Behind the Curtain: Persuading the Nation

It is too easy to say Trump speaks only to his base, and to characterize his base as clueless zombies or raging racists. Trump’s success lies in his ability to speak to the middle — to good people who get swayed by his rhetoric.

I’m going to break down the president’s June 1st “Law and Order” speech and give my take on how he and his speechwriters accomplish that.

Trump spoke for 6 minutes and 45 seconds. He used that time to get people to believe it is right to send military forces into U.S. cities. Remember, Trump and his speechwriters know there are many people who can’t be persuaded no matter what he says. He’s not talking to them. And he’s not just talking to his base either. He’s talking to the people who are on the fence about whether to support him or not.

I broke the speech down by time segments, because he’s using his time very deliberately. When I work with lawyers and students on opening statements I show them how to get the maximum effect and clarity of argument in the first 1–2 minutes, which if it’s done right will get the jury on your side before you lay out the more complex details of the case.

0:00–1:00

Trump spends the first two minutes of his speech doing exactly what it takes to accomplish his goal: setting up a clear, simple protagonist whose cause is right, and a clear antagonist whose cause is wrong.

He states immediately what we all agree on: justice needs to be served for George Floyd and his family (though he never says George’s last name). He makes a clear statement that it is not peace-loving citizens and protesters who are causing the riots. He correctly identifies the locale of the chaos as America’s poorest populations.

So far, every good-hearted person can agree with what he’s saying.

He then positions himself as the protagonist (which is what all presidents need to do in a crisis, so it’s not just him), and he states that he will “fight to keep you safe” and he says he is the “President of law and order.”

In the middle of rioting and chaos, these can be heard as comforting words. But he’s using language carefully here. The words “I will fight” and “law and order” are a prelude to what he’s going to say in a few minutes.

1:00–1:42

Having established that we all care about the same things (justice and safety), he identifies the villain. This is where his and his speechwriters’ skill is really evident. He gives a deliberately long list of villains we all can agree on — looters, rioters, etc. — and then just tosses “Antifa” in the mix. That is the only specific group he names so it stands out.

Then he references two specific acts of violence which are clearly chosen very carefully.

The first reference is to “a man left for dead” in Dallas. The second reference is a woman in upstate New York who was “attacked by dangerous thugs.”

OK…here’s what he’s doing. At face value, it sounds like two awful examples of violence (we’ll get to the word “thugs” in a minute) that everyone can agree on. But a 5-minute Google search on those two incidents gives a more lucid view of what he’s saying. He and his team know most people don’t know the references and they also know most people won’t do the 5-minute Google search. But if you do, here’s what you find:

The man attacked in Dallas (whom Trump is positioning as the sympathetic protagonist of that example) was a machete-wielding white guy attacking a group of protesters (antagonists) who were either black or aligned with them.

The woman attacked in New York (protagonist) was white, and her attackers were black (antagonists). Trump naturally uses the word “thugs” to describe them, which he knows he can pass off as having its 1930s association with anyone causing violence, while knowing full well it has now become synonymous with “black gang members” for scared white people.

He then wraps all this in a blanket statement that “numerous state and local governments have failed to safeguard” their citizens.

To summarize, Trump’s villains are those who attack white people and the local governments who have failed to protect those people.

He accomplishes all that in 42 seconds. He knows mass audiences need clarity and brevity.

1:42–3:04

He gives a huge list of other rioting and destruction that everyone everywhere would agree is terrible. He end-caps the list with the statement that these crimes are “an offense to humanity and a crime against God.”

This is the first mention of God, which is more than simply an appeal to Evangelicals. He’s positioning his purpose as having a moral foundation. This is critical to winning people over; the hero needs to have purpose that is logically correct, emotionally resonant, and philosophically grounded.

He spends the next 25 seconds listing a series of simple winner-loser combinations, like “creation vs. destruction,” “security vs. anarchy,” “healing vs. hatred,” and so on. No one anywhere would choose to root for the losers in those combos. Trump wants you to be on the side of the winners, which he succinctly sums up with the statement, “Our country always wins.”

So, in three minutes of highly-crafted speechwriting, Trump has brought his audience to the critical moment when he’s going to unveil what he wants support for. Up to this moment he has only repeated things that are easy to agree with. His primary target audience — people who are questioning whether they want to support him or not — would be having a hard time not nodding their heads in agreement with what he has so far said.

One second after saying that our country always wins, he says “That is why I’m taking immediate presidential action…” and goes on to elaborate. He tells us he’s going to mobilize forces to protect us. He deliberately references 2nd Amendment rights (his scariest reference in the whole thing, in my opinion), which feeds people’s need to have agency and choice. And he lists a whole lot of stuff he’s going to do, including overriding governors and mayors if they don’t agree with him.

If he had led with this statement, he wouldn’t have had nearly as many people nodding in agreement.

5:34–6:45

He then makes an oblique reference to “One law and order” and “One beautiful law.” He never clarifies what he means by this, but I take it to be a reference to God’s law — as interpreted by those who see God as the mighty judge of absolute right and absolute wrong.

He wraps it up with another winner-loser rhetorical list, this time things like “where there is no law there is no opportunity” and “where there is no safety there is no future.” This is again to give the audience an easy way to align with the winner and hero — the militarized streets of America.

Then Trump goes to stand outside a church with a Bible in his hand after military forces tear gas the protesters out of the way.

If you’re interested in how persuasion works, this speech is a good example. He’s going to keep doing this, particularly during the run-up to the election. And I intend to keep breaking it down. He can’t be allowed to set the narrative. But if we don’t offer an alternative, he and his team will. The first step is understanding how they’re doing it.

David Mann is a story specialist who teaches leaders and attorneys how to make an impact by clarifying their message. David has worked with Fortune 500 companies and law firms nationwide, and he is on the faculty of Loyola School of Law and the National Institute for Trial Advocacy.