Henry Olsen
Subject: Why Is Trump’s Rhetoric Effective?
Bio: Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center
Transcript:
Larry Bernstein:
Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast which covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s topic is the Why Is Trump’s Rhetoric Effective?
Our speaker is Henry Olsen who is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Henry studies American politics with a focus on populism.
I want to learn from Henry about why Trump is successful with his non-traditional and outrageous speaking style. No other world leader talks like Trump with the use of threats and hyperbole. Is that going to change if there is a perception that it is successful? I want to find out if Henry thinks that we should expect other politicians to mimic Trump’s methods in social media and public speaking in the 2028 presidential campaign.
Henry, please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.
Henry Olsen:
Take immigration, his opponents focus on that he would make Mexico pay for the wall. He never tried to make Mexico pay for the wall, but everyone knows he is serious about putting up the wall. You can love it, or you can hate it. But he has persuaded you of his sincerity and his belief. That is effective rhetoric.
The same is true on the world stage with respect to peace in Gaza or Greenland. He amps up what he says or repeats it often enough until they get, “Oh, this guy’s serious.” Serious directionally, not necessarily serious literally.
If his priority is tariffs, maybe the tariffs have not produced $20 trillion in investment, but what he is telling you is the tariffs are good to re-shore manufacturing.
His non-traditional style is reinforcing his directional sincerity. Trump taking on outsized enemies convinces their target audience, people who are angry at the current system and want a dramatic change.
Pre-Trump, political rhetoric was hyper-stylized, audience tested, not written by the person themselves. Speeches would say nothing, and people got used to that and that’s conveyed this person either doesn’t believe what they’re saying, or this person is not somebody who is going to support radical change. Even if they are telling me they are going to support radical change stylistically, they were separate from what the target audience wanted. And so, in conclusion, what I would say is that Trump’s rhetoric is marginally effective in one way, which is that while he built a domestic coalition who are devoted to him. He has not created the durable partisan majority bringing landslide elections. What he has done is taken himself from the margins of quasi-political life to being the most important man in the world. He has taken ideas that were not part of mainstream political discourse and made them the centerpiece of policy in the most important nation of the world.
Larry Bernstein:
I want to start with Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown has those Christmas and Thanksgiving specials, and the adults in the room always sound ridiculous over the intercom. The children pay no attention to it. They do not think it is interesting. General political discourse fits into the realm of the teachers in a Charlie Brown cartoon.
Henry Olsen:
Political rhetoric in the 35 years before Trump became professionalized and non-risk taking. The person considered to be a great communicator Ronald Reagan wrote his own speeches. He knew how to put together ideas that made people listen and that propelled him to the presidency. His opponents always said, “he’s just an actor reading cue cards.” No, he’s Sylvester Stallone who wrote the script of Rocky and put himself in the starring role. He was both the actor and the script writer.
When Ronald Reagan went on television in 1964 for Barry Goldwater, the tenor and the words of his speech did exactly what millions of people were feeling, and he became their hero. Doing something right is communicating an idea with a tenor that hits the times that tells people you are on their side.
Larry Bernstein:
During the 2016 Campaign, Hillary Clinton was going to give her major foreign policy speech, and every line was reviewed. It reflected an enormous amount of work with her policy staff. About 30% into her speech, CNN switched to an upcoming Trump rally, and they showed the podium saying he will be here shortly. Hillary was outraged, but it reflected CNN management’s thought that people were uninterested about Hillary’s foreign policy or didn’t care about the words that she was going to articulate.
Henry Olsen:
The 2016 campaign was a great example of what I am talking about. You might cover Trump because news might be made. What comes out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth is overly tested dry pabulum that you know exactly what she is going to say. It is not going to be memorable. Donald Trump is both informative and entertaining, and Hillary Clinton is neither. It is a wonderful example of why Donald Trump ended up beating her.
Larry Bernstein:
Some people find Trump’s rhetoric entertaining. Other people are angry and upset. Why do some people feel one way versus another? It is partisan but not completely?
Henry Olsen:
You listen to Trump and if you have an appreciation for style, or are looking for an argument that’s rhetorically clear, Donald Trump won’t give that to you.
Particularly among Republicans, the more formal education you have, the more likely you are to be either marginally attached to Trump or all the way over to I am no longer a Republican. Most people who are doing well in this country have a stake in global trade, progressive social values, and American internationalism. They see themselves as winners. So, when Donald Trump declared war on those things, they are going to hate what Donald Trump does. But the flip side is the losers in the last quarter century know what Donald Trump wants to do. He wants to restore them to the center of American life.
Larry Bernstein:
I was chatting with a buddy of mine who is the president of a major bank, and he said, I agree with Trump’s policies. I just do not like the way he says it. So that differentiates from what you just mentioned about how they disagree with the content. He says,” I Agree.” But why does he have to talk and behave like that?”
Henry Olsen:
Trump carries things too far. During the first term, the tweeting would often be over the top. What he is doing is audience tests is he is seeing how far he has to go to get the response that he wants.
Your bank president likes a lot of Trump stuff but is not on board with radical change. In which case you must choose between a person who will defend the status quo or somebody who wants to change the status quo. And that is the choice Donald Trump presents.
Larry Bernstein:
Karl Rove writes in the Wall Street Journal each week on Thursdays, and he did one on Trump rhetoric. He said that Trump’s desire to lead the news cycle every day means that he cannot make a case for his accomplishments in a consistent and thoughtful way, and that people get run around on Greenland and Venezuela and so many different issues that it does him a disservice. Do you think that his Trump rhetoric style that incorporates widely divergent content does him more harm than good?
Henry Olsen:
Trump and the Republican Party would benefit from less noise and more signal. He would benefit from not trying to dominate every news cycle with things that are not as important to Americans like Iran or Greenland. Trump could do a lot more to tell Americans directionally where he is taking the economy.
Larry Bernstein:
Trump gave a speech at Davos a few weeks ago that does not resemble a speech by any of the other leaders at that conference. When he talks about Greenland, he opens it by saying, I wasn’t going to talk about Greenland, but here we go. Then he starts making arguments. Some are ridiculous, some are poignant, but he makes arguments that no other leader would make let alone in its style.
I’ll give you an example. He said Denmark has no way to defend Greenland. He said that when Germany invaded Denmark, the country fell in six hours and that if it had not been for America, this audience would be speaking solely in German. This is something that nobody would ever say to a European audience. Tell us about Davos, his rhetoric with this international community and his objective, which is take care of your own defense, pay for it yourself, and do not rely on us.
Henry Olsen:
The latter point is the $64,000 question. The European elites have been the example par excellence of people invested in the order Donald wants to destroy. Europeans like American primacy because it means they are defended without having to spend money. They can have a welfare state that is financed by the United States.
Trump tried soft peddling it in his first term. NATO went from like 1.4% of GDP of defense spending to 1.6%. It was woefully insufficient. I think Selena Zito is right in her book Butler where she says that it was the assassination where Trump realized I have got a few years of life left. Let’s just not be pussy footing around. You have got Trump unbound in the second term, which is pushing everywhere on everything all at once.
The Europeans are used to very cozy consensual politics and are shocked. Merz the Chancellor of Germany has said we can no longer depend on the Americans. Chancellor Merz is serious. The rest of the Europeans will follow suit enough that you can say Europe will collectively move towards some degree of self-reliance in their own defense.
Larry Bernstein:
Trump sometimes does not act like a leader of the free world. He behaves like a Fox News commentator. I will give an example from Davos. He said, I love Macron, but what were you doing wearing those sunglasses here inside? This is not a topic of conversation normally discussed on the world stage, but the audience probably responded with, yeah, what was Macron doing wearing those sunglasses?
Another example, after Super Bowl Sunday, he came out against the Bad Bunny halftime show. This is not something the President of the United States usually interacts with, and a third example when the Saudis killed Khashoggi in its Istanbul embassy, the expectation is the US President would condemn the murder and say, this is outside the realm of behavior by nation-states in modern times. Instead, he said that the United States is no better than the Saudis.
How do you explain Trump’s willingness to use rhetoric and subject matter that is like a Fox News commentator?
Henry Olsen:
Not everything Trump does is right. There are times when he should not go there. He could limit himself more, and there are times when he is shown himself able to do that but that’s what his fans like. Media trainers will tell you to never answer the question. People have gotten used to everyone who’s media training.
Donald Trump answers the question. Sometimes it is weird. Sometimes he preempts the question like, Macron, what are you doing wearing sunglasses inside? The fact is that Macron was talked about before President Trump said it because you do not usually wear blue reflector sunglasses inside on a January day and Trump just picked up on that. The fact that he answers questions directly in a way that seems unfiltered or unscripted is part of his success.
Larry Bernstein:
Let’s compare it with other politicians responding to Trump rhetoric. I will pick a Republican first and then a Democrat afterwards. As vice president Vance has to articulate Trump’s policies using different words and style. He will speak on the Sunday shows making the same arguments, but in better soundbites, clearer answers, but the content’s the same or adding arguments. How do you feel about the interaction between Vance and Trump explaining using a different word style?
Henry Olsen:
Vance can both communicate in a Trumpian and a traditional way. Rubio is another person who exemplifies that, and that is one reason why they have elevated themselves above the other successors, both in Trump’s and in the public’s eyes.
Larry Bernstein:
California Governor Gavin Newsom decided to use non-traditional media and making stylistic points in a Trumpian way to articulate the Democrat’s message. Do you think we could have a bipartisan change in rhetoric? What are your expectations for Newsom’s use of Trumpian style?
Henry Olsen:
Newsom’s use of Trumpian style is much more online. That is not the same as his in-person persona. What will be interesting to see is when Newsom becomes a candidate, how he adapts to answer a question directly.
We must see more nuance as a national candidate subject to the daily pressures that a presidential candidate is subject to see. Democrats like Jasmine Crockett in Texas is doing that online and in television appearances. The snappy one-liner with sometimes some profanity.
We have come a long way from the time when Hubert Humphrey in 1968 refused an invitation to appear on number one show in America, Rowan and Martin’s Laughin’ because it was below the dignity of the president. Richard Nixon accepted it. Humphrey after the election said,” I made a mistake.” We have moved a long way from that.
Larry Bernstein:
I once met with Mitt Romney and in a group setting, he was funny. sharp, and excellent at presenting his ideas. A woman in the audience said to him, “I don’t get it. The Mitt Romney I see on television is not you. Why are you so incapable of projecting this style of rhetoric to the American people?”
He said, “I do these advertisements with me running around with my grandkids and I give long speeches, but it seems like the mainstream media picks only those things that are either mistakes or ridiculous. The good stuff doesn’t make it.” How was Trump able to bypass mainstream media or use mainstream media to his advantage where traditional Republican candidates like Mitt Romney failed?
Henry Olsen:
Social media was only coming to fore when Romney ran in 2012. Facebook was a new thing in 2008. People were just learning. It took a long time for people to figure out how to use television effectively. Television was a big thing in 1952, but Roger Ailes helps Richard Nixon perfect how to use television effectively in 1968, and that’s 16 years.
You don’t get the 30 second attack advertisement until the seventies. It takes 20 years for people to figure out how to use a new technology. I do not blame Romney for that. Romney could be at ease with people in a small non-televised setting. Romney was afraid of being himself in public in a way he wasn’t in private. I cannot ever remember except for the first debate against Obama when there was a Mitt Romney success.
It’s like when people talk about Romney supposedly roping his dog to the top of his car like in the move Vacation. That is weird. But there must be a way to roll and laugh with yourself.
Larry Bernstein:
Harry Frankfurt was a Princeton professor in philosophy, and he wrote a book called On Bullshit.
It is a fantastic book. Short and sweet, and its premise is straightforward. He says there is three different types of rhetoric. There is the truth, falsehood, and bullshit. Truth is the truth. Falsehood is something where the speaker is very aware and cares about the truth but wants to pursue something that’s false. A person who uses bullshit is uninterested in the truth, does not care about it. And Frankfurt wrote an essay explaining why Trump was consistently articulating bullshit. You have referenced it as something different distinguishing from Frankfurt’s work. It seems to me that you would say, is the heavily tested boring political claptrap that borders on bullshit?
Because it may be something that the foreign policy experts believe, but it is something that they are expected to say and not deliver on. Where Trump is saying, “I know that’s not true. Maybe this is not the lowest inflation of all time. Maybe there are not more people at my inaugural address in 2017 that were at Obama’s,” Trump is saying that the establishment is bullshit. Mine is more entertaining. Sure, it is embellishment.
Henry Olsen:
Absolutely. Trump would say it is that the elites have been bullshitting you for years and millions of people agree with him. People in Washington, we are trying to help America, and nobody believes that. Trump is not telling the truth, but directionally he is telling you what he honestly believes, and millions of people agree with his diagnosis and are willing to follow his prescriptions. When you listen to the highly manicured speeches of other people, many things may be literally true, but you are not at all convinced that they actually mean what they’re saying, and then oftentimes the fact that they don’t deliver what they’re saying. I think the failure of the British Conservative Party right now, it’s directly due to that.
They have been saying for years, we want to bring down immigration. The rhetoric is bullshit, and you have to ask yourself at some point, did you believe it when you were saying, and you were incompetent or you lying to us all the time in this highly manicured tested way?
Larry Bernstein:
In my previous podcast was on the Spanish Civil War, and one aspect of it was analyzing George Orwell’s book Homage to Catalonia, where he first became aware of blatant falsehoods by the Stalinists as to what was happening in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. And he recognized that unchecked we could end up like in 1984 with the Ministry of Truth, where they were deeply concerned about the truth and therefore would go back and edit previous newspaper articles and take out various characters once they had been decided that they were no longer supportive of the regime.
Thinking about Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, how do you think of that as a model to what Trump is trying to achieve inside and outside the government?
Henry Olsen:
I do not think Trump is engaged in a systemic campaign to create an echo chamber of lies. You hear people on his opponent say, oh, free press is in danger. No free press is not in danger in the slightest. When people get dragged into the Ministry of Truth and have a cage stuck in front of their face and rats are coming at you, that’s when free expression of ideas are endangered is when they kill or torture you.
What Donald Trump is trying to do is using provocation to help create that narrative by forcing his opponents to talk about something that he wants to talk about. It’s like JD Vance talking about how they’re not eating the cats in Springfield, but it got you to talk about problems of mass migration. I don’t think that saying it that way was the best idea, but the fact is, a lot of times by attacking the left in an over-the-top way, he forces the left to talk about something in a way that defends the left’s presuppositions that are not agreed on. Trump is a master at forcing the left to compete on his own playing field.
Larry Bernstein:
I watched an episode of the Phil Donahue show back in the eighties when Trump was doing the circuit related to his new book, The Art of the Deal. Phil Donahue went after Trump, and Trump was able to deflect and energize Donahue’s own audience against him to his shock and chagrin. It wasn’t like Trump was different then than he is now. He’s the same. It is not like Trump is philosophical about language or about his approach or methods. He has been behaving this way his whole life.
How do you think Trump adapted to the current opportunity?
Henry Olsen:
Trump has always been a master at manipulating media attention. He has always been open to new technologies. The Apprentice was a brilliant use of the new reality television. Instead of American Idol and Survivor, he put it in the broader way that was captivating television. Social media was just another thing that Trump did not shy away from, or think was beneath him. It was this new way of communicating.
Larry Bernstein:
My mother always asks me, “why does Trump have to talk like that?”
Henry Olsen:
Trump must talk like that because it is the way to convey to people who have felt disrespected and unwanted for many years that he’s the person who respects them. If Trump does not talk like that, Trump is not president of the United States and Trump is not effective in wielding the power of the office of the President.
Larry Bernstein:
In 2017, I bumped into you in Central Park. It was immediately after Trump put his foot in his mouth regarding Charlottesville. You said to me, here is what Trump should have said. You articulated in beautiful language highlighting the distinctions so that his opponents could not make him out to be a racist.
I said to you at the time, if he spoke like you Henry, he could not be President of the United States and would sound like other politicians. Tell us about your reflections on Henry Olsen in 2017 versus Henry Olsen in 2026.
Henry Olsen:
I have been persuaded to every time Donald Trump opens his mouth is a win. Donald Trump does put his foot in his mouth. What we have seen is that the harm was less than I thought, and the good was more than I thought. Trump had to be much more confrontational, direct, and untraditional.
Larry Bernstein:
Trump has three years left in the White House. After he is gone, do you think political rhetoric will be Trumpian or will it return to pre-Trumpian?
Henry Olsen:
It won’t return to being pre-Trumpian because people adapt to the innovation. What we have seen is that rough and tumble directness is rewarding, and you see that Governor Newsom is adopting it. You’ve got Cory Booker trying to be Spartacus on the Senate floor, trying to adapt in his own way. If you try to be Donald Trump, you will fail because you are not Donald Trump. But the directness and offensive language that’s proven to be effective will be a feature of both presidential campaigns in 2028.
It’s like I said about Rowan and Martin’s Laughin’. Once Richard Nixon appeared on the number one television program in a self-deprecating, non-traditional way and won the presidency, people were going to follow. Trying to be authentic using direct-to-viewer communications ever since. The way Trump does it has proven to be effective, so we should expect politicians to do that.
Larry Bernstein:
What are optimistic about as it relates to political rhetoric?
Henry Olsen:
The positive aspect of Trump’s rhetoric is getting us out of where everything is fully tested, and politicians are manifestly not sincere in their presentation. When you are full testing everything, you are not leading, you are following. The positive aspect of Trump’s rhetoric is it forces politicians to adopt a rhetoric that displays real convictions, real direction, real differences, and that reinvigorates democracy.
Larry Bernstein:
Thanks to Henry for joining us.
If you missed the previous podcast, the topic was 90th Anniversary of the Spanish Civil War.
Our speaker was Giles Tremlett who is the author of several books on the Spanish civil war including El Generalisimo: A Biography of Francisco Franco.
Giles explained why anticlerical actions by the Republicans triggered the civil war and why it later became a proxy war between Hitler and Stalin.
You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website
whathappensnextin6minutes.com. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Thank you for joining us today, goodbye.
Check out our previous episode, The 90th Anniversary of the Spanish Civil War, here.
