Trump’s Unacceptance Speech

In the last and final debate, Donald Trump casted significant doubt on whether he would accept the results of the November election and concede to Hillary Clinton should she win. His statements concerning his concession have garnered many negative reactions, but Hillary Clinton has not passed up this amazing chance to utilize his comments to garner favor with potential middle class voters. In the debate, she immediately responded to his comments, calling them “horrifying” and stating, “let’s be clear about what he is saying and what that means: he is denigrating, he is talking down our democracy.” Until this point, Trump has seemed to paint himself as the patriotic choice with his “Make America Great Again” slogan and his appeals to the every man. But this recent outburst causes problems. Hillary can now come in with the claim that Trump is questioning our very democracy. By altering the rhetoric, she can shape the story to help her appeal to the patriotic middle class. In Pennsylvania rallies this past week, she did just that.

Pennsylvania Rallies

In a speech to Pittsburgh supporters, Clinton made it clear that she did not find humor in Trump’s comments:  “We know in our country the difference between leadership and dictatorship. Peaceful transition of power is one of those things that sets us apart.” This theme only continued at a rally in Philadelphia later that night. This time, Tim Kaine focused on Trump’s anti-democracy statements:  “Trump insulted the pillars of our country’s democracy by saying he wouldn’t accept the results of the election.” If Hillary Clinton continues to emphasize Trump’s concession comments, she can paint herself as the pro-democracy candidate. While this stance is not a normal position we would even think necessary in a presidential race, there is certainly nothing normal about this particular election. By utilizing this stance to create pro-America, anti-Trump rhetoric, Clinton can continue to increase her standing with middle class voters who greatly value patriotism.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is hoping for the best when gaining votes from the middle class for her campaign. Throughout her campaign, Hillary has declared that she has a new tax plan in order to help the middle class. According to her campaign website, it is an eight point tax plan with the first of the eight points reading, “Hillary is proposing middle class tax breaks to help families cope with the rising cost of every day expenses.” Despite her claims to the American people about tax cuts on the middle class, Hillary hasn’t even released any actual plan to lower the taxes on the middle class.

In her eight point plan, there isn’t a single time where Hillary speaks about lowering the income tax. Rather, she preaches on how she is going to raise taxes on the members of the  upper class. While this can be effective in her tax plan, is this method the right method to use to appeal to the best interests of the middle class? Back in March, Hillary told the Tax Policy Center that an income tax cut for low and middle class families was forthcoming. Well, Hillary. We are all still waiting. It is nearly election day for our country and this claim made in March that would have a direct positive effect on the middle class has seemed only to be a hoax. It has disappeared as quickly as it was brought up. Now is this an effective use of rhetoric by Hillary to gain her middle class votes? Absolutely it is. When voters from the middle class see this idea and claim, they immediately hop on the Hillary train, even though they should look a little deeper than the headlines about a proposal that is, “forthcoming.”

In analyzing the issues page on Hillary Clinton’s campaign website, I couldn’t help but notice the rhetorical significance of some of the descriptions of HRC’s stance on the issues. Many of the featured descriptions include general and inclusive language that, when closely analyzed, actually serves specifically to communicate with middle class voters.

With regard to the Economy, the description featured says, “We need to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.” Pertaining to campaign finance reform, the description offered says that, “Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.” I believe that the campaign’s use of ‘everyone’ is synonymous with the middle class. While this may seem obvious, the general aim of Clinton’s campaign has been to attract middle class voters and capitalize upon their commitment by outlining policies to help them. While the caveats of “not just those at the top” and “not just the wealthy and well connected” pander effectively to Clinton’s voter base, it seems that if she wanted to cater to “everyone,” these caveats would not be necessary. For these reasons, I believe that the word “everyone” is coded language for the middle class.

Two other examples of rhetoric skewed toward the middle class are the featured descriptions of Small Business policy and Wall Street Reform. For small business policy, the description mentions that, “we have to level the playing field.” For Wall Street reform, the description says that, “Wall Street must work for Main Street.” Each of these examples serves to ingratiate members of the “middle” or “working” classes without explicitly stating it.

Each of these examples can be found on Clinton’s issues page, which is just one click away from the homepage (which is essentially a donation page). With regard to our recent discussion about the role of websites in political campaigns, I find it rhetorically significant that these middle class appeals (and seeming disdain for “the top”) are some of the first things a visitor might see on Hillary’s website.

The Silent Majority: From Nixon to Trump

The “silent majority,” a term coined by President Nixon has been described from a speech Nixon made on November 3, 1969, as, “the idea that there are two kinds of Americans — the ordinary middle-class folks with the white picket fence who play by the rules and pay their taxes and don’t protest and the people who basically come from the left.”

In Nixon’s era, he used the term to gain support for his plan to end the Vietnam War. Nixon, during a time of racial conflict and anti-war protests, targeted middle-class white Americans who felt forgotten. Similarly, Donald Trump used this same rhetoric to gather his base during his 2016 run for office. In 2015 while campaigning, Trump tweeted:

 

I am looking forward to being in New Hampshire tomorrow. The silent majority is taking our country back. We will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 19, 2015

 

When traditionally used, the term’s racial undertone calls on the disparaged white middle-class who have been silenced by the growth of minority populations. In the same way, the “silent majority” is often linked to Trump supporters and in doing so, highlights the racial tension present in the country. However, a recent Vox article demonstrates another interpretation. Rather than highlighting the racial aspect often used with the expression, the article uses the “silent majority” to describe the hidden voters. The “silent majority,” as Vox writer Mattew Yglesias describes, “America is facing another silent majority election—one in which the story has been all about Trump’s supporters but the victory will go to Clinton’s.”

The New Silent Majority

Yglesias reasons the outcome will be because “the new silent majority is quiet,” describing the new majority as minorities and women. In recent years, the middle-class has become even more diverse, and Clinton’s policies appeal more to minority and working class families than Trump’s. While Trump maintains the white working class vote, they are no longer the majority.

Despite this, minority and women voters have not made the same impact on the media as the typical ‘Trump voter,’ and there is less energy in Clinton’s voting base compared to Trump’s. In a sense, Nixon’s majority is now the noisy majority. The conservative, white middle-class voter has garnered much more attention than anyone on Clinton’s side.

Despite Trump’s base taking over the spotlight this election cycle, Yglesias projects that Clinton will come away with a victory. He argues that just like in the primaries when it seemed like all the excitement was for Bernie Sanders, Clinton pulled through with overwhelming high numbers. Her voters might not be in your face and loud, but they are out there and in big numbers.

While evidence proves Clinton is winning the minority and women vote, and while it is true a ‘typical Clinton voter’ hasn’t had the media attention given to a ‘typical Trump voter,’ to say Clinton is going to get the silent majority vote is far-reaching. In fact, it is Clinton who should be fearing the silent majority, that is, the silent majority in its original form. It seems much more logical to think a voter would go silent during the election and not tell anyone they were voting for Trump. Voters are more likely to stick to their party than vote for the opposing side. Clinton is more successful convincing conservative middle-class voters not to vote for Trump than she is telling them to vote for her. Clinton may have a new silent majority, but she still needs to worry about the silent voter creeping in on election day and voting for Trump.

One of Hillary Clinton’s main goals during her campaign is to make sure she appeals to the voters, specifically the middle class. Most commonly, she does this by making a commitment not to raise taxes. But with her track record of lying about many of her policies, many voters doubt her sincerity and truthfulness. It starts with Clinton’s definition of what middle class is. The middle class, defined by Clinton, “extends to those earning up to $250,000 a year”. But many of her plans she has proposed would seem to immediately affect those in the middle class. For example, college tuition. Clinton’s plan for college is to make it free and accessible for everyone. She states, “By 2021, families with income up to $125,000 a year will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities.” College would not really be free because it seems like the cost would be put on those who make more than $125,000 a year. And those would be people of the middle class and upper class. The tuition may be free but the cost would not be.

Clinton trying to appeal to voters seems to be going a little off track because she is being caught in many lies about her policies that are supposed to be specifically for the middle class. She is bringing down her own ethos by undermining her credibility as a candidate, which could potentially cost her some votes. And it seems to be an ineffective route to get into the oval office.

A Redefinition

In 1969, Richard Nixon gave a speech in which he coined an important political phrase, that of the “silent majority”. He wasn’t speaking to those that were extremists; he was appealing to the normal, middle-class, white Americans who he hoped would support his Vietnam policy. This simple slogan has reappeared throughout various political campaigns, including the current one. There have even been signs proclaiming “THE SILENT MAJORITY STANDS WITH TRUMP”. But while Trump’s supporters may more closely resemble Nixon’s white, middle-class, GOP supporters, it is Hillary’s rebranding of the “silent majority” that is pivotal to this campaign. Hers is one forged from diversity. Clinton’s majority includes racial minorities, educated women, single mothers, and more than 70% of the LGBTQ population. Although she has fairly consistently led in the polls, we have not seen near as many large, boisterous rallies for Clinton as we have seen for Trump. Rebecca Traister wrote after the Iowa caucus that “this is a paradigm; it’s why Mom is the disciplinarian and Dad is the fun guy, why women remain the brains and organizational workhorses behind social movements while men get to be the gut-ripping orators.” Perhaps, though, the tides are beginning to change on this front. Hillary Clinton may be able to change public perception just as Clinton’s supporters have redefined the “silent majority”.

Speaking to the “Silent Majority”

So how is Hillary Clinton speaking to this new middle-class? To the new “silent majority”? As discussed in prior blog posts, Clinton’s main objective in reaching this redefined crowd seems to be the family route. She has consistently painted herself as the candidate who cares for the family, thus solidifying herself with those single mothers and women who now make up part of the new middle-class. Clinton has also targeted points toward others in this changing majority. In a recent New York Times Q&A, she addressed various issues related to climate change, stating that “we can and will take on climate change, build a clean energy economy, and leave our kids and grandkids a safe and healthy world—because there is no Planet B”. In the same Q&A, Clinton also addressed gun violence and the steps she would take to reduce mass shootings. By targeting her rhetoric at messages that speak to this new middle-class, Hillary Clinton can further expand her base. In the same way that Obama successfully redefined the American Dream in his 2004 DNC speech, Clinton can redefine Nixon’s “silent majority” to include the modern makeup of the American middle-class.

 

Photo Credits

Flashback to the 1990’s for a moment and remember the presidency of democratic nominee Bill Clinton. His campaign and presidency was one that focused on several things. One was addressing income differences. Another would be how he assured the American people that each generation would fare better than those past financially wise. Along with both of those things, President Clinton also focused the majority of his attention to reconstructing the middle class. Now, do any of these things sound familiar with our current presidential race? Hillary Clinton is using the same tactics as former husband Bill did to gain votes to win the race. But what exactly did she use out of her husbands playbook in order to manipulate the middle class into voting for her?

 

How Has She Copied Bill?

In her speech in 2008, Hillary deemed the middle class, “Invisible American’s.” Very much similar to how ex-husband Bill said in his 1992 speech that he is, “fighting for the forgotten middle class.” Both nearly identical in word choice, Bill and Hillary both used this to try to bring a sense of ethos into the middle class to show that they recognize them, they appreciate their hard work, and that they think the middle class plays an integral part in America’s success. Another instance where they both shared nearly identical thoughts occurred in 1992 when Bill said he was, “tired of the dignity being stripped from blue collar work in America.” Hillary followed this up in October of 2014 when she said that, “there is nothing but dignity in hard work.” She made this claim shortly after talking about her middle class upbringing. By creating a sense of good will with her audience she is effectively gaining the attention and votes of the middle class voters. If she continues to use this rhetorical strategy, it will be nothing but beneficial to increasing her chances of winning the presidency, especially if it has already worked once before.

 

Fair Share Surcharge

A recently-released Factsheet on Hillary Clinton’s website outlines one of her new tax policies seeking to aid the middle class, something she calls the “Fair Share Surcharge.” It will be imposed on people making over 5 million dollars each year, and is loosely based on a proposal introduced by Barrack Obama in 2011.

In reading this factsheet, a particular quote stood out to me. The quote was, “It’s outrageous that multi-millionaires and billionaires are allowed to play by a different set of rules than hard-working families, especially when it comes to paying their fair share of taxes.”  I found this quote rhetorically significant because of the way that it humanizes the middle class by illustrating them as families. Contrarily, millionaires and billionaires are referred to as simply that, rather than “hardworking families making millions or billions of dollars.”

The Roles of Ingratiation and Enthymeme

I believe that this example represents a greater rhetorical theme in Clinton’s rhetoric. In my first post, I outlined the way in which Clinton’s rhetoric about the middle class closely incorporates family values. By constantly referring to the middle class as “families” who are “hard-working,” and “American,” she seems to be attempting to ingratiate them. Referring to her fair share surcharge, Clinton said, “That’s what American families need – not another giveaway to the super wealthy.” I think this quote perfectly evidences her attempts to ingratiate the middle class. Through enthymeme, it suggests that the super wealthy aren’t true American families. This seems to be a stellar tactic, and is further carried out in her new advertisement.  If she continues to use this rhetorical strategy, I think it will be easier for middle class voters to look past her status as a multi-millionaire who can’t truly relate to them.

Defining the Middle-Class

What does ‘middle-class’ mean in America? For a term so widely used, it is almost impossible to define and measure. Is it a measure of income or wealth? Is it living paycheck to paycheck or is it material comfort and economic security?

In 2014, the middle-income range for a household of three varied from $42,000 to $126,000. A Pew study reported that the median net worth of middle-class families in 2013 rose 2.3% from 1983. Interestingly, the median net worth of upper-class families more than doubled, while lower-class families median net worth dropped almost 20%.

Shifting Demographics

However, these statistics suggest the middle-class is shrinking, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Middle-class families are part of a demographic shift and families are experiencing new struggles as a result of income inequality. As the demographic landscape continues to shift and diversify, how will our presidential nominees define their message to ‘middle-class’ voters?

Voters tend to categorize issues by subject matter. For example, middle-class voters can categorize their key voting issues into three groups: workplace relations, personal issues, and family issues, including their safety. Regarding policies, this may translate into immigration reform, national security, tax cuts, healthcare reform, or paid family leave. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have targeted middle-class voters by appealing to these three categories.

Donald Trump’s Message to Middle-Class Voters

Donald Trump has branded himself as a candidate for the white, particularly male middle-class voter. He capitalizes on the fear of white middle and working class voters who feel disempowered by the growing racial makeup of the United States. By doing so, his strongest rhetoric with voters is with workplace relations. Donald Trump attracts voters by advocating a revamp, or tear-down of a globalized, multicultural system and ‘America first.’ Trump has structured his entire campaign on the prospect that he will ‘Make America Great Again,’ an appeal which promises to restore America back to a time where minority groups were silenced, and the white middle class was strong.

Hillary Clinton’s Message to Middle-Class Voters

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has taken a different approach and is targeting family issues as her main appeal to middle-class voters. Her latest ad, titled Measure, promotes Clinton’s policies designed to help children and families. The positive ad shows young kids measuring their growth on a wall, playing sports, and interacting with friends and family at home and school.

Measure Ad:

Clinton asks, “How do we measure greatness in America? The height of our skyscrapers? The size of our bank accounts? No. It’s measured by what we do for our children.”

The ad highlights Clinton’s educational policies, which advocates adequate and accessible schools and debt-free college. Clinton states, “It will be my mission to build a country where our children can rise as high as their dreams and hard work take them.” The Measures ad is just an example of Clinton’s appeal to family issues for middle-class families. Hillary Clinton frames her rhetoric to be positive and family-centered, suggesting that instead of defining success on small, materialistic scales, we should define success through our children.

Hillary Clinton promotes a nation where the success of our children defines the success of the nation. With this measure, by having a nation created out of the dreams of our children, opportunities become limitless. That’s the pitch. A nation built by and for families.

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton has continually discussed not raising taxes on middle class a single penny. She states that she understands the hardships of middle class citizens and wants nothing but to help them. What she states as a concrete statement has been turned around by her actions of actually endorsing tax increases that immediately affect the middle class. According to an article by John Kartch, former presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, actually “called out Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton’s endorsement of a soda tax…”stating that it “violates her pledge to the American people not to support any tax increase on Americans making less than $250,000 per year”. With her continually going back and forth on her word, it could began to affect how voters see her as untrustworthy. How are voters supposed to trust Clinton when she says one thing but does another?

Clinton could end up losing middle class voters as she continues to go back and forth on what she says and does about raising taxes on the middle class. Most American citizens want a president who can be trusted with their word and not go back on what they say. According to a NBC poll, only 11% of people view Clinton as “honest and trustworthy”. The effect of this and her actually endorsing certain taxes, could bring down her credibility as a presidential candidate. She has “endorsed several tax increases on middle income Americans despite her pledge not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000”. Clinton also goes on to state that it is more of a “goal”, not anything concrete. It should be interesting to see what really happens if she is elected to be President in November.