of course not similar to nationalism, but it is a tool that can be used for a similar purpose, just like patriotism and shared values. Shared values might seem like an ideologically loaded subject, but these shared values can be general enough to create unity within large groups without explicitly covering ideological ground. For example, values such as ‘our children are the future and need to be educated well’ or ‘we should all be free to follow the American dream’ are values that work for very large groups without excluding many people.

These characteristics have been chosen after extensive research into populism and its most important elements. Using the sources mentioned behind the characteristics in this list, the list was created and discussed in this chapter. As a result, this list contains the elements deemed most important in describing populism, according to this article. In the next chapter, these characteristics will be categorized at the hand of the four elements of the argumentative strategy of populism; the appeal to the people, the enemy, crisis and nationalism. But before this, the four elements and strategic maneuvering and the framework of pragma-dialectics will be briefly discussed. The article considers these four elements to be the most important elements of the argumentative strategy of populism. Each of these elements will be

elaborated upon with the corresponding characteristics. After this, the characteristics will be translated into the strategic maneuvers that represent those characteristics, within their respective element of the argumentative strategy.

(8)

The four elements that entail the argumentative strategy are based on the list of characteristics gained from a literature study, combined with the categories of political style in their research by Moffitt and Tormey (2014). The four categories are;

- The appeal to “the people” - The enemy

- Crisis - Nationalism

Through the combination of the categories by Moffitt and Tormey (2014) and the categories of populism found through extensive literary research, these four elements were created. The categories of populism were placed within these elements, and the four elements taken together broadly represent the argumentative strategy of populism. As mentioned before, the elements and characteristics are not an exhaustive list, nor are they meant as rigorous rules by which to identify whether discourse is populist or not. Rather, the

characteristics are meant as a guideline, an accumulation of previous research that tends to show the familiarity and general aspects that most forms of populism adhere to. The

characterizations do not all have to appear in every piece of discourse in order for something to be populist, nor is something necessarily populist when containing one or several of these characteristics. However, due to a lack of a unanimous definition, or even a scientific

consensus, these elements and characteristics will be adhered to in this article. There still is more research needed in the field of populism, and I strongly encourage every scientist to contribute to further investigate the term populism and its characteristics.

In the next subchapter, the theory of pragma-dialectics will briefly be discussed, emphasizing the aspects of importance to this research.

2.2 Strategic maneuvering

Strategic maneuvering is a concept derivative from the pragma-dialectical framework. In a critical discussion, discussants will naturally try to win the argument, but next to this, they should also try to be reasonable and win on the merits of the discussion. This dyad creates tension. Reasonableness, the dialectical goal of any discussion, is aimed at keeping to the rules of the discussion. There are ten rules for critical discussion, amongst which rules like the freedom rule (parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on a standpoint), the burden of proof rule (the party that puts forward a

(9)

standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to), and the unexpressed premise rule (a party may not falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party or deny a premise that he or she has left implicit). The dialectical aim of any discussant is to follow these rules at all times. However, there is also the rhetorical aim of winning the discussion by having their standpoint accepted by the other party. Where the dialectical aim is based on reasonableness, the rhetorical aim is based on effectiveness. Balancing these two aims is called strategic maneuvering.

Wanting to win a discussion is not necessarily a bad thing. However, if a discussant loses the balance and the rhetorical aim has the upper hand over the dialectical aim, this leads to a derailment. Derailment occurs when a discussant becomes unreasonable and breaks critical discussion rules through rhetorical means. This breaking of a critical discussion rule is called a fallacy. However, identifying a fallacy is not always as straightforward as it seems. As claimed in van Eemeren, Garssen & Meuffels (2015), “arguers will most likely try to stick to the established dialectical means for achieving rhetorical objectives which are possibly at odds with the dialectical rationale for a certain discussion rule, and “stretch” the use of these means so much that the fallacious maneuvering is also covered” (p. 1398). Since a discussant does not want to appear unreasonable, as that would harm the effectiveness of their argument, the discussant might employ their discussion moves in such a way that the rhetorical aim might have the upper hand without the audience realizing the unreasonableness of the discussion move. For example, appealing to the emotions of a crowd can be highly persuasive, however, it would not immediately be considered reasonable. Nonetheless, research by Walton has shown that “not all emotional appeals are necessarily fallacious” (Kienpointner, 2013, p. 361). Rather, through maneuvering strategically and using positive emotions, a discussant might maneuver strategically without derailing, while using emotional arguments.

There are three types of strategic maneuvering, according to van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2006):

“First, there is the choice made from the available “topical potential”, the (not always clearly delineated) repertoire of options for making an argumentative move that are at the arguer’s disposal in a certain case and at a particular point in the discourse.”

“Second, there is the choice of how to adapt the argumentative moves made in the strategic maneuvering to meet the “audience demand”, the requirements pertinent to the audience that is to be reached.”

(10)

“Third, there is the exploitation of “presentational devices”, which involves a choice as to how the argumentative moves are to be presented in the way that is strategically best.”

So in conclusion, topical potential is all about content. This entails, amongst others, questions such as what is discussed, what is left out, what are the starting points. Through careful and conscious selection of the topics, the discussant maneuvers strategically in order to combine both goals optimally. The audience demand entails adapting the line of argument to the beliefs and preferences of the audience that is addressed. And finally, the presentational devices show how, using what style and type of language for example, the discussant presents his or her argument while strategically maneuvering between reasonableness and

effectiveness.

The final concept of importance is that of the argumentative strategy. The argumentative strategy is the combination of all strategic maneuvers combined. Each individual strategic maneuver has a certain goal that it aims to fulfil. The argumentative strategy is the factor that combines all these individual maneuvers and reveals the overall aim that all maneuvers are used for. Van Eemeren (2013) explains that “if the arguer is out to achieve a specific kind of result, the strategic maneuvers carried out in his argumentative moves may combine into a full argumentative strategy” (p. 14).

In the next subchapter, the populist characteristics will be translated into strategic maneuvers that fit the argumentative strategy of populism. The characteristics are analyzed, and through processes of deduction, induction and analysis, the characteristics are translated into strategic maneuvers.

2.3 Populist characteristics into strategic maneuvers

In translating the characteristics of populism into strategic maneuvers, two important details must be taken into account.

First, strategic maneuvering is a pragma-dialectical notion concerning discussion moves. As such, when analyzing strategic maneuvering, the data consists of actual

manifestations of language. Elements and characteristics are obviously more abstract, and are not literal manifestations of language. Characteristics of populism are no concrete discussion moves, but (relatively) more abstract notions. When taking all these characteristics into account in an argumentative setting, the populist creates a certain ideology that has to be followed. Conforming to this ideology creates a so called argumentative strategy. This

(11)

argumentative strategy is not synonymous to the individual strategic maneuvers. Rather, an argumentative strategy consists of a series of strategic maneuvers, which all serve the same goal. In short, the characteristics of the ideology create a certain group of strategic maneuvers all made with the intention of reaching the same goal. This group of strategic maneuvers taken as a whole is the argumentative strategy.

Second, it should be stated that the characterization portrayed in the following chapters is not meant as the ideal, all-encompassing summary of every type of populism. Rather, these characteristics tend to show familial tendencies between all types of populism. This concept can then be used to analyze populism from a pragma-dialectical viewpoint. Furthermore, it should be noted that any of these characteristics on its own are not necessarily populist or exclusive to populism. A combination of at least several of these characteristics is needed in order to justly identify populism.

2.3.1 Appeal to “the people”

“The people” is the central element of populism, and the first under discussion in this article. Although it can be argued that all political parties have the people as its main subject, since the main aim of politics is to represent the people, it is nonetheless one of the defining elements of populism. “The people” is not only the “central audience of populists” (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014, p. 391), but it is also the very subject that they try to portray themselves as, through their performance of political communication style.

The most important characteristics of populism regarding the appeal to “the people” are the supremacy of the will of “the people” and the direct relationship between people and government (Worsley, 1969, p. 244). These two notions reappear in most contemporary literature regarding populism. The supremacy of the will of “the people” means that populists will see and portray what “the people” want as most important. This implies several

important notions for their audience. It means the populist knows who “the people” are, that they know exactly what their needs and wishes are, and that the populists are the best chance to help “the people” get what they want. This also implies that the other politicians do not really know what “the people” want, or that they are not putting the needs of “the people” first. The direct relationship between citizens and government is connected to that last assumption as well, since claiming a more direct relationship is needed creates the feeling that the politicians currently at power are not working in the interest of “the people”, and that the government is also not enabling “the people” to voice their concerns.

(12)

Apart from these two main characteristics, there are other significant characteristics that need to be taken into account regarding this element. First, I will list the characteristics that are part of the appeal to the people. Then, I will go into detail as to how these characteristics translate to certain strategic maneuvers. The strategic maneuvers that derive from these characteristics will be discussed with regards to the argumentative strategy element they fall under. The three aspects of strategic maneuvering can be mentioned, but due to the

overlapping nature of these discussion moves, the maneuvers will not consistently be characterized and listed as one of these categories.

- “The people” is the main focus

- The supremacy of the will of “the people” (Worsley, 1969)

- The will of “the people” should be adhered to and trumps all expert knowledge (Judis (2016); Wiles (1969); Moffitt and Tormey (2014))

- “The people” should be in direct contact with the government in order to convey their will and ideology flawlessly. (Judis (2016); Worsley (1969))

In regards to strategic maneuvers, the populist will tend to claim a direct relationship with “the people”. Through emphasizing that the populist knows what “the people” want, and through claiming to be a part of “the people”, the populist adheres to these characteristics. This can result in a strategic maneuver known as ‘modifying the focal point of a topic’, to a topic which is claimed to coincide with those of “the people”. This strategic maneuver entails reformulating the topic at hand in such a way, that the aspect that interests “the people” is the aspect that is discussed, rather than the actual topic at hand.

Other strategic maneuvers take place through valorizing “the people”. For example through valuing “the people’s” opinion higher than that of experts, populists both feed into the ego of their audience and simultaneously place themselves on a pedestal when compared to their political opponents. Since the populist claims to be one of “the people”, and other politicians are presented as the enemy and the opposite of “the people”, the audience is inclined to prefer the populist over the other politicians. This strategy can be identified in moves that construct arguments that favor experience over expertise.

Related to this strategic maneuver is the dismay for authority. Populists attack the status quo, and as a result they are likely to have a negative attitude towards the authorities. Examples of this are the disregard to the media, for example with Trump’s claims of fake news and Wilders’ claims that the media are against him, or lack of faith in the government, with the characteristic of populism that “the people” should be in direct contact with the

(13)

government, or with regards to science, for example with Trump claiming that climate change is a hoax, and that the scientists in this field should not be believed. All these

examples show the dismay of populists for authority, and these examples are all based on two aspects of strategic maneuvering; topical potential and audience demand. When examining the topical potential, it becomes clear that these changes always occur when a claim is negative for the populist at hand. Whenever this is the case, instead of dealing with the content of the negative claim, populists turn it around towards the authority or the experience issue. Instead of debunking the content, populists tend to create a negative image of the source, thus claiming the content is irrelevant since the source is untrustworthy. The other aspect of strategic maneuvering that needs a closer examination for this maneuver is that of the audience demand. The audience demand is important, because of the public the populists aim to address. There are two issues with their target audience; first of all, the audience is heterogeneous, due to their strategy people from all different types of beliefs and

backgrounds are united. As a result, specific, content-related arguments will always exclude a part of their target audience. Through this strategy, that can be avoided. The second issue is regarding the aspects they have in common; the societal groups are connected through the anti-establishment, anti-elite, pro “the people” attitude. Authority and science are seen as part of the establishment and the elite respectively. As a result, populists have to cater to their audience through establishing a negative relation between themselves and those groups, but without going into too much detail, content-wise.

An especially interesting aspect of the appeal to “the people” is that of audience demand. The audience demand aspect in strategic maneuvering occurs when a speaker

adjusts his moves to cater to the needs of the audience. However, populism does not just cater to their audience. Populism creates their own audience. Like mentioned before, populists bind people who would normally not be in the same societal group, whether it is regarding

politics, class, race, etc. Through feelings of nationalism, focusing on globalization and its alleged disadvantages regarding job prospects for the lesser educated, through scapegoating an “other”, and many other tactics, populists create a group they call “the people”. Through the creation of a common enemy, which will be further discussed as the second element but is mentioned here due to the overlap present, populists create a common purpose and thus create a group out of people who would not have considered themselves part of the same group. Other factors that help populists create this group consist of creating a mutual enemy, focusing on homogeneity, and focusing on their common goals and aims. So, they adjust their discussion moves to this group they created. Discussion moves that follow this strategy can

(14)

be identified as modifying the relevant audience. An example of this is reframing arguments in such a way that they become of interest to their specific audience. Rather than talking about immigration policies from the perspective of moral duties and the feelings of the immigrants, populists would reframe the argument to focus on their threat to national security, the costs of immigrants for the government and what their influence on job prospects for their audience might be.

In order to get “the people” to identify themselves with the populists, while simultaneously presenting themselves as different from the ‘mainstream’ politicians, the populists can be expected to employ a certain language style. This strategic maneuver will henceforth be referred to as the strategy of the common man. Through simplifying their language, being direct and straightforward in conversations and discussions (Mazzoleni in Bos and Brants, 2014, p. 706; Oliver and Rahn, 2016, p. 90-1), and maintaining an overall disruptive performance in a political setting (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014, p. 393), the populist signifies a welcome break from the elitist, high-end language and manners that are being broadcasted in the political setting. Populists can be expected to employ language that

reminds ordinary citizens of their own language, and being coarse and direct helps present the populist as an honest, cut to the chase type of person, who suspends the normal rules of politics in order to finally get to the point. This style is adapted by populists to convey their likeness to “the people” (Fairclough, 2008, p. 375; Block and Negrine, 2017, p. 179), to show that only they can fully represent “the people”. Since populists aim to present themselves as part of “the people”, and use this strategy of the common man to achieve this, an important characteristic of political discourse will actively be ignored by populists. The use of figures and tropes, claimed by Zarefsky (2008) to be a crucial part of the strategic maneuvering of political discourse, will most likely be avoided by populists. The reason for this expectation is that this type of language, the use of tropes and such, is one of the main indicators of the political elite from the standpoint of “the people”. By avoiding this language style, and even actively assuming another language style and employing the strategy of the common man, they distance themselves from these politicians through avoidance of a common political strategic maneuver.

So to sum up, the strategic maneuvers deemed typical by populists are: - Modifying the focal point of a topic

- Constructing arguments that favor experience over expertise - Constructing arguments that show dismay for authority - Modifying the relevant audience

(15)

- Strategy of the common man

2.3.2 The enemy

The second important element of populism is the distinction between the people and the other (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014). This other is not always the elite, as contested in for example Jagers and Walgrave (2007, p. 324), where they broaden the term elite in order to fit several elites like government, media, state and intellectuals. However, this broadened

concept of elites does still not convey the entire dichotomy. The content of this ‘other’ depends on, amongst others, geographical, historical and contextual factors. The ‘other’ can be the elite, or other societal groups such as immigrants or asylum seekers. However, apart from this content-based discussion of the dichotomy, Moffitt and Tormey (2014) do argue that populists will always “claim to be distinct from the elite” (p. 391), whether they are the (only) antagonists the populists point at or not. So the enemy always consists of the elite in some form (N.B. this can be elite as in the elite societal group, but also the elite as in the government, the media, or any other group in power and with authority), and may in some cases also include other societal groups such as immigrants. Here I will list the characteristics pertaining to the enemy, both for elitist and other societal groups. After this, both groups will be discussed separately regarding the typical strategic maneuvers to be expected.

- Populism has an anti-establishment tendency (Mudde (2004); Jagers and Walgrave (2006); Block and Negrine (2017))

- Populism has an anti-elite tendency (Ieţcu -Fairclough (2008); Jansen (2011); Jagers and Walgrave (2006); Block and Negrine (2017); Oliver and Rahn (2016)

- Populism has an anti-politics tendency (Block and Negrine (2017); Mudde in Bos and Brants (2014))

- Populism has an isolationist foreign policy (Wiles (1969)) - Populism has a focus on immigration policies

First, the anti-elitist characteristics will be discussed. Populism considers “the people” as virtuous, and consequently considers the elite as corrupt and evil.

A strategic maneuver that can be expected by populists in order to explicate the difference between them and other politicians is that of creating a division through unrealistic demands. These demands establish a frontier between the elite and the populist. As such, it can be expected that populist discourse would contain unrealistic demands as a way of

(16)

speaking to their audience and presenting them as the rigorous other, willing to go that extra step to ensure their needs. An example of this maneuver can be found when examining Geert Wilders, a Dutch populist politician. After the elections in 2014, Wilders (on March 19th, 2014) made a speech in front of his audience. During this speech, he asked his audience: “Willen jullie meer of minder Marokkanen?” (“Do you want more or less Moroccans?”). The crowd chanted “Minder, minder, minder” (“Less, less, less”) and Wilders said he would take care of it. This is an example of a situation where a populist makes an outrageous promise, at least partially in order to distance himself from the other politicians. President Trump has done something similar with his promise to build a wall on the border with Mexico, and having Mexico pay for it. This strategic maneuver is crafted around the audience demand aspect, claiming to know what the audience wants, and it show his determination to go to any length to achieve that for “the people”.

Furthermore, populists are claimed to disdain the smart, aristocratic, wealthy elite. (Worsley, 1969, p. 244). As a result, it can be expected that populists will employ a similar tactic as mentioned before, namely the tactic of constructing arguments that favor experience over expertise. When science or experts become topic of the discussion, it can be reasonably expected that populists will ignore or depreciate scientific facts or arguments in favor of arguments based on experience. Expert knowledge might be dismissed over every-day experience (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014), in line with the inclination of populism to favor the common man over the elite. Oliver and Rahn (2016) validate this, claiming that populism mistrusts expertise. (p. 198) Populists would rather trust on the knowledge of the common man, “the people”. In this maneuver, the audience is modified in order to win the argument. For example with the issue of climate change; during a campaign rally in Charleston, Trump claimed the following:

“Give me a little spray. … You know you’re not allowed to use hairspray anymore because it affects the ozone, you know that, right? I said, you mean to tell me, cause you know hairspray’s not like it used to be, it used to be real good. … Today you put the hairspray on, it’s good for 12 minutes, right. … So if I take hairspray and I spray it in my apartment, which is all sealed, you’re telling me that affects the ozone layer? “Yes.” I say no way folks. No way. No way. That’s like a lot of the rules and regulations you people have in the mines, right, it’s the same kind of stuff.”

(17)

Instead of using the data provided by scientist, or attacking those facts, Trump moves the discussion away from the experts, and into the realm of experience. He effectively claims that no influence on the climate can be seen when you do it, so it has no effect. Everyone can do this and see it for themselves, so it has to be true. Through doing this, Trump creates a situation where his opponents are taken out of the argument through rearranging who has the authority to make statements on this issue.

Populists can be expected to be hostile to the elite, since they claim that the elite do not care about the needs of the common man. (Wiles, 1969) In order to demonstrate that the populists are part of the people and that the actions taken by politicians should be immediate and decisive, their language reiterates those claims. The presentational aspect of strategic maneuvering is used to display this. According to Moffitt and Tormey (2014), populists do this through the “coarsening of political discourse” (p. 392). Populists tend to disregard the institutional context, the political correctness and politeness that rule the political scene, and instead use “slang, swearing, political incorrectness and are overly demonstrative and ‘colorful’” (p. 392) in order to achieve their aims. This can manifest itself for example in directness of speech, or playfulness, or a disregard for tradition. This is confirmed in Ieţcu -Fairclough (2008), who claims that it is characteristic for populists to suspend the normal rules of the political game and turn to a more personal conversation (p. 378). And so, another mode of strategic maneuvering to be expected by populists is that of personal attacks. In line with the strategy of the common man, which entails disruptive performances and coarse language, personal attacks would seem a typical strategic maneuver of populists. The

tendency to convey content as personal, combined with the performance to appear one of “the people”, leads to the expectation of hostile, personal arguments employed by populists.

Regarding the anti-other sentiment, populism tends to be xenophobic towards “exponents of globalization”, such as immigrants (Wiles, 1969). Furthermore, their foreign policy is regarded as isolationism. (Wiles, 1969) Populism also tends to claim that certain societal groups outside of “the people”, usually immigrants, are to be “blamed for all the misfortune and accidents affecting the general population. Consequently, these categories are scapegoated and must be fiercely dealt with, if not simply removed from the territory of the people.” (Jagers & Walgrave, 2016, p. 324) These characteristics lead to a type of strategic maneuvering that can best be called shifting the blame. This potentially typical strategic maneuver encompasses moves that shift the blame towards the ‘other’, towards the societal scapegoat. For example, rather than pointing at the economic depression created by

(18)

greediness and the banks, populists would blame the immigrants for taking up the jobs of “the people”.

The main aspect of strategic maneuvering of this maneuver would be audience demand. In this strategic maneuver, the initial standpoint is shifted; I will illustrate this with an example. In March 2017, Trump wanted to pass the GOP health care proposal, and tear down Obamacare. Trump did not win, and as a result the proposal failed. After this, Trump blamed the Democrats, stating they had no support from the Democrats and that’s why they lost. However, two days later, Trump came with another statement. This time, he blamed a conservative group of the Republicans, the Freedom Caucus, since they opposed the bill. Now, in this specific case the main audience Trump aims at is the Democrats. Trump realizes he needs the Democrats to achieve his goal, or at least some of the milder Democrats, and as a result shifts the blame towards a conservative Republican group, freeing the way for the Democrats to work together with Trump on this issue. So depending on the target audience, the populist shifts the blame for a negative situation towards another group in the way that best benefits the populists.

Immigration policies, and then mainly policies to keep immigrants out, should be among the main subjects populists maneuver towards in regards to topical potential. Whether it is about the globalization negatively affecting the labor market prospects of “the people” or their status in society (Oliver & Rahn, 2016, p. 192), making these individual problems general problems of “the people” can be expected to be high on the list regarding topical potential.

The list of strategic maneuvers associated with the enemy are: - Creating division through unrealistic demands

- Arguments that favor experience over expertise - Strategy of personal attacks

- Shifting the blame

2.3.3 Crisis

The third element of populism under discussion in this paper is that of perceiving a crisis. (Taggart as quoted in Bos and Brants, 2014, p. 706) The imminent ‘threat’ of ‘others’, crises in the fields of immigration or economy, breakdowns between citizens and the established order, all of these are incentives for the style of populists. What follows next is a list of the

(19)

characteristics of the populist element of crisis. After this, the characteristics will be translated to strategic maneuvers typical for populism.

- Populism has a tendency to convey situations as a critical situation (Taggart as cited in Bos and Brants (2014); Bos and Brants (2014); Moffitt and Tormey (2014); Wiles (1969))

- Populism rises in popularity in time of crisis (Judis (2016); Block & Negrine (2017))

As claimed in Moffitt and Tormey (2014), “the effect of the evocation of emergency in this fashion is to simplify radically the terms and terrain of political debate, which is reflected in the tendency towards simple and direct language” (p.391-2). Instead of the usual flow of politics, in which many meetings occur, and reports and implementation is discussed before finally agreeing on an action to partake, populists present this cycle is unnecessarily long, and promote immediate action. Populists claim immediate and decisive action is not only desirable, but necessary. This tendency towards crises is evident and logical when assessing the language and audience of populists. The audience, “the people”, consists of civilians who feel they have not been heard, whose voices have been lost to the elite. Therefore “the people” automatically disagree with the ways of the elite. Politics is a long-term process with many debates, discussions and meetings before each policy decision. For “the people”, this seems frustrating, useless and time-consuming. Moreover, due to a lack of trust in the elite and establishment, “the people” have reason to believe that the government is not working for them, but rather that the elite is working only to create the best possible environment for themselves. To fuel these feelings further, populists use yet another maneuver. This strategy consists of constructing arguments based on the need to act

immediately due to crisis. In this strategy, the populist claims or frames a situation in such a way, that immediate action seems necessary. Because of this, those who are in doubt are inclined to agree due to the pressure of having to decide fast. Furthermore, the pressure of a crisis adds to the weight of the argument that action is needed. Zarefsky (2008) calls this the “locus of the Irreparable”, which “is a standard pattern in which an arguer claims that if we do not act now, the moment will be lost” (p. 325). For the topical potential, this might entail that populists would focus on topics that contain threats of a sort. Topics like the imminent threat of the Islamic State, of terrorism in general, or regarding the economic crisis. These topics come up and require immediate attention. As a result, populists might use these topics to show their strength and exploit the weakness they claim present in the elite, namely the endless debating without actual, decisive action being taken. It should be noted though, that

(20)

there is more to this topical potential than just the expectation of crisis-related topics. It is the expectation that other, not crisis-related topics will be presented in such a way, that haste seems necessary. The presentational devices such as type of language, word choice and others, will all contribute to creating this crisis element in this maneuver.

Another strategy possibly employed by the populists within the element of crisis is that of pragmatic argumentation focusing on the negative effects if the situation is not changed immediately. As explained in van Eemeren, Garssen & Meuffels, “in pragmatic argumentation, which is a subtype of causal argumentation, the standpoint recommends a certain course of action (or discourages a certain course of action) and the argumentation consists of summing up the favorable respective unfavorable consequences of adopting that course of action (“You shouldn’t drink too much alcohol, because it leads to long-term health problems”)”. (1398-9) But where pragmatic argumentation normally, like explained by van Eemeren et al., shows the argumentation of either positive or negative arguments, possibly both, the pragmatic argumentation used by populists for this strategic maneuver always focuses on the negative consequences of not taking action. Instead of most pragmatic argumentation, which involves an obvious action and an obvious consequence, like the example above, this pragmatic argumentation involves the absence of action, followed by the negative consequence of not taking action.

The main strategies for the element of crisis are thus:

- Constructing arguments based on the need to act immediately due to crisis. - Pragmatic argumentation focusing on the negative effects if the situation is not

changed immediately.

2.3.4 Nationalism

The fourth and final element of the argumentative strategy of populism is that of nationalism. Bos and Brants (2014), Jansen (2011), Judis (2016) and Oliver and Rahn (2016) all mention nationalism as one of the key elements of populism. Along those lines, Wiles (1969) claims populism is fundamentally nostalgic. Nostalgia is of course not the same as nationalism, but in order to convey nationalism to the public, in order to ‘appear nationalistic’, nostalgia is a great tool. Through using, showing and mentioning aspects that instill nostalgic feelings within their target audience, populists can create this feeling of nationalism, which in turn is very helpful when it comes to uniting a nation, or groups of people. In order to further grasp why populists have this focus on nationalism, the article of Block and Negrine (2016) helps

(21)

to clarify, stating the following: “populist actors articulate not only the benefits that they and their followers can gain from their relationship (e.g. political power, socioeconomic benefits, to make their country ‘great again’) but also the importance of the connections built on shared values, aspirations, and patriotic feelings, mixed with the dissatisfaction with the political elites, cultural marginalization, and cynicism.” (p. 183)

Next follows a short list of the characteristics of populism regarding the element of nationalism. After this, I will discuss the strategic maneuvers that follow from these characteristics.

- Populism is nationalistic (Bos and Brants (2014); Jansen (2011); Oliver and Rahn (2016))

- Populism has a tendency towards nostalgia (Wiles, 1969)

- Populism tends to focus on shared values, patriotism and feelings of nationalism (Block and Negrine, 2017)

A strategy typically employed by populists is that of condensation symbols. Because of their diverse, heterogeneous audience, giving a detailed description of a certain subject without excluding several groups within “the people” is almost impossible. In order to avoid excluding societal groups and separate “the people”, vague, unspecific language has to be employed. But for a politician, specificity and clearness are of the utmost importance.

Consequently, a populist needs an alternative method to maintain this balance. As mentioned before, populists want to be a part of “the people” and want to distance themselves from the mainstream politicians and elite. They do this through the common man’s strategy. But when this strategy falls short or when it can be expected to miss its goal, populists tend to use condensation symbols. A condensation symbol is a visual or verbal symbol that conveys several meanings, depending on the audience. These symbols rely on feelings such as nostalgia, nationalism and patriotism amongst many others, and evoke different feelings for each individual. Verbal phrases that stay vague and only convey a positive attitude towards a general goal are amongst these condensation symbols, as well as objects such as a national flag (Zarefsky, 2008, p. 324). Phrases such as ‘Henk en Ingrid’ (a fictitious couple invented by the Dutch populist Geert Wilders as a condensation symbol to convey the standard Dutch couple), “strengthening the national security” and “investing in the future” (Zarefsky, 2008, p. 324) are prime examples of verbal condensation symbols. These condensation symbols are used not only as a way to create and perpetuate nationalism; this strategy is also used to

(22)

create homogeneity within “the people” through creating common goals, and can help in creating a common enemy.

Another important strategic maneuver is the strategy of the common man. This strategic maneuver, which can also be used to bring forth the element of the appeal to “the people”, can be used to help instill feelings of nationalism. Of course, certain verbal phrases can be seen as condensation symbols that are strategically placed in order to guide the target audience towards a certain feeling or state of mind, to help the populist win the debate or votes. These verbal phrases are part of the condensation symbols, as mentioned above. However, more than just the verbal phrases, the entire language style and lexicon can be altered in order to echo a sense of nationalism. This entails more than just a certain word or phrase that has a nostalgic value or instills a nationalistic feeling. The strategy of the common man can be used to create this feeling of nationalism through a feeling of unity. Through the mentioning of subjects that stir up a feeling of nationalism, using the lexicon and language style of the audience, this powerful feeling of unity and brotherhood is created. The

presentational devices that are used in this strategy are often more important than the actual content.

The strategic maneuvers for the element of nationalism thus are: - Condensation symbols

- The strategy of the common man

In Figure 1 all strategic maneuvers and the element(s) of the argumentative strategy of populism they fall under are listed. The order of the strategic maneuvers and elements per strategic maneuver are in order of appearance in the article, so no value should be given to the place of the element or that of the strategic maneuver in this figure.

(23)

Strategic maneuver Element of populism 1 Modifying the focal point of a topic “The people”

2 Constructing arguments that favor experience over expertise

“The people”, the enemy

3 Constructing arguments that show dismay for authority

“The people”

4 Modifying the relevant audience “The people”

5 Strategy of the common man “The people”, nationalism 6 Creating division through unrealistic demands The enemy, “the people”

7 Strategy of personal attacks The enemy

8 Shifting the blame The enemy

9 Constructing arguments based on the need to act immediately due to crisis

Crisis

10 Pragmatic argumentation focusing on the negative effects if the situation is not changed immediately.

Crisis

11 Condensation symbols Nationalism

Fig. 1 Typical populist strategic maneuvers

In the next chapter, several of these eleven strategic maneuvers will be analyzed in regards to the most powerful populist of this time: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America. Given the spatial constraints of this master thesis, only one presidential debate and one speech will be analyzed. More specifically, the first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (September 16, 2016) and Trump’s CPAC speech (February 24, 2017) are the data under scrutiny. As a result of the somewhat limited data set, not all maneuvers will appear and will thus be available for analysis, since not all of these strategic maneuvers are expected to occur in every instance of populist discourse, nor are they all necessary in order to define it as populist discourse. Debates and speeches are chosen as the media for the data since strategic maneuvering, and more generally the framework of pragma-dialectics, is mainly focused on debates and discourse. Speeches are relevant and will thus be analyzed as well, but due to their more scripted and less interactive nature, several typical elements of strategic maneuvering are expected to be less present. Debates and speeches seem to be the ideal testing ground for this theoretical framework. But

(24)

for further research, testing the theory more extensively in these and other media types such as Twitter seem like important steps.

Through analysis of a presidential debate and a speech by Trump, the strategic maneuvers contested to be typical for populists will be assessed to try and prove that these strategic maneuvers are prototypical for populist discourse and that these strategic maneuvers are indeed relevant indicators of the populist argumentative strategy. Further research into this topic is needed in order to fully test this theory and in order to track down strategic maneuvers and characteristics that need to be added to or deleted from this theory. However, through this analysis I intend to prove that the theoretical framework set out in the previous chapters is useful for indicating populist discourse and for analyzing and discovering the populist argumentative strategy.

(25)

3. Analysis

In this section, the analysis will be discussed, showing through examples in the data how the strategic maneuvers suggested above occur. Since several of these strategic maneuvers can happen simultaneously, the same examples may be used to typify several maneuvers. In order to structure the analysis, a strategic maneuver will be discussed, followed by the example in the data and the analysis of that example. The example will be labeled in order to show from which media type it originates. Examples labeled with a ‘D’ are examples originating from the presidential debate, examples labeled with ‘S’ originate from Trump’s CPAC speech.

After the analysis, the results will be combined to argue for the hypothesis that

populism has a prototypical argumentative strategy that populists adhere to through the use of the aforementioned populist strategic maneuvers.

3.1 Experience over expertise

The first strategic maneuver that will be analyzed is that of constructing arguments that favor experience over expertise. Since populists aim to create this idea that “the people” have the moral high ground rather than the authorities/experts, and that “the people” are the ones that know how a situation should be handled, this strategy is placed in the element of the appeal to “the people" and the enemy. This strategy is part of the aim to create unity within “the

people” while placing themselves within that group and effectively placing their opponent outside of that group and into a hostile group. In order to achieve this, this strategic maneuver is used. Through valuing the opinion of “the people” over that of experts or authorities, the populists achieve the aforementioned aims. What follows is an example of this maneuver in Trump’s presidential debate with Hillary Clinton. This specific quote is a reaction to the following question, posed by the moderator; “Our institutions are under cyber-attack, and our secrets are being stolen. So my question is who's behind it? And how do we fight it?” Clinton first gets to react, and ends her reaction with stating that 50 national security officers have said that Trump is unfit to be president. Trump responds on this statement with the following quote:

D1. “So when Secretary Clinton talks about this, I mean, I'll take the admirals and I'll take the generals any day over the political hacks that I see that have led our country

(26)

so brilliantly over the last 10 years with their knowledge. OK? Because look at the mess that we're in. Look at the mess that we're in.”

Trump points out that the generals and admirals in the military have actual field experience with leadership and national security, and Trump claims that those officers are in favor of Trump as president. So instead of listening to some ‘political hacks’, Trump claims that not knowledge but experience leads to valuable opinions. Trump employs this strategy as well in the following quote, which occurs when Trump is confronted with his claim that Clinton “does not have a presidential look”. Trump explains that he meant that Clinton does not have the stamina to be president of the United States of America. Clinton responds with a list of things she has done in the past years in her political career, and claims that Trump can talk to her about stamina when he has done the same. The following quote is a response to that specific comment by Clinton:

D2. “The world -- let me tell you. Let me tell you. Hillary has experience, but it's bad experience. We have made so many bad deals during the last -- so she's got

experience, that I agree. But it's bad, bad experience. Whether it's the Iran deal that you're so in love with, where we gave them $150 billion back, whether it's the Iran deal, whether it's anything you can -- name -- you almost can't name a good deal. I agree. She's got experience, but it's bad experience. And this country can't afford to have another four years of that kind of experience”

Throughout this debate, Clinton mentions topics such as expertise and knowledge several times. Trump however, never even mentions these topics. In this quote, Trump finally presents the factor that he deems relevant rather than expertise and knowledge; experience. Trump, in line with the populist characteristics, prefers experience over knowledge. And Trump uses this characteristic when he uses this strategic maneuver and claims that

experience is what is important, not knowledge. In order to achieve the aim of this maneuver, as part of the element of the appeal to “the people”, Trump differentiates between good and bad experience, which he bases on the ability to make deals. As a result, Trump essentially argues that he is better fit for the presidency than Clinton since he has tremendous

(27)

3.2 Dismay for authority

The second strategic maneuver that will be analyzed is that of constructing arguments that show dismay for authority. This dismay for authority is aimed at institutions such as the media, the elite or the government. The two main aspects of interest in this strategy are the topical potential and the audience demand. The topical potential is of interest because this strategy is most likely to occur in order to avert a negative claim. The audience demand is interesting because of the target audience of populists. The audience is a heterogeneous group, which makes specific content difficult if the populist does not want to exclude certain groups. Next to this, populism creates unity through dismay of the authorities. As part of their core characteristics, the dismay for the elite, government, science, media and so on are rooted deep. All these instances are claimed to be lying and deceiving in order to keep the lower social classes from rising to the top of the political chain. In what follows, these aspects will be discussed through analysis of several quotes.

The first quote originates from the presidential debate, and is preceded by a statement of the moderator, who claimed that Trump had supported the war in Iraq in the past. Trump responds that this is not true, and when the moderator wants to specify when Trump allegedly said this, Trump responds with the following quote;

D3. “That is a mainstream media nonsense put out by her, because she -- frankly, I think the best person in her campaign is mainstream media.”

Trump attacks Clinton, claiming that she is responsible for this fake news. He furthermore claims that the mainstream media is campaigning for Clinton, and is thus not objective as they should be. This move regarding the topical potential clearly shows Trump’s dismay for the media. In the next quote, originating from Trump’s CPAC speech, Trump is very explicit in his opinion regarding the media;

S1. “And I want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news. It's fake, phony, fake. A few days ago I called the fake news the enemy of the people. And they are. They are the enemy of the people.”

Trump attacks the media for creating fake news. Trump does not mention the actual story that this is about, as that would mean Trump would have to repeat something that he considers not true and incriminating, but he obviously attacks the media for their role in

(28)

distributing the news. Trump even explicitly calls fake news, and implicitly all news stations that he connected to that, as the enemy of “the people”. This disregard for the media becomes even clearer in the next quote;

S2. Because they have no sources, they just make 'em up when there are none. I saw one story recently where they said, "Nine people have confirmed." There're no nine people. I don't believe there was one or two people. Nine people. And I said, "Give me a break." Because I know the people, I know who they talk to. There were no nine people. But they say "nine people." And somebody reads it and they think, "Oh, nine people. They have nine sources." They make up sources.

The audience demand aspect becomes of importance in this quote. Trump avoids the content of the allegations, just dismissing them as fake news. Rather than focusing on the content, Trump attacks their common enemy, the media, making allegations about their sources being fake. Trump again explicitly mentions his connection to “the people”, claiming he knows the people, and as a result knows that it is impossible that there are 9 sources that say this. Trump in his speech never elaborates on the content of the fake news he is

discussing here, which makes it impossible for “the audience” to know if Trump is telling the truth, while simultaneously being led to believe that whatever they read in the media cannot be trusted. This leads to Trump controlling what his audience gets to hear and what is left out, and is in line with the goal of this strategic maneuver. Trump controls the information, and is thus able to turn the authoritative instance into an enemy and unite “the people” as a result.

3.3 Strategy of the common man

The third strategic maneuver that will be analyzed is that of the strategy of the common man. The goal of the strategy of the common man is to unite “the people” and the populist, while simultaneously setting the populist apart from the mainstream politicians. This is done

through adopting a certain performance, often containing simple language reminiscent of that of the general public. Furthermore, this strategy is achieved through being direct, rude and even through a disruptive performance. With the help of these tactics, the populist

emphasizes the difference between populists and mainstream politicians, showing they are direct, willing to do whatever it takes and different from the rest. The first quote that demonstrates this disruptive performance is gathered from the presidential debate. Trump

(29)

claims Clinton called a deal he calls “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere” the gold standard, and this is their exchange immediately after;

D4. TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen.

CLINTON: No.

TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.

CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are -- I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated...

TRUMP: Not.

CLINTON: ... which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn't. I wrote about that in my book...

TRUMP: So is it President Obama's fault? CLINTON: ... before you even announced. TRUMP: Is it President Obama's fault? CLINTON: Look, there are differences...

TRUMP: Secretary, is it President Obama's fault? CLINTON: There are...

TRUMP: Because he's pushing it.

CLINTON: There are different views about what's good for our country, our

economy, and our leadership in the world. And I think it's important to look at what we need to do to get the economy going again. That's why I said new jobs with rising incomes, investments, not in more tax cuts that would add $5 trillion to the debt.

(30)

TRUMP: But you have no plan.

This excerpt shows an important strategy of Trump in his populist argumentative strategy. Trump uses the presentational devices aspect of strategic maneuvering, using his language and performance to disrupt the debate. Trump continuously interrupts Clinton, ignoring the standard rules of the political game. Of course, interrupting is not necessarily disruptive, since every politician does it. But the way how and the tenacity by which Trump interrupts, is what makes this strategy different from the rest. In the debate, Clinton interrupts Trump several times; one of these times is shown in the excerpt. Trump then interrupts Clinton in the same way, where Clinton said “no”, Trump said “not”. However, Trump continues to interrupt Clinton. He interrupts her three times in a row, with the same question, reminiscent of the interview style of Jeremy Paxman. Trump does not care for politeness, political correctness, and is more than willing to show he is not satisfied with the system and authorities that are in place right now. Trump conveys this feeling that he will do whatever it take to get answers, that he is part of “the people” and does not have to hold himself to these political institutional rules. In the next excerpt, the discussion was focused on taxes. Clinton claims Trump’s plan will add $5 trillion to the national debt. Trump denies this, and fires back at Clinton. Clinton then refers to her website, to which she added a fact checker. Trump than switches the focus, as can be seen in the following quote. Trump again displays this strategy of the common man, but this time does this using not only the presentational devices, but also the topical potential;

D5. TRUMP: And look at her website. You know what? It's no difference than this. She's telling us how to fight ISIS. Just go to her website. She tells you how to fight ISIS on her website. I don't think General Douglas MacArthur would like that too much.

HOLT: The next segment, we're continuing...

CLINTON: Well, at least I have a plan to fight ISIS. HOLT: ... achieving prosperity...

TRUMP: No, no, you're telling the enemy everything you want to do. CLINTON: No, we're not. No, we're not.

(31)

TRUMP: See, you're telling the enemy everything you want to do. No wonder you've been fighting -- no wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.

Of course, Trump still uses the same language style, and previously in this article it is explained why this is part of the strategy of the common man. It is logical that this language style persists, since it would not be effective if only displayed occasionally. Creating the impression that you are part of a certain group does not work when you only partially pertain to their ways and customs. But in this excerpt, the topical potential aspect of this maneuver becomes clear as well. Trump still sticks to the topic of Clinton’s website, but rather than continuing on taxes or even the fact checker on the website, Trump focuses on another topic on Clinton’s website. Trump steers the debate towards ISIS. As mentioned before, populists benefit from a situation of crisis and fear. So that Trump shifts focus to ISIS is no

coincidence, it is a strategic maneuver which helps him to instill fear into the audience, to present Clinton to the public as incapable of defeating ISIS and as a result indirectly presenting himself as the only viable option to make sure “the people” will be protected against ISIS.

Finally, the presentational devices aspect of the strategy of the common man is clearly visible once more in the next quote.

D6. “Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn't work. Never going to happen.”

This quote shows some typical language by Trump. He claims Clinton is a typical politician, and insinuates he is not and as such he will get things done. His language is filled with simple words, short sentences and one-liners. These claims are all claims that one might expect to hear when visiting a rally for a politician and interviewing the public. However, this type of language is not expected from politicians such as Obama or Clinton. This again shows the performance of Trump, to construct the perception of him being part of “the people”.

The Populist Argumentative Strategy: An Analysis of Trump's Discourse