*Photo:Kehinde Yusuf*
Politics is by nature adversarial, and political language, through which political interests and attitudes are communicated, is understandably conflictual. A lot of scaremongering therefore takes place in politics, and the scaremongering is aided by demonisation which is itself facilitated by various linguistic and rhetorical devices.
It is from this background that the first presidential debate, on 10 September, 2024, between the United States Vice-President Kamala Harris (who is the Democratic Party candidate) and former President Donald Trump (who is the Republican Party candidate) is examined today.
The debate took place at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was moderated by “World News Tonight” anchor and Managing Editor David Muir and ABC News Live “Prime” anchor Linsey Davis, and has invaluable video recording and transcript by the television station.
Firing the first salvo, Donald Trump said about Kamala Harris on the subject of abortion: “[H]er vice presidential pick [Tim Walz] says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth, it’s execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born, is okay. And that’s not okay with me.” Here, Trump uses emotively charged words (“abortion” and “execution” implicitly drawing a similarity between them) and appeals to the moral sensibilities of many Americans who oppose abortion. He also demonises the Democratic candidates by portraying them as murderers who, without human feelings, “execute” babies, and who allegedly cold-bloodedly and perversely consider their actions “absolutely fine”.
He contrasts the Democrats with himself, declaring about the unfeeling killing of already born babies: “that’s not okay with me.” One of the interview moderators, Linsey Davis, noted in respect of Trump’s claims: “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” And Harris expectedly said: “Well, as I said, you’re going to hear a bunch of lies [from Trump].”
Harris also engages in scaremongering and demonisation when she said: “But understand, if Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban. Understand in his Project 2025 there would be a national abortion ban. Understand in his Project 2025 there would be a national abortion – a monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages. I think the American people believe that certain freedoms, in particular the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body, should not be made by the government.”
Here, Harris uses the repetition of the word “understand” to underscore the need not to take for granted the extent of the presumed evil that Trump could do by signing a national abortion plan which would then come with the nightmarish act of installing monitors “that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages.”
The ‘abortion monitor’ is an allusion to the totalitarian world of George Orwell’s 1984, where a huge monitor is installed to keep tabs on everything that everyone is doing, curtail personal freedom and ensure that only thoughts and actions sanctioned by the State are allowed. She seems to imply by this allusion that a new Trump Presidency, like Orwell’s Oceania in which, constantly, “Big Brother is Watching You.”, would nullify personal freedom which would be an affront to a fundamental American value.
She repeats the word “freedom” to underscore this, and uses and repeats the pronoun “your” to bring home the reality of the impending Trump-driven un-American denial of rights and make it personal. Following the pattern established by Harris above, Trump said: “Well, there she goes again. It’s a lie. I’m not signing a ban. And there’s no reason to sign a ban. … What she says is an absolute lie.”
In the presidential debate, immigration was also a trigger of scaremongering. In this regard, Trump said: “What they [the Biden administration] have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country. And look at what’s happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don’t want to talk – not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don’t want to talk about it because they’re so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating – they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame.”
The ultimate scaremongering in these utterances is in the demonisation of immigrants as pet-eaters. When it’s considered how so emotionally attached some pet owners are to their pets in America, calling a set of people pet-eaters is akin to calling them cannibals.
All the same, Trump emphasises his claim by employing a repetitive clause structure by saying: “they’re eating the dogs … They’re eating the cats. They’re eating – they’re eating the pets.”
He intensifies the scaremongering by using the hyperbolic phrase “millions and millions” to refer to the population of these pet-eaters who have been allowed into the country by the Biden administration. He also claimed that Americans have in the process been put under psychological pressure when he said: “A lot of towns don’t want to talk about it because they’re so embarrassed by it.” In respect of Trump’s claims, David Muir noted: “I just want to clarify here, you bring up Springfield, Ohio. And ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”
Trump continued his immigrant-related tirades against Biden and Harris: “They allowed criminals. Many, many, millions of criminals. They allowed terrorists. They allowed common street criminals. They allowed people to come in, drug dealers, to come into our country, and they’re now in the United States. And told by their countries like Venezuela don’t ever come back or we’re going to kill you. Do you know that crime in Venezuela and crime in countries all over the world is way down? You know why? Because they’ve taken their criminals off the street and they’ve given them to her [Harris] to put into our country. … Crime here is up and through the roof. … Crime in this country is through the roof. And we have a new form of crime. It’s called migrant crime.” To this claim, David Muir said: “President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country.”
Trump intensified his negative portrayal of immigrants using deeply emotive words to refer to them. Such words include “criminals”, “terrorists” and “drug dealers”. He also repeated the word “criminals” not less than four times in this stretch of speech and complemented that with the repetition of the word “crime” not less than six times. Trump also insinuated that the immigration of the so-called “criminals” into the United States was a diplomatic strategy borne out of ill-will by their home countries. According to Trump, the “criminals” were “told by their countries like Venezuela don’t come back or we’re going to kill you.”
He complements this far-fetched claim with a set of rhetorical questions: “Do you know that crime in Venezuela and crime in countries all over the world is way down? You know why? Because they’ve taken their criminals off the street and they’ve given them to her [Harris] to put into our country.” The presumed desperation of the situation is further underscored by Trump through his use of the hyperboles “Many, many, millions of criminals” and “Crime in this country is through the roof.” Then he issued the ultimate put down: “And we have a new form of crime. It’s called migrant crime.”
Trump further engages in scaremongering when he said about Harris: “She has a plan to confiscate everybody’s gun.” Americans are particularly very passionate about and protect jealously their constitutional right to carry arms. The right was granted in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is this ingrained 15 December, 1791 constitutional right that Trump said that Harris planned to take away from Americans. To intensify the predictable apprehension from Americans he used the emotive term “confiscate” along with the absolute or hyperbolic expression “everybody’s gun.” Understandably, Harris debunked the claim, saying: “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We’re not taking anybody’s guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.”
In addition, Trump engages in scaremongering and the demonisation of Harris when he said: “she hates Israel. She wouldn’t even meet with Netanyahu when he went to Congress to make a very important speech. She refused to be there because she was at a sorority party of hers. She wanted to go to the sorority party. She hates Israel. If she’s president, I believe that Israel will not exist within two years from now. And I’ve been pretty good at predictions. And I hope I’m wrong about that one. She hates Israel. At the same time in her own way she hates the Arab population because the whole place is going to get blown up, Arabs, Jewish people, Israel. Israel will be gone.” Here, Trump starts with the demonisation of Harris. He said “She hates Israel”, and repeats this verbatim three times to emphasise the point.
He justified this as follows: “She wouldn’t even meet Netanyahu when he went to Congress to make an important speech. She refused to be there.” He also implied that Harris rated a sorority party above Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. Then he landed the utmost scare, using hyperbole: “If she’s president, I believe that Israel will not exist within two years from now.” He intensified the scaremongering with the repetition of the claim: “Israel will be gone.” To this Harris responded: “That’s absolutely not true. I have my entire career and life supported Israel and the Israeli people.” She had earlier stated: “there must be security for the Israeli people and Israel and in equal measure for the Palestinians.” Trump’s prediction of Armageddon following a Harris victory was ostensively intended to incite extreme hostility towards Harris in a country that has a very powerful Israeli lobby.
In the presidential debate, Trump easily lifted the trophy for scaremongering, demonisation and lying. However, with respect to overall performance, Harris seemed to have carried the day. In fact, the way one analyst put it, if you want to know who the winner was, mute the video of the debate and watch the overall body language of the contestants. From this, it would be easily clear that Trump was the one who was more discomfited.
