This article addresses “Anderson Cooper 360”, a news program that airs on Cable News Network (CNN). The news program first aired on November 11 but I watched it a few days later on CNN’s YouTube channel. The news segment is hosted by Anderson Cooper and it addresses the aftermath of the just concluded United States election where Republican candidate Donald Trump emerged as the winner. The news program consists of the host and six other panelists, who represent different points of views. In the segment, the panelists are discussing what is likely to happen after the election especially in regards to the rising incidences of anti-Trump protests that were going on across America.
The clip first addresses the President-elect’s statement on his earlier promise to reverse ObamaCare. The conversation then moves on to the element of anti-Trump protests and their validity. One panelist observes that the protests are uncalled for because the President-elect was chosen through democratic means. Another panelist answers this by claiming that the protests are not against democracy, but they are protesting against the character of Donald Trump. The host then poses the question whether, if the Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton could have won the election, her supporters would tolerate protests. Finally, the clip concludes with another panelist noting that non-violent protests are accommodated by the laws.
Integration
The news segment on the aftermath of the US election coincides with various concepts in the textbook. First, the protests that are portrayed in the news segment juxtapose the concept of democracy and public opinion (Greenberg and Page 117). The public opinion that was expressed through voting where President-elect Donald Trump won the election in a transparent manner stands in stark contrast with the anti-Trump opinion that is being expressed in the protests. All the panelists of this show agree that the most important opinion is the one that is expressed through the ballot and not through street protests.
The same clip also indicates how political socialization can degenerate into fully formed beliefs (Greenberg and Page 121). The panelists note that Donald Trump’s socialization has created deeply held beliefs within the American public. For example, one panelist gives the example of a small boy who cried because he believed that the President-elect would act on his opinion that all illegal immigrants should be deported without consideration. In the segment, it is also clear that the media has been an important tool when it comes to instilling political beliefs among the general public (Greenberg and Page 122).
The book also points out that “political knowledge among the public is low, but cue givers allow people to make fairly rational decisions about their policy preferences” (Greenberg and Page 134). This would be a difficult concept to actualize through this news clip where the public is mostly agitated with results that they thought would favor their point of view. Further research indicates that the country might have erred in its measurements of public opinions. The book might refer to this scenario as indicative of the fact that there was no ‘rational public’ during the 2016 elections (Greenberg and Page 134).
Commentary
The news segment illustrates a dilemma that has resulted from the outcomes of the last general election. From the results of the election, most people (including some of panelists in this news program) allude to the fact that democracy worked against the interest of the public. Although this matter has presented a quagmire even to seasoned political scientists, my view is that observers in the last election concentrated on the candidates rather than the public. Consequently, what was earlier assumed to be a ‘rational public’, turned out to be just as irrational as the election candidates were.
Works Cited
Greenberg, Edward, and Benjamin Page. Struggle for Democracy, 11th ed., New York, NY: Pearson, 2015. Print.
The modern world runs mad. The great tension in the international relations, numerous military conflicts, clashes of leading states, and financial crises contributed to the creation of the unique environment in which we leave nowadays. The modern news might astonish any person as there is even no sign of stability and numerous events attract peoples attention. The presidential elections in the USA could be considered one of the events of this sort. Being one of the super states involved in all recent international events, America still preserved certain stability within the country. However, Trumps almost unexpected victory and his odious personality triggers a great social response and splits the USA into two opposing camps which try to protect their position by all means and either preserve or reconsider the result of the elections. Although there is a significant part of the population which could not accept Trump as the would-be President of the USA, he should still take up this post because he remains the only legitimately elected head of the state.
Trumps lack of experience
Trumps opponents state that he will not be able to preserve the current course and lead a state because of the lack of any experience in politics and his controversial statements related to both international and domestic affairs. However, their claims are not supported by any significant evidence. During his pre-election campaign, Trump obviously made some sensational statements and evoked a great social response. Hence, one should understand the fact that these words could have been used to attract attention to his image and emphasize his dissimilarity from other candidates. These campaigns should be treated as a show with the main aim to make people follow a politician and monitor his/her actions. That is why Trumps previous words could hardly serve as the reason why he should not become the President of the USA.
Trumps pernicious impact on the US image
Furthermore, Clintons admirers are sure that the focus on the alteration of the current US foreign policy might have a pernicious impact on the states image and undermine its authority. At the moment, the USA mainly opposes to Russia and struggles to preserve its leading role in the world. Besides, the majority of problems faced by the modern world demand collective approach to their solution. Terrorism could be defeated only by the orchestrated efforts of the leading states. In other words, the time for the opposition has passed. If we want to eliminate this threat, the dialogue is vital. As the representative of another party, Trump might bring a fresh perspective that will contribute to the improvement of the current international situation and decrease the tension that exists in relations between the above-mentioned super states.
Trumps unique leading skills
Besides, Trumps unique leading and business skills are more important at the moment. Being a successful businessman who managed to earn millions of dollars, he perfectly realizes the most important peculiarities of the US and world economies. Obviously, this fact gives hope that the new President will be able to initiate significant alteration of the sphere of economy and introduce new regulations that will help to overcome the aftermaths of the world financial crisis and improve peoples state across the USA. As an economic man, Trump is first of all expected to devote more attention to this very sphere by sharing his own experience and aligning the efficient mechanisms that will contribute to the increase of peoples incomes. Moreover, in his numerous speeches Trump emphasizes the fact that he perfectly realizes the current situation in the USA and knows what actions should be performed to attain success.
Trumps legitimate status
Finally, Trump might have numerous positive and negative traits while his actions might also be controversial; however, these points could not deny the fact that he is elected by the majority of citizens of the USA and any attempts to reconsider the results of elections will contribute to the appearance of numerous civil commotions and strikes that might paralyze the country and turn it into another source of instability. At long last, Trumps actions will obviously be monitored by other branches of power and people will have an opportunity to show their attitude to them. However, at the moment he should be provided with an opportunity to take up this post and act as the President of the USA trying to improve its current state and get rid of the most nagging problems.
Conclusion
Altogether, it seems that the lack of stability peculiar to the modern world also affects the USA as there is the sign of growing dissatisfaction with the would be President. Being an odious person, Trump remains unacceptable for a number of people in the USA. However, he is the only legitimately elected head of the state. It means that the greater part of the population voted for him, and their choice should be respected. His rule will obviously be different, and the current states course could be changed; however, these alterations might be the key to the further evolution of the state and its becoming even more powerful, wealthy, and safe for all its citizens.
At the end of January 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that entailed a huge controversy and is extensively discussed today. According to it, people from seven countries are prohibited from entering the territory of the USA on a temporary basis (Diamond). Politicians, professionals in the spheres of law, and international relationships, as well as the representatives of the general public, divided into two large groups considering this point because only some of them believe Trump’s decision to be the right thing to do. However, even though it does not follow humanist ideals and partially discriminates people on the basis of their religion and nationality, Trump’s order should be seen as an act of protection of the USA but not as a tool for suppression of other people, because it does not ban all Muslims but prevents terrorism and secures the country and its citizens. To prove this point of view, the paper will discuss arguments for and against the refugee order so that it can be concluded if such an initiative is worthy and appropriate in the framework of both legal and moral ideas.
Analysis
The issue of admission of foreign visitors, refugees, and immigrants to the USA has been discussed for a long time already. Mainly, the government would claim that such an initiative allows the country to turn into the land of second chances for people who are deprived of the basic necessities in their native countries or are poorly treated. However, politicians and the representatives of the general public became more cautious after the 9/11 attacks, as they started to take into consideration the possibility of being hurt by people to whom they lend a helping hand. Donald Trump, being a presidential candidate, has already revealed his desire to implement “a ban on all Muslim immigrants and visitors entering the USA” (Burch 2094). He did not change his views since that time and underlined that such actions are maintained to make the country great again. Thus, it is not surprising that his order affects refugee admission, applying a ban to Syrian refugees and a 90-day visa suspension for people “arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries – Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen” (US & Canada). In addition to that, Trump reduced more than twice the limit for refugees that was set by Barack Obama. Of course, the possibility of exceptions was allowed.
The main reason for the controversy that developed due to the executive order deals with religious issues. Even though nationality and religious beliefs are generally claimed to be those biases that should not be taken into consideration when providing people with visas, Trump’s order definitely has such implications. He pointed out that those people who represent religious minorities will have more privileges when deciding whether to allow them to enter the USA or not. In addition to that, even though religion is not mentioned in the order specified, those countries that are mainly associated with Muslims are listed. Thus, this relation appears in human minds and entails thoughts about discrimination (PBS NewsHour).
However, the president claims that the issue does not reach this point. There are a lot of other countries where the majority of the population are Muslims, and their citizens are allowed to come to the USA (Graves). These seven countries were selected because of their connection with terrorism and the threat to the wellbeing of all Americans. Trump underlines that unlike many other politicians, he is willing to think of the security of his native country and only then consider some possibilities to help others. Such an approach tends to be reasonable because if the USA was destroyed by foreigners, it would not be able to assist anyone anymore. Some people believe that Muslims will not be accepted by the USA at all anymore, but until this happens, Trump’s temporary actions seem to be appropriate.
Controversy regarding refugees is also connected with the discussion of terrorism. The USA is a country that suffers from this issue greatly so that it is critical for it to pay attention to the security of its boards (Merica). Trump based his ideas on limiting refugees on the previous experiences of the USA. He revealed that those seven countries that face a ban are the most common locations from where terrorists come. For example, he refers to one of the recent attacks when there was “shooting in an Orlando nightclub by twenty-nine-year-old Omar Mateen, a U.S. citizen whose parents were Afghan immigrants” (Burch 2094).
However, people argue that prohibiting all representatives of the mentioned countries from entering the country, the president stigmatizes them as terrorists, which is inappropriate. Treating these populations in an indiscriminate way, Trump made the representatives of the general public indignant. Professionals in the sphere of law underline that it is wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their nationality, and what Trump does has much in common with it. Still, the evidence proves that taking precautions regarding those nationalities that have already proven their connection to the majority of terrorist attacks within the country seems to be reasonable. Moreover, the fact that such initiative is not constant means presupposes that the prohibition can be canceled as soon as the USA reaches some stability in this framework and establishes appropriate regulations to ensure the safety of its population.
Conclusion
Finally, the USA is widely known as a country that supports others and helps them when needed. It provides humanitarian aid to many foreign destinations and assists in military actions. People got used to the fact that it is not focused on personal benefits and expect the USA to be helpful (Lind). Many people who are facing some issues in their motherland leave it for America because there is a lot of evidence that such practice turns out to be advantageous. Still, in the framework of security, it is not safe to accept everyone. Paying too much emphasis on refugees, the government tends to deprive the local population. Thus, Trump’s idea to strengthen the USA seems to be the right step. The country should find a balance and then reborn its humanitarian initiatives.
On the basis of the discussed information, it can be concluded that Trump’s refugee order is more about protection than suppression currently. The president is willing to ensure that those populations that have a lot of terrorists and want to lead the USA to ruin are under control and have limited or even no access to the country. Still, Trump should think of other initiatives that ensure security but are not discussed as tools of discrimination. He is likely to appeal to Americans if following such an approach in the nearest future.
Works Cited
Burch, Elias. “Testing Citizenship.” Boston University Law Review, vol. 96, no. 6, 2016, pp. 2093-2169.
Among the promises that President Donald Trump made during his presidential campaign was the pledge to protect the interests of the United States and to ensure public safety. He pledged to fight the Islamic State and other forms of extremism like Al-Qaida. After assuming office, the president signed an executive order that aroused outrage not only in the United States but also across the globe, particularly in the Muslim countries. The law barred people from seven Muslim nations from entering the United States. The president was clear that the executive order was not meant to ban Muslims. Instead, it intended to guarantee the security of the American citizens and to avert terror. Numerous media outlets, political analysts, and scholars have taken different positions regarding the executive order. Some find the order as a political and outright attempt to prevent Muslims from entering the United States.
Analysis
An article by German Lopez of Vox Media refutes President Donald Trump’s claim that the executive order was meant to avert terror and guarantee security. The outrage that followed the signing of the executive order led to the president issuing a statement to defend his position. President Trump reiterated that even though the United States was willing to accommodate those fleeing oppression, it would not compromise the safety of its citizens. He said that the previous regimes used similar strategies to protect the country, citing the ban on visas for immigrants from Iraq by President Obama in 2011. President Trump claimed that had the executive order intended to ban Muslims; it would have affected all the nations with majority Muslims. However, Lopez states, “The executive order is an evolution of Trump’s actual Muslim ban proposal”. The president had promised to ban Muslims from entering the United States temporarily. Thus, even though the executive order does not affect a majority of the Muslims, it signifies the president’s intention to ban Muslims from the United States.
The Lopez cites evidence from President Trump’s close ally and adviser. Lopez claims that Rudy Guiliani (former New York Mayor) revealed that President Trump had sought his advice on how to use the right approach to prevent Muslims from entering the United States. The position of the article is that the president cannot justify his actions. Lopez argues that President Trump’s executive order cannot be compared with that issued by President Obama. In 2011, President Obama issued an order that affected only the refugees from Iraq. However, President Trump’s executive order impacts refugees, tourists, and other potential immigrants.
Lopez maintains that President Obama’s order did not bar refugees from entering the United States. Instead, it reduced the pace at which they were admitted into the country. Conversely, President Trump’s order has completely barred Muslims from coming to America. Hence, it amounts to banning Muslims. The author is biased in her analysis of the topic. The comparison that she makes between President Obama and Trump’s orders is not sufficient enough to claim that the latter’s move is equivalent to banning Muslims. The author presents the story with closure. As per Lopez, President Trump’s action is a voluntary ban on Muslims.
Tom Kertscher is a reporter with PolitiFact Wisconsin. Kertscher does not see the executive order as a move to ban Muslims. Instead, it is aimed at safeguarding the Americans and preempting a possible terrorist attack. The author explores numerous perspectives to support his argument. Kertscher claims that even though the ban targets seven countries whose majority of their population is Muslim, the nations have been found to harbor terrorists. Kertscher avers that one may be right to say that the order bans Muslims from the seven nations but not from the other 42 countries. The author defends his argument by looking at how the order impacts the fight against terrorism and Muslims.
The article supports President Trump’s executive order by referring to the 9/11 attack. The United States can guarantee safety only by barring people who do not value and uphold its constitution from entering the country. The fact that the order does not affect all the Muslim nations proves that it is not a ban on Muslims. The executive order is viewed as a ban on Muslims because it came after President Trump had expressed his intention to prevent Muslims from visiting the United States. The author is objective in his analysis of the story and does not rush to make a judgment. He refers to numerous reports, interviews, and studies. For instance, he refers to a CNN interview amid President Trump and host Cooper. He also refers to a report by Cato Institute.
In spite of Kertscher not mentioning that President Trump’s executive order discriminates against the affected nations, it is evident from the analysis he gives regarding other countries that pose a significant threat to the United States. The author argues that countries like the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt produce the highest number of terrorists who target the United States. However, the executive order does not target these countries. The report goes father to refer to studies conducted by the Cato Institute, which found that terrorists from the seven countries that the executive order bans have never staged a successful attack in the United States. In other words, the author insinuates that the order is not entirely meant to combat terrorism.
There might be other reasons that led to President Trump identifying the seven nations. The phrase “Does not” repeatedly appears in the story to signify that Kertscher believes that the president had no intention of banning Muslims from entering the United States. The detailed coverage of the story gives readers an opportunity to make a judgment without influence from the writer. The author leverages quotations and interviews in the story. They help to bring out the viewpoints of other stakeholders that the executive order affects in one way or another. The inclusion of past interviews involving President Trump gives the reader an opportunity to understand the factors that compelled him to sign the executive order.
Diamond and Almasy, CNN reporters, provide an account of President Trump’s signing of the executive order. The journalists report on the events that followed the signing of the executive order. They use words like “Shockwave” and “seismic” to signify the gravity of the matter. From the title that the reporters use, it is evident that the report is inclined towards the opposition of the president’s actions. They condemn the move by the president to sign executive order even without evaluating its merits. The reporters use film footage to cover the story. They show demonstrators converging in the main airports across the United States to oppose President Trump’s order. Diamond and Almasy compile a detailed report of events that followed the signing of the executive order. The report covers the reaction of the human rights organizations, Democrats, and advocacy groups (Diamond and Almasy par. 14). It includes the response from the Iranian government.
CNN is renowned for its impartial coverage of social and political events that happen not only in the United States but also across the globe. Therefore, the manner in which the reporters treat this story is in line with the reporting culture of CNN news. The inclusion of the opinions of the judges, advocacy groups, and human rights organizations in the report has influenced people’s impressions about the story. Even though the reporters appear to support the executive order, they have presented facts to show that the president was wrong in his actions. Thus, people are torn between supporting the president or people from the affected nations.
The collection of views from different parties makes the news legitimate. One would respond differently to the same report if it is presented in a different format. For instance, the broadcast of the story on the radio may lead to a person downplaying it as politics. However, when it is proclaimed with the backing of film footage, one understands the gravity of the matter and can make a sound judgment. Apart from referring to the views of judges and famous politicians, the story does not include information from other reports that cover the same topic. The reporters use commentaries sparingly. However, they rely heavily on quotations from President Trump and people who are against the executive order.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Americans have divergent opinions regarding the recent executive order signed by President Trump. Some media personalities are biased in the coverage of the issue and believe that the move was meant to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Others are objective in their coverage and consider different perspectives of the matter. Understanding the events that led to the signing of the executive order may help to make objective conclusions. People should not condemn President Trump without understanding his intentions.
The discussion hosted by the Wilder School was dedicated to the topical phenomena of popular politics in the United States today. With the current political turbulence and an acute confrontation during the presidential election, the issues of popular politics are particularly important for the members of the American society, and the academic environment becomes an adequate forum where they can be discussed. The importance of addressing these issues in a university setting was emphasized by Michael Rao, the president of Virginia Commonwealth University, who said that there is a lot of skepticism in politics today, and the social dialog is deteriorated by the growing harshness of the conflicting parties. In this situation, universities should become the places where difficult issues are addressed because universities foster critical thinking and civilized discussion. After this short introduction, the floor was given to the speakers, among which there were politicians and academics.
One of the main themes of the speeches and one of the focuses of the following discussion was representation. It is a known fact that American Revolution started from the request for representation: the colonies refused to pay taxes as long as they could not participate in the decision-making in the Parliament. It shows that the American democracy is largely based on the concept of proper representation. Today, the perceived lack of representation has led to one of the most significant political conflicts within the American society associated with the unlikely presidency of Donald Trump. There are apparently many people in the United States who have been frustrated as they felt that they were not adequately represented, i.e. their needs were not addressed by the government, and those people have constituted a considerable portion of Trump’s supporters. As Governor L. Douglas Wilder said, “Sometimes those people need to stand up and be heard.” This is an important point in the modern history of the United States where what the people want is being rediscovered. The speakers have agreed that the government should be more attentive to the voices of those who claim that they are not being heard.
Another important issue discussed at the meeting was civil engagement. Some speakers stressed that proper governance in a democratic system is impossible without feedback, and the government that discourages engagement is likely to fail in various ways—particularly in providing stability and development. Dr. Meghan Gough suggested that universities are places where engagement can be encouraged and promoted, and one of the instruments for that is diversity. Environments that feature diversity are likely to shape patterns of peaceful and constructive collaboration, which is a crucial component of civil engagement. Also, ensuring that people are interested and willing to participate in political and social discussions and processes is what governments should do, which is why diversity is important on the societal level, too.
Finally, there was an impressing fact at the end: according to surveys, 30 years ago, 70 percent of Americans would not mind their children marrying a supporter of a political party different from theirs. Today, 65 % of Americans say they would be annoyed if their children decided to marry a supporter of a different party. The polarization is progressing, and this is a threat to the country’s development in the nearest future. This is why there should be more open discussions like the one held in the Wilder School, as this is a way to achieve mutual understanding and comprehension of the important social and political processes of the modern world.
Donald Trump, a well-established multi-billionaire, a successful real estate developer and a distinguished celebrity, is a controversial but prominent figure in modern history. Despite major analysts’ predictions, his presidential election victory became an ultimate event, and Trump’s “drive, persistence, and eloquence astonished the whole world” (Krylov par. 1). Though there are many contradictive opinions regarding Trump’s personality, his political course, and current contribution to the American society as a President, despite his lack of knowledge and experience in a political sphere, his work may have a positive outcome for all spheres of the US community.
Leaders’ background experiences and beliefs shape how they make decisions. The history of Donald Trump’s family, its values, his upbringing, and further education substantively formed the character of a future American President (Saunders par. 4). His grandfather, Friedrich Drumpf, was managing a successful restaurant business during the gold rush in the 1890s, and this fortune let his son, Fred Trump, build his own real estate company. Donald Trump was the fourth child in the family, and alongside his siblings, he was raised to be inconceivably ambitious and hard-working, with the belief he was “destined for greatness as a king” (Sherman 11). During the study in a private school and Fordham University, Trump learned about discipline and experienced the first achievements, this success aroused his interest in the family business, and he closed his first deal when he was only twenty-six. His further incredible success in real estate industries and a luxurious flash lifestyle made him highly recognizable; this popularity, along with his charisma and the sounding promises, let him win the race for the White House.
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was distinguished mainly by his authenticity and his focus on the US internal politics. As a true leader who is responsible for his words by the actions, Trump was supported for his straight answers and direct communication with the voting public. According to his contemporaries, “he had elevated himself to a special truth-teller status” (Blair 15). His main vision could be described as “America First,” which means the increase of workplaces for Americans, economic growth of the country stimulated by the domestic products and the prohibition of the illegal immigration, serving the interests of the USA on the international scene. Even though his campaign rhetoric was sometimes factually incorrect and offensive toward women, Mexicans, and Muslims, and particular political decisions did not meet with general approval, Donald Trump has received the support of the vast majority of the Americans.
Evaluating Trump’s work and his contribution to society, there is no escaping the fact that this leader is standing by his words, mostly focusing on the growth of the Americans’ material well-being. Unemployment and poverty rates are declining through the creation of new workspaces for citizens, not least because American manufacturing was brought back, and the government supports small businesses. A considerable number of Americans enlarged the amount of their savings and feel more confident due to economic expansion. Furthermore, Trump’s administration is formed from the people who, as stated by Dr. Trenin, “are used to getting things done from a position of strength” (Krylov par. 16). Thus, on the global stage, Donald Trump has proved himself as the person of actions.
In conclusion, one should state that Donald Trump can be regarded as a modern phenomenon in US politics. Despite being a notorious personality, he is following a fundamentally original way in politics, focusing on the internal issues and America’s interests abroad. Trump’s presidential term may be ambivalent, but it will be esteemed as the time of potentially great changes for the United States of America.
Works Cited
Blair, Gwenda. Donald Trump. The Candidate. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2015.
Krylov, Alexander. “Donald Trump’s New Vision: Current Trends in Public Administration.” Journal of Governance and Politics, no. 1, 2017, Web.
Republican candidate Donald Trump has gained immense support in the primaries of the 2016 American Presidential Elections. Trump’s election campaign, debates, and televised interviews echoes his conservative political ideas. He is known for his abrasive, boisterous, and controversial remarks on issues related to immigration, foreign policy related to South Korea, China, and Germany, Obamacare, Hillary Clinton and so on.
His derogatory remarks about women presidential candidates like the Republican Carly Fiorina and Democrat Hillary Clinton has dipped his popularity among women voters. Nevertheless, he is a front-runner in the primaries for the US presidential elections. Critics believe that Trump’s animated offensive tone is politically unacceptable. Nevertheless, his recent successes in the primaries show a different picture.
Trump has not only moved ahead in the Republican primaries, but also has garnered immense support. The logical question that arises, given Donald Trump’s boisterous personality and his tone of speeches, is why does he have such popularity based on the things that he says and the tone he uses.
Donald Trump’s interviews and speeches follow a few basic frames that are repeatedly spoken throughout the process. Trump repeatedly talks of his image of a self-made man who worked as an entrepreneur and earned the capital that he has now. Therefore, he positions himself as a man who has worked in the real world, like most average Americans, and earned his share, unlike the other candidates who were born into a famous political family.
He projects himself as a businessman who knows how taxes hurt taxpayers or how to build a wall between the US and Mexico better than the politicians. For example, in an interview in 2016 with CNN reporter Wolf Blitzer, Trump says, “I’m a really good business guy” (Trump). His pride in being a self-made man and his disrespect for politicians who, he believes, cannot do anything right, is evident. Trump projects an image of a hard-working businessman, an entrepreneur, who has toiled for his success, thus, representing himself as the self-made man of the American Dream.
He, though not a self-made man, is definitely one who has worked his way up the ladder of billionaires. He is a man who has worked hard to gain success. This allows him to associate with the middle-class working population. George Lakoff in his book The Political Mind, points out that a political leader usually uses the “rags-to-riches” narrative to associate with the masses (28). Lakoff believes that the “rags-to-riches” narrative is usually associated with the concept of the American Dream (28).
In other words, anyone who is willing to work hard can get success. Trump projects himself as a self-made man who has worked his way up in the corporate world. Thus, his story immediately becomes a part of the “American Dream” that every American associate to.
Trump belongs to a non-political family that makes him different from most of the politicians and other presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton. This dissociation with the rest of the politicians and association with the working class increases his acceptability. Lakoff believes for a strict father figure, “morality requires discipline, discipline in the market leads to prosperity, and lack of honest prosperity means laziness, lack of discipline, and therefore, immorality” (160).
Thus, Trump builds an image of one who is morally upright, truthful, hardworking, and successful. He boisterously talks of the places he has done business – China, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico – signifying his success as the American Dream come true (Trump).
Donald Trump has often been criticized as boisterous, abrasive, and conservative. His position on immigration, and especially Mexican immigration, has incited criticism. He has outspokenly talked of building a wall between Mexico and the US in order to stop illegal immigration. Furthermore, he says that he will “make Mexico pay for the wall” (Trump). He believes illegal immigrants should be driven out of the country and only those who are competent, talented, and hardworking may legally return to the US: “I want to have really smart people, really good people, really hard workers come back in. But they have to come in legally” (Trump).
Thus, the wall is a symbol of the barrier Trump wants to create for those immigrants who enter the US and waste government money. The idea is to stop paying for those who are aliens in the US soil and deport them. Clearly, those who support Trump are looking for a strict father figure who will punish those who abide by the rule and those who do not. The theory of discipline and punishment suggests that the father, the patriarchal head of the family, has a responsibility to protect the family from the outside world (Lakoff 78).
Trump, with his conservative views about foreign policy and militarization has been trying to show that he would like to save the territories of America from the illegal immigrants, the communists, and the Islamic extremists. The main idea behind his strong military stand appears to be a paternal instinct to protect his family, metaphorically the Nation. This is what a strict father figure would do in a conservative family as Lakoff explains: “The family needs a strict father because there is competition in the world, and he has to win those competitions to support the family – and Mommy can’t do it.” (79)
Trump’s stand on gun control shows his conservative ideals. In the interview with CNN, he says that the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino California might have had less fatality if a few of the people there had a gun in their hands and could retaliate. Thus, the idea of protecting is noteworthy in this argument. Trump makes his supporters believe that having access to guns is their right to guard against an impending danger.
The example used by Trump to show why he supports gun control is, according to Lakoff, a “nightmare case” (159). In such as a case, the political candidate dramatizes the shortcomings of a policy, in this case gun control. The strict father figure disciplines anyone who does not abide by his rules. Trump’s comments on Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal are a clear suggestion of his idea of discipline and punishment for a wrongdoer (Trump). Trump aggressively points out that Hillary Clinton will “probably escape the e-mail problem, which is disgusting that she’s able to, because other people for doing far less have had very, very major consequences” (Trump).
Authority and obedience is the main idea behind the strict conservative father figure image. In a traditionalist family, the male patriarch dominates the family members and commands their unquestioned loyalty (Lakoff 78). However, if a member flouts any rule of the patriarch he/she is punished. Trump’s comments on Hillary show his disgust towards the fact that Hillary may not be punished for breaking the law of the nation.
Coming back to the question posed at the beginning: why is Trump popular even after being criticized as abrasive, boisterous, and conservative? The answer lies in the American people’s love of a family, metaphorically used for the Nation (Lakoff 77).
The perception of the idealized family represented by the Nation is mapped on the minds of the masses. This triggers the ideal model for a national life. Trump’s speeches, though abrasive, controversial, and conservative, trigger this mental model for many people, who believe in these things. They identify with the person who voices these issues on stage or in front of a camera. Once they feel that the man on TV is expressing their thoughts, their ideas, they immediately identify with him because subconsciously they already had those ethos embedded in their mind.
For instance, after 9/11, many Americans became disillusioned regarding the problem of Islamic extremists and after the recent economic recession in the US, they are worried about their work being outsourced to foreign countries and issues of immigrants who are taking their rightful jobs. They are worried about joblessness, economic recession, outsourcing, and imminent danger from ISIS. Trump’s words trigger and satisfy their concern when Trump says that he will get them to pay.
His response to the issues that concerns the conservative is exactly what they want to hear. In other words, Trump’s political discourse satisfies the people’s frame of mind. This has raised the popularity of Donald Trump, even though he may be an abrasive and boisterous personality with a very improper tone.
Works Cited
Lakoff, George. The Political Mind. New York: Viking, 2008. Print.
Trump, Donald. “Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.” Interview by Wolf Blitzer. Youtube. CNN. 2016. Web.
American politics is a factor of various reforms to improve the standard of living to its citizens. The health care system is one of the systems that have seen significant changes in the recent past. Obamacare is an elaborate health care reform in the health care system of the United States based on firm policies established to improve the delivery of healthcare services to Americans. The entry of the new regime with different political views intends to make changes to the established healthcare reforms in an attempt to show its devotion to improving the lives of the citizens and challenging the previous regime of bad governance. Obama is a political icon in charge of the outgoing regime that came up with the healthcare reforms in the form of Obamacare while Trump is a figure of the new regime and a critic of the previous regime opposing their reforms as bad governance.
Based on the different political views, this cartoon (Figure 1) illustrates the kind of changes in Obamacare that Trump claims to have enacted. Darmawan and Piliang (2015) hold that use of visual text and imagery provides a comprehensive understanding of political events on an editorial cartoon. The text in the above cartoon describes the reforms that the Trump government planned to make while the imagery provides the actual reforms the government has managed to do. The image depicts Obama as a teacher and Trump as a trainee with the highlighted words that show the actual amendments done on Obamacare. Therefore, this paper will assess the use of a political cartoon to illustrate irony as a powerful technique and demonstrate the promised healthcare amendments by Trump as minor changes.
Figure 1: Political Cartoon (Matson, 2017).
Image and Text
In this editorial cartoon, the text used gives the audience an idea of the reformations on healthcare reform that the political class intended to do. The text alone does not provide the audience with the right message on the situation of the reforms done. The text message, therefore, is not effective enough to carry the exact message intended to communicate in a cartoon. Sani, Abdullah, Ali, and Abdullah (2014) argue that text message in an editorial cartoon does not provide enough summary of political information to promote understanding of a political situation by the audience. Thus, text message in this editorial cartoon carries a shallow meaning of a political event and in itself does not give the intended message but needs imagery to communicate effectively.
Imagery provides facts on the political situation at hand and is a persuasive tool that gives the picture perception of the political issues communicated. Visual images in an editorial cartoon carry an elaborate summary of the actual message of a cartoon message. The use of imagery alone in an editorial cartoon is effective to pass information but requires text message to highlight contrasting issues and cement the understanding of the conflicting interest (Sani et al., 2014). In the cartoon, the imagery of the two political icons and the highlighted letter change in the image provides a summary of the actual changes made by Trump’s government. Sani et al. (2014) state that the use of visual images on editorial cartoons carries exaggerated features that reveal the superior dominance of ideas or individuals over their opponents. Visual images, therefore, use the dominance of exaggerated features to change the picture perception of political events in the reader’s mind.
Printed Words
The real meaning of the printed words on the editorial cartoon is a factor of the inference of the visual image of the political icons. The visual images act to provide the irony of the major changes communicated in the printed words, and thus, give the printed words a true meaning of the minor changes enacted. A derived conclusion of the minor changes illustrates the letter changes the name of Obamacare to Trumpcare with no apparent change in the policies of the Healthcare Act. The irony of evidential change of letters in the imagery as opposed to the printed text of major changes permits the conclusion of minor amendments.
Analysis of Imagery
The imagery used depicts Obama as a teacher with a symbolic tool of the amendment on his hand and Trump as a trainee target to communicate to the parties of both political divides to accept the superiority of Obamacare over the politicized Trump amendments. The use of visual elements in an editorial cartoon provides the audience with enough information on any political matter (Sani et al., 2014). Thus, the use of imagery in the editorial cartoon is less misleading as opposed to the word text that clearly misinforms readers of the changes in the Healthcare Act.
Persuasiveness
The strategic argument style used in the editorial cartoon to persuade readers to change their political views is irony. The irony is one of the cartoon techniques with an element to express a message different from the actual by conveying the difference between the current situation of an issue and the expected. According to Darmawan and Piliang (2015), the irony in political cartoons involves the combination of visual text with images to illustrate the opposite meaning of a particular political action to the actual state of affairs. Iron, therefore, provides the audience with a simple symbolic representation of a political situation with text message intended to help the audience interpret and make meaning of the realities of a situation.
The element of irony in the editorial cartoon is good enough to persuade the readers of the fact that the current government has no alternative reforms on the Healthcare Act. The word text implying major changes mislead readers and provoke their interest to try to understand the four described major changes. The ironic imagery of replacing Obamacare showing the change in the highlighted letters evokes the reader to critically think and interpret the real meaning of the editorial cartoon. By relating the word text and the four-letter change in Obamacare, the reader then replaces the earlier understanding of the major changes with a mere change of four letters on Obamacare to Trumpcare. The readers’ new understanding of the changes in the Healthcare Act with the image portraying Obama being in charge persuades the reader to believe that Trump’s government has no moral capacity to challenge Obama’s government policies.
Conclusion
The healthcare system has undergone various changes that include the introduction of Obamacare as a factor of political service to the American people. Editorial cartoons are powerful communication tools used by artists to express their opinions but intended to persuade a reader on the meaning of political events. The text provides the reader with information on current issues of politics. Essentially, text alone does not carry much of the information of an editorial cartoon and can mislead a reader. The use of Imagery provides a clear summary of the information of the editorial cartoon.
Contrasting information on the text and imagery provides a persuasive argument style of irony. The irony is a technique that artists use to persuade readers to change an earlier understanding of a political issue. In the editorial cartoon, the expression of irony contrasts four major changes with the imagery of highlighted changes of four letters indicate that the changes are minor and not major as politicized. Thus, the use of text and imagery in the cartoon illustrates irony as a strategic technique that helps demonstrate promised healthcare reforms by Trump are minor changes.
A year ago, Donald Trump who back then was the leading nominee from the Republican Party to compete in the Presidential elections, made a disturbing and a very distinct proposal by claiming that there should be a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” (Pilkington par. 1; Beauchamp par.1). According to the statement released by Trump’s campaign, the shutdown was to go on “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on” (“Donald Trump calls for a complete ban on Muslims entering the US – video”). In this statement, Trump referred to the terrorist attack that had taken place several days earlier in San Bernandino. In his statement, Trump mentioned that he would attempt to avoid profiling but run an investigation of the potential terrorist activities that could be conducted in the territory of the United States. The fact that he emphasized that Muslim immigrants are the ones to be banned from entering the United States indicates that Trump viewed all Muslim people are a threat. Even though Trump noted that he would address the issue of profiling and still has not launched the proposed action, his statement is directed against the Muslims who are currently dwelling in the United States and promotes hostility towards them as the representatives of a dangerous community.
Over the last 15 years, the fear of terrorist attacks committed by the representatives of the Muslim world has been persisting in the United States. The level of Islamophobia has skyrocketed after the events of 9/11. For instance, as specified by Khan and Ecklund, in 2001, the rate of hate crimes and violence directed against the Muslim population grew by as much as 1700% (53). The fact that a presidential candidate that ended up winning the elections and becoming President made statements that utterly promote Islamophobic moods in the country is rather disturbing for the Muslim population in the United States and risks to initiate another period of anti-Muslim hostility.
Arguing with this perspective, it is possible to mention the set of facts presented below. As reported in The Washington Post, a few months later, the statement was still present on the official website of Trump’s presidential campaign, and in the interviews, he refused to take it back (Johnson par. 4). However, Trump made a correction and added that when he used the word “Muslim” in his controversial proposal, he referred only to the individuals coming to the United States from the countries known for the high risk of terrorism (Johnson par. 7). This position was confirmed in another interview with Trump when a reporter asked whether or not the politician would see as a threat to his country a Muslim person coming from Scotland; Trump responded that this individual’s arrival would not bother him (Johnson par. 7). Further, the evolution of the proposal continued as Trump began to emphasize the temporary character of the offered ban; also, the former candidate mentioned that a very sophisticated and thorough vetting process would be a suitable alternative to the ban (“How Donald Trump’s Plan to Ban Muslims Has Evolved” par. 7).
Moreover, Trump pointed out that the proposed banning would not be based on the religion of the individuals entering the United States but the territories from which they come (Johnson par. 6). These corrections and additions could potentially be used as the arguments opposing the threatening nature of Trump’s proposed ban. However, they are not at all reassuring for the Muslim people who currently live in the territory of the United States even though they do not seem to be mentioned in the ban. Finally, the supporters of the perspective that Trump’s statement is not a threat to the Muslim population in the United States could also point out that about a month ago, the statement about the ban was removed completely from the campaign website. Potentially, this tendency could mean that President Trump and his team have changed their opinion and no longer feel like the ban is a suitable solution to the problem of domestic terrorism.
To refute the opposing point of view explained above, it is possible to mention that apart from the overall controversy of the proposal, it also contains a number of gaps and seems overall rather irrational and not well-thought through. For example, stating that only the Muslim individuals coming from the countries affected by terrorism, Trump seems to potentially direct his proposed ban against a very large number of people. For instance, Germany and France are the countries that have recently experienced terrorist attacks and can be characterized as those affected by terrorism. In that way, it is possible to conclude that the Muslim individuals coming to the United States from these countries are falling under the ban as well. Trump has avoided answering this question several times during his interviews with the press (Johnson par. 8).
Moreover, in his statement, along with the proposed ban, Trump mentioned that the Muslim community dwelling in the territory of the United States needs to be examined because the “hatred is beyond comprehension” (“Donald Trump calls for a complete ban on Muslims entering the US – video”). Basically, it looks like Trump claimed was that the Muslim community in the United States is the source of hatred toward the rest of the population. Further, Trump added “where the hatred comes from and why, we’re going to have to determine, we’re going to have to figure it out”; moreover, the former candidate and the current President of the United States openly claimed that “it’s going to get worse and worse. You’re going to have more World Trade Centers” (“Donald Trump calls for a complete ban on Muslims entering the US – video”). It is possible to notice that, in his statement, Trump-connected the Muslim population in the United States to the terroristic acts and the potential for another attack similar to those of 9/11 in their magnitude. Finally, Trump continued his statement by saying, “Yes, we have to look at mosques… Because something is happening in there” (“Donald Trump calls for a complete ban on Muslims entering the US – video”). In that way, it looks like the politician juxtaposed the Muslim population to the rest of the American society claiming (but not openly stating) that it is dangerous and not to be trusted.
To sum up, Trump’s statement about the ban for the Muslim people entering the United States made a year ago has evolved and was corrected multiple times throughout the course of his campaign. It may look like the claim was softened and eventually, it completely disappeared from the campaign documents (Horton par. 1). However, since Congress granted President Trump the power to change immigration policies, he can easily implement the ban. In addition, even if the ban never makes a reappearance, during Trump’s campaign, this statement has aggravated Islamophobic moods in the society putting in danger every Muslim individual in the territory of the United States.
For the last year, many political experts from across the globe have been sharing their opinions and forecasts regarding the next president of the United States. The result of the election still appears to be a shock for millions of Americans and the rest of the world. Donald Trump might be a successful businessman and a true patriot, but he lacks the skills and experience to be a good leader of a country and represents opposition to core American values.
First of all, Trump has no experience in politics. His experience in business does not give him an idea of what is it like to work in the White House as legislative procedures have a different structure and pace. Being a president is not only about epic slogans and making America great again but also dealing with issues like housing in low-income areas and elementary school reforms, for which he might not have enough interest or patience. Trump’s policies are based on pure populism and consist of impetuous rhetoric and “cynical pandering” (The Editorial Board, 2016, para. 2). The Mexican Wall idea is not only racist but is also impractical and unreasonably expensive. Donald Trump also does not have much knowledge about foreign relations and diplomatic skills. He claims to have a plan to sort out the issue with Syria and Iran’s nuclear control agreement, but he does not say anything specific. Moreover, Trump being in charge of the nuclear arsenal is an extremely dangerous idea from the point of view of national defense.
Even though Trump is considered an effective businessman, he has a history of bankruptcies and was suspected of machinations on several occasions (The Editorial Board, 2016). He also did not disclose his tax returns, which is just another reason not to trust him with running the world’s greatest economy.
Despite his incompetence, Mr. Trump has gained the support of the majority of the population. Trump’s allies admire him as a strong-willed leader and a tough negotiator. They claim that these skills mean “he wouldn’t be pushed around by the rest of the world, particularly ISIS and Putin” (Roberts, n.d., para. 3). However, successful politics is about negotiation and compromises. Trump does not listen to his advisors, finds it difficult to cooperate, and pursues only his interests. Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University, states in his interview with the Washington Post, “We’ve never had a candidate before who’s threatened to start a war by blowing ships out of the water in the Persian Gulf if they come too close to us” (Stevenson, 2016, para. 12). Richard W. Painter (2016) argues that despite the aggressive campaign, Trump will be wise enough to avoid troubles in the Middle East and will have to be more compliant and show some respect toward the Islamic world. Nevertheless, his hot-tempered nature is well known, and there is no such speech where he showed himself to be a rational and thoughtful negotiator.
There are still many disputes concerning whether or not Donald Trump will become a good president. He might end up surprising his opposition and make a series of effective decisions and contributions to the economic, political, and social development of the country. However, one must not forget that a president embodies the entire nation. He represents the current values and goals of his citizens. In his numerous speeches, Donald Trump proved to have racist, sexist, and xenophobic views that contradict the key values of tolerance and equality that American society has been fighting for since the days of Martin Luther King Jr. If these values are still crucial, the person who goes against them cannot be considered an American patriot or an American leader.