I tried my level best to listen to last night’s State of the Union address. A transcript is here. I gave up at 9:40pm and went to bed. It unfolded much as I had predicted to my wife: a catalogue of superlatives, some true, some arguably false, many exaggerated.
I counted sixteen of them. Too many to make a good drinking game, even when the speech clocked in at 108 minutes. They included:
- “strongest and most secure border in American history”
- “single largest decline in recorded history” (in homicides)
- “lowest level in more than five years” (referring to the rate of inflation)
- “lowest in four years” (mortgage interest rates)
- “all-time record highs” (stock market)
- “More Americans are working today than at any time in the history of our country”
- “cut a record number of job-killing regulations”
- “largest tax cuts in American history”
I’m sure the president’s fans were delighted. Some have claimed it’s an effective way of communicating with ordinary people. I’m not so sure. To my ear when superlatives are overused they are “tuned out”, i.e. they lose impact. I consider understatement a better rhetorical device because it leaves the speaker with somewhere to go—hearers will notice the rare superlative more in that context. Carthago delenda est (Carthage must be destroyed) was rhetorically effective because Cato the Elder wasn’t saying everything should be destroyed in every speech. De gustibus… Is this persuasion, performance, or simply the language modern voters expect?
To his credit President Trump’s State of the Union message this year was not as much of a presidential “wish list” as prior SOTU’s have been. In some cases matters in that wish list are never heard of again. I counted three calls for Congressional action:
- ban sanctuary cities
- require voter ID
- prohibit medical “transition” treatment for minors without parental consent
Please construe neither support nor opposition from that list—they are merely the wish list actions I identified.
Did you listen to the speech? What were your reactions?
Not sure about “ordinary people” but seems to be effective with his cult of personality. He lies, or as you now call it exaggerates, and when people try to correct it with facts then his people claim you are just attacking Trump. It’s very difficult to have an evidence based discussion with many/most Trump supporters.
Steve
My definition of lie remains as it has always been: the knowing telling of an untruth with an intention to deceive. That’s why, for example, I say “exaggerate”.