“Rhetoric Weaponization: By Democrats” is only click-bait today! I wanted to make certain you joined us for this conversation.
Rhetoric is the art of discourse, wherein a writer or speaker strives to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. It can also be in a visual form. However, “Rhetoric” certainly IS being weaponized.
Weaponization: How is it Done?
To create a successful weaponization of something, one must first determine what will be used. Example: a kitchen knife can be just a kitchen knife. Or a crazed and angry person can take that kitchen knife and weaponize it to use to cut someone’s throat. A gun is simply a gun when manufactured. But a crazed and angry person can take that gun and weaponize it to use to slaughter a bunch of people at a country concert in Las Vegas. Knives or guns alone are NOT weapons — until “someone” turns them into weapons. The same holds true for “words.” And that’s the meat of this story today.
Rhetoric is not necessarily evil. In fact, most sales presentations are a type of rhetoric because they are used “to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.” A completed sale is the goal. But sales presentations are rarely weaponized. Why? Because the objective of sales rhetoric is always positive: the close of a sale.
The most common backdrop today for weaponized rhetoric is politics. And politicians have taken that art-form to an entirely new level. It’s important to know here that Democrats do not hold an exclusive on doing so. There are plenty of openings at the “School of Rhetoric” for enrollees from every different political perspective. But Democrats are on the debate stage now — Republicans I’m certain will join the fray as quickly as they can.
Let’s look at what was the first political term weaponized during the early days of the Donald Trump presidency: “Nationalism.”
Who can forget the travesty that played out in Charlottesville, Virginia? A group of American history buffs applied for and received a permit from the City of Charlottesville to protest the decision of Charlottesville City Council to order the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials from public spaces. Unfortunately, a large group of White Supremacists showed up along with neo-Nazi sympathizers who did NOT apply for permits to legally protest. What ensued was an all-out riot that resulted in several injuries and even one death.
In its aftermath, the use of the term “Nationalism” popped up in numerous political situations. To understand what resulted and remains on the public political stage regarding that word, we must first define “Nationalism:” Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty.” But, unfortunately, the word has been “re-defined” to be a synonym of the term “White Nationalism,” or “White Supremacy.”
There WERE White Supremacists there who initiated the violence — even the Ku Klux Klan. But the term “Nationalism” was NOT the driving force behind those people. They were NOT there to support the fundamentals of the United States of America, rather support and attempt to force their White Supremacist ideology on others.”
Subsequent to that day, “Nationalism” was weaponized by many Democrats who adopted its use to attack non-Black Americans — especially President Trump. In a post-Charlottesville rally, the president famously stated this:
“The term Nationalist is a word that some people do not like. But I AM A NATIONALIST.”
“Nationalism” has been compared to “Patriotism” most often this way: Patriotism is extreme loyalty and allegiance to one’s country. “Nationalism” takes “Patriotism” one step further — allegiance to one’s country OVER all other countries.”
In the wake of Charlottesville and that statement by Mr. Trump, the weaponizers took off! The demonization of the president that was already at a fever-pitch escalated from there. The Mainstream Media relished receiving a new tool with which to attack President Trump — even promoting (without stating it) that Nationalism means the same thing as “White Supremacy.”
As an example of how rhetoric weaponization is stealthily crafted in the marketplace, here’s how Wikipedia weaponized the entire Charlottesville situation with their explanation of Charlottesville:
“The Unite the Right rally was a white supremacist rally that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia, from August 11 to 12, 2017. Protesters were members of the far-right and included self-identified members of the alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and various right-wing militias.”
Wikileak’s description explicitly shows the weaponization of language and events for political purposes that had NO correlation to what truly happened. Don’t dare conflate “Patriotism” and “Nationalism” either. To “help” everyone understand how evil “Nationalism” is compared to “Patriotism,” Leftist Media pundits use illustrations like this:
Notice the smooth segue from Patriotism to re-defining Nationalism as White Supremacy. Know this for a certainty: the Left Media doing so is NOT accidental. They weaponize with their own rhetoric anything they can to denigrate every part of Conservatism and to attack Conservatives — especially Donald Trump.
Rhetoric Weaponization Continues After Charlottesville
In the runup to the 2020 presidential race, we are not only inundated with rhetoric from Democrats who want the White House job, but they have also discovered that rhetoric can be weaponized. With that as their objective, they certainly have done a fine job! And what better term is there with which to inundate their rhetoric and weaponize than “Racism” and its derivative “Racist.”
Who better to demonstrate for us the art of Rhetoric Weaponization than 2020 Democrat presidential candidates themselves? Here they are demonstrating to the World how to maximize one’s use of rhetoric in the alliteration of the term “Racism:”
Do you know what is pivotal in this conversation? It’s not so much the actual terms that are used. It’s the context in which they are used.
Too often — especially in the media who are almost always driven by an agenda — they do NOT include an entire conversation and certainly do not give an explanation of the context in which words are used by politicians who they want to paint into a political perspective to enhance the STORY.
Donald Trump in the context of his 50+ years of which almost all were very public shows NO propensity for White Supremacy. In fact, his life illustrates the exact opposite of that. But showing that fact does not play into the narrative the Left portray of Mr. Trump. They must weaponize the term “Nationalist” to be a negative connotation and not what Mr. Trump’s use actually was for.
“Racism” is far too often used in the same way. Senator Warren in her alliteration in the previous video segment used HER weaponization of the term to demean Mr. Trump in every way she could.
Adopting this practice is unspeakably dangerous. Why? Because the constant bashing of people by the Left actually crushes Americans’ understanding and belief in the seriousness of true racism and also Nationalism. Both terms represent critically important ideas. And taking them and weaponizing them to be used to attack someone for political purposes destroys in peoples’ minds the importance of what the words really represent. Literally, calling everyone with which one disagrees a racist or White Supremacist is the political weaponization that waters down the travesties of both.
If our leaders, many of whom have already been on presidential debate stages, are so callous to the certain results of their doing so, how can Americans trust that their intentions are honest? It’s much like the child’s story of the little boy that cried, “Wolf!” When a real wolf came along and was about to attack and eat him, his cries were ignored by those around him.
God forbid that Americans would ever become numb to Racism and White Supremacy!
But that could certainly happen — and may have already. Politicians need to learn this lesson: Hold allegations against anyone and everyone unless and until all the facts are known and that those facts are real and applicable to the situation in which they are referencing.
They too need to remember: that practice cuts both ways. I would be horrified if in this election cycle the weaponization of rhetoric would occur on both sides of the political aisle. If that happens, you can be sure Americans will quickly tune out. And we know ALL Americans engaged in seeing, hearing, and processing all the facts about political candidates running for office. That cannot happen if Americans tire of back-and-forth rhetoric and simply turn a deaf ear.
Honestly, I’m pretty sure that many Americans already have. But maybe some politicians are glad that has happened!