The Rhetorical Construction of the American National Identity

The aim of this essay is to analyze the construction of the American national identity as reflected in President Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech which he deliveredin Phoenix, Arizona on the 31st of August 2016 while still on election campaign. As a political discourse, the speech reveals the President’s policy, and, in light of his election, also reveals the nation’s state of mind and the societal tensions. Therefore, the American national identity as constructed in this speech speaks volumes. For its analysis, I will turn to Hayden White’s theory of tropes as formulated in Metahistory and to Bogdan Ștefănescu’s Patrii de cuvinte IIfor his approach of the link between ideology and tropes in order to prove the existence of an antithetical take on identity construction and its underlying radical ideology. Before starting the analysis, I will take a look at the concept of national identity.

National identity is a mental construction and it involves self-awareness which presupposes consistency regarding territory, race, language, customs etc. These factors create a family feeling and lead to a sensation of union, attachment, solidarity and homogeneity. A certain view about a certain national identity is propagated through discourse. Political speeches are powerful and weigh heavy in such a definition because they are the reflection of the times and the people who choose to adhere to or be persuaded by a certain type of discourse. Discourse, like any text, has an ideology behind it which results in a particular and typical approach of style and symbolism.

Hayden White, in his book Metahistory, analyzes the works of the recognized masters of 19th century European historiography and the work of the foremost philosophers of history, which are verbal structures in the form of narrative prose discourse. His method is short and formalist and seeks to identify the structural components of the events as emploted in various types of discourse. The most important notion he tackles and the one which can be easily extrapolated to texts that are not official historiographiesis that of tropes. White defines tropes as archetypes of style and sometimes as figures of speech, which were elaborated as a source of “classifying the deep structural forms of the historical imagination in a given period of its evolution” and can be applied to defineconcepts in different types of discourse (31). According to White, there are four central tropes that are used in the study of figurative speech: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and irony.

In Patrii de cuvinte II, Bogdan Ștefănescu picks up White’stheory and builds upon it. Since ideology lies at the core of any text, he identifies the four major ideologies and their respective tropes and presents them in relation to the idea of the rhetorical construction of national identity. As he identifies them, the tropes are the following: metaphor, irony, antithesis, and analogy/comparison and their ideologies are, respectively, anarchy, conservative, radicalism, and liberal. For my analysis I will address the trope of antithesis in Trump’s Immigration Discourse.

According to Bogdan Ștefănescu’s analysis of antithesis, we reach the conclusion that this trope is mostly used when referringtothe national discourse whendefining the collectiveself in opposition to the other. The representative structure of the antithesis claims its use in the historical past as well as in the future projection of the political plans. François Hartog,as cited by Ștefănescu, explains how the application of this trope is actually the translation of oneself as a similar image to, but inversed of the other, just like two sides of the same coin. However, given the radical ideology yielding such a rhetorical approach, the persuasive aim of the discourse can take the form of a fight, e.g. against an enemy.

In order to understand the antithetic approach, we must first take a look at how the American national discourse has built the image of America at a national and international level through a series of ideas which have become staples of American identity: exceptionalism, self-reliance and nation of immigrants. Exceptionalism for example is a belief system illustrating the ideals of democracy and freedom that the Unites States made so clearacross time.Given that exceptionalism goes hand in hand with the image of Americans as a people chosen by God, one could claim that there has always been a seed of the rhetoric based on antithesis in the American national discourse. Self-reliance or individualism is defined as the necessity for each person to escape from conventionality and regularity in order to rely on themselves and to follow their own intuitions and ideas. Lastly, we look at America as a nation of immigrants, a cultural mosaic, because of its blend of ethnic groups, languages, and cultures that coexist within society.

On a background of geopolitical tension, fear of terrorism and economic development that workers cannot keep up with, Trump sought to regain the consensus of the people by reinforcing positive images of America and vilifying the other, embodied by the immigrants, as the source of discontent. Trump played on the electorate’s distrust of the system (i.e. experienced politicians, hence the appeal of Trump, an outsider) and elaborated a rhetoric of people vs. the system. According to it, the government is the one entirely responsible for the current state of affairs by promoting lax immigration policies meant to serve the interest of the rich: The fundamental problem with the immigration system in our country is that it serves the needs of wealthy donors, political activists and powerful, powerful politicians. (...) Let me tell you who it does not serve. It does not serve you the American people. Doesn’t serve you. So let’s now talk about the big picture. These 10 steps [the plan on putting a stop to illegal immigration], if rigorously followed and enforced, will accomplish more in a matter of months than our politicians have accomplished on this issue in the last 50 years. It’s going to happen, folks. Because I am proudly not a politician, because I am not behold to any special interest, I’ve spent a lot of money on my campaign, I’ll tell you. I write those checks. Nobody owns Trump.

Part of Trump’s appeal is also his ability to reduce the intricacies of policy making to simple terms, too simple, some would say, as it borders on dangerous reductionism. For example, his view of the system is framed entirely in the context of immigration and fear of terrorism and is defined as being embodied solely by former President Barack Obama and former secretary and now fellow candidate Hilary Clinton: President Obama and Hillary Clinton support sanctuary cities. They support catch and release on the border. They support visa overstays. They support the release of dangerous, dangerous, dangerous, criminals from detention. We will terminate the Obama Administration’s deadly, and it is deadly, non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets, walk around, do whatever they want to do, crime all over the place.

As the quote above suggests, Trump does not only simplify the structure of the government and the issues of policy making, but also engages in a gross generalization of illegal immigrants as criminals and terrorists. This brings into discussion the dichotomy American self – immigrant other. This is actually the central part of Trump’s antithetic rhetorical approach. He frames Americans in the tradition of exceptionalism, people chosen by God (as the belief in Manifest Destiny proves), and of self-reliance all of which could not have yielded violent or frowned upon behavior. Hence, any disruptive behavior, anything going against consensus (as formulated by Sacvan Bercovitch) can only be attributed to the other. By the other, I mean the symbol of alterity, a person with whom one doesn’t share the same set of values and priorities, with a different background, experience and culture, namely, here, the immigrant. The dimension of illegality added to the idea of migration enforces the negative image, and provides a background for projecting such prejudice. Trump actually begins his speech by foregrounding the antithesis characteristic of his discourse when detailing his meet up with the president of Mexico: I’ve just landed having returned from a very important and special meeting with the president of Mexico, a man I like and respect very much. And a man who truly loves his country, Mexico. And, by the way, just like I am a man who loves my country, the United States.

He clearly establishes the difference between the United States and Mexico, but, most importantly, he goes on to directly address the issue of illegal immigration without any context providing free avenue for (judgmental) interpretation: “We agree on the importance of ending the illegal flow of drugs, cash, guns, and people across our border, and to put the cartels out of business“. He associates the people crossing the border with various illegalities and violence, creating a link between them in the hearer’s subconscious which is already set to view things as dichotomies with no middle ground.

The clash of images America vs. the amorphous other is accentuated in framing the immigrants as disrupting the status quo and being the source of all downsides, as opposed to the American people who are actual victims of the violence perpetrated by these illegal immigrants. This train of thought also seems to imply that the American people themselves would not be capable of such behavior: Countless Americans who have died in recent years would be alive today if not for the open border policies of this administration and the administration that causes this horrible, horrible thought process, called Hillary Clinton. And later on claimed: Hillary Clinton, for instance, talks constantly about her fears that families will be separated, but she’s not talking about the American families who have been permanently separated from their loved ones because of a preventable homicide, because of a preventable death, because of murder.

There is no clear statement as to the fact that illegal immigrants are wholly responsible for all criminality in the country. However, one cannot escape this view when it is framed in the way that Trump does. Moreover, the number of instances in which Trump did not clearly separate immigration from illegal immigration, can, at a superficial hearing/reading project the wrong ideas. On top of that, certain important things are left aside both in constructing and adhering to such a view. Namely, this build-up of hostility against illegal immigrants can create issues as the white majority can take anyone for an illegal immigrant. Fear and hate speech do not take a look at one’s papers or their legal status, thus, aside from conflict that can arise between legal and undocumented residents, which is dangerous in itself, conflict can arise between Americans of different origins based on such a superficial approach. In such a context, radical thought, in its hurry to bring about change, can impact negatively on the society which it aims to change for the better.

However, Trump does mention legal immigrants who have integrated successfully and have benefited the country. This could also be attributed to the fact that the image of America as a nation of immigrants is an inescapable discourse as it has been built over time and has become synonymous with the country, hence fighting it is impossible and paying tribute to it is imperative. We’ve admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015. Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. So true. But we now have an obligation to them and to their children to control future immigration as we are following, if you think, previous immigration waves.

Moreover, he does give a nod to the diversity of the American identity, by acknowledging the African American and Latino American minorities:. .. to establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first. And that in particular African-American and Latino workers who are being shut out in this process so unfairly. Going back to the tradition of accepting immigrants, Trump underlines the utilitarian nature of it, namely accepting those who can benefit the country: “To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society and their ability to be financially self- sufficient.”. .. not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. Sometimes it’s just not going to work out. It’s our right, as a sovereign nation, to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish and love us.

This proves that in his attempt to show the positive impact of immigration and America’s welcoming with open arms the tired, the poor and the huddled masses he is inevitably judgmental. From a purely pragmatic point of view, what he claims is true, however, the ideal of America, the American Dream is something which is offered to anyone without discrimination and this is precisely the thing the American discourse took pride in. He further accentuates this when bringing into discussion the ideological screening which gives no room for differences of opinion and accentuates the gap between what is American and can become American and what is not and can never be: Another reform involves new screening tests for all applicants that include, and this is so important, especially if you get the right people. And we will get the right people. An ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our country share our values and love our people.

This discussion also bring us back to the dangers of oversimplifying. Trump claims: “this is the one, I think it’s so great. It’s hard to believe, people don’t even talk about it. Zero tolerance for criminal aliens. Zero. Zero. Zero. They don’t come in here. They don’t come in here.” This worries because one cannot tell whether an immigrant is a criminal or not. Actual criminals are not admitted, what he refers to is the possibility of one committing a crime once on American soil, which is impossible to predict. Moreover, what is actually worrying and allow for my latter interpretation is the fact that he no longer makes the mention of illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants could be viewed as having a vile reason for fleeing their own country, although more often than not they seek sanctuary (e.g. the refugee crisis which marks the immediate context). His view, however, breeds animosity between residents and immigrants. What is left is to assume that every immigrant is a criminal.

The context of fear of terrorism, however, allowed for this type of discourse. All the more so as he shifted the discussion into outwardly and completely banning immigration from regions of conflict as to avoid perpetrating terrorism in America in accordance with Bush’s successful doctrine of war on terror: Countries in which immigration will be suspended would include places like Syria and Libya. And we are going to stop the tens of thousands of people coming in from Syria. We have no idea who they are, where they come from. There’s no documentation. There’s no paperwork. It’s going to end badly folks. It’s going to end very, very badly. This accounts for the success of his policy and also accentuates the antithetic rhetoric, in short: they are different and unassimilable and there is no use in trying, as a matter of fact it is dangerous.

To sum up Trump’s antithetic rhetoric and its underlying radical ideology one merely needs to look at his discourse based on dichotomies: America vs. illegal immigrants, people vs. the system, a discourse consisting mostly in generalizations and vilification of the other, a discourse bordering on hate speech.