Voice
Since the topic that I selected in the beginning of this semester was centered around questioning the ideology (and the candidate himself) behind the slogan “Make America Great Again” used by Donald Trump during his presidential campaign, it was only fitting that a blog entitled “Rhetoric, Race, and Religion” peaked my interest. The writer (a graduate student at Campbell University Divinity School, father of four, and minister) goes by the name of Kenneth Vandergriff and he is currently pursuing his Ph.D at Florida State University.
The first post I analyzed is titled “Has America Ever Been Great: Donald Trump and the Making of America” and was posted on March 4, 2016. Overall, he is critical of both Trump and America equally and keeps the tone and vocabulary pretty academic (in relation to most bloggers). This is made clear through his choice of words like “baffles, rhetoric, religiosity, guffaw, systematically exterminated, ramifications, biological warfare, and squalor.” Typically these words wouldn’t show up in an article if the author is not attempting to keep the written piece on a certain academic level. Though there are exceptions, usually (unsurprisingly) it is only when he is quoting Trump. Case in point:
One of the first things that I noticed after reading the whole article is that at times, he can come off as if he is undermining the hateful and misogynistic comments/actions said or done by Trump and/or his supporters. For example, he refers to the comment that Trump made about Megyn Kelly and her menstrual cycle as “off-color,” when really it is completely degrading and dismissive since what Trump was really communicating through that comment is that women should not be taken seriously or listened to. It’s more than off-color. Another example of how he can come off as out of touch is when he says “I understand that some Americans desire a wall on the border.” The reason I used this example is because he is trying to sympathize with his fellow conservatives on this point, disregarding the rhetoric that has surrounded the building of this wall and how it has nothing to do with national security or a difference in policy preference. When the candidate in questions labels a whole group of people as “murderers, rapists, and bad guys” it is clearly racist and xenophobic, so they don’t deserve to be coddled.
Though it may not seem like it because of my previous criticism of his post, I wholeheartedly and thoroughly agreed with and appreciated his message and the voice he delivers it in. For example in this excerpt he brilliantly critiques the heinous history of America and uses quotes to question the legitimacy of white people calling themselves Americans all in two sentences,
“White “Americans” systematically exterminated the Native American people, using tactics as vile as blankets infected with small pox. Again, Americans would rather ignore that this happened than face the ramifications of biological warfare for the sake of colonialism.”
It is relatively easy to see from the previous sentences and other areas throughout the post that he is angry with the use of the term “great” to describe this country in its’ past and now.
The title of the second post is “Unending Black Death and the Rise of Fascism in America” and was posted on May 17th, 2016. He starts out this post with three paragraphs made up of short sentences, each sentence ranges from 6 to 12 words. The first paragraph is about the black man who was wrongfully murdered by the police, the second about Hitler, and the third about Trump. I believe the purpose behind making the length of the sentences so short is different for the first paragraph than between the second and third. In the first paragraph I believe he is trying to evoke sympathy or at least some kind of emotion for the man. Especially since this is the second sentence, “The cycle of unending black and brown death pushes me to tears.” It’s an interesting juxtaposition because he is just plainly stating facts about the man, but because of the situation he brings out a certain emotion just by writing a simple sentence like this (“A father of two working on his GRE who couldn’t escape the life he once led,”). In the second and third paragraphs most of his sentences are shorter than the first because he is trying to emphasize the similarities between Trump and Hitler while also grabbing your attention with this curt style of writing. When comparing sentences from both paragraphs it is evident that he is both extremely critical and angered by the actions and words of Trump.
2nd paragraph examples:
“ He watches as someone takes a podium and begins to talk about how the country was great once, how it could be great again. It resonates with him. Over the next few months he begins to speak the same way. It turns out he has a way with words, a charisma that few can match.”
3rd paragraph examples:
“He finds his niche in reality television and a hairstyle that looks like the worst hair piece ever made. He runs for President. At first it seems like a joke. It seems that at some point his “movement” will blow over. It doesn’t.”
Overall, Vandergriff displays a compelling argument that approaches the Trump and “Make America Great Again” issue in a smart way and uses his background/life experience to give this issue a twist (religion).
