The Darkening Rhetoric of Donald Trump: A Closer Look at His 2024 Campaign

In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump’s rhetoric has taken a notably darker turn, as evidenced by his recent speeches and rally performances. During a rally in Prairie Du Chien, Wisconsin, Trump paused in the midst of discussing violent crimes committed by immigrants to reassure his supporters that he would eventually return to his signature slogan, “making America great again.” However, he acknowledged the somber tone of his address, stating, “This is dark. This is a dark speech.” This admission encapsulates a broader trend observed throughout his campaign, where the former president’s language has shifted towards a more aggressive and negative tone.

A Shift in Tone and Content

Since entering politics in 2015, Trump has been known for his controversial and often inflammatory rhetoric, particularly regarding immigration. However, recent analyses indicate that he is ramping up this aggressive language as he faces off against Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee. A New York Times computer analysis revealed that Trump is using 32% more negative words than positive ones in his speeches compared to 21% during his 2016 campaign. Furthermore, the average length of his rally speeches has increased significantly, from 45 minutes in 2016 to 82 minutes in the current cycle.

Research from UCLA corroborates this trend, indicating that Trump’s use of violent vocabulary has escalated over time. This shift is not merely a stylistic choice; it reflects a calculated strategy to galvanize his base by invoking fear and urgency.

The Reaction of Supporters

Despite the increasingly dark tone of Trump’s speeches, his supporters appear unfazed, often responding with chants of “fight, fight, fight!” This enthusiasm was particularly evident following a July rally in Pennsylvania, which was interrupted by gunfire during an assassination attempt on Trump. Attendees like Shane Chesher expressed their belief that Trump is simply addressing the “realities of the situation,” suggesting that his heightened rhetoric resonates with their own fears about national security and the state of the country.

In the aftermath of the shooting, Trump called for unity but simultaneously warned of an “enemy from within,” indicating a belief that internal threats are more dangerous than external ones. His language has consistently framed the political landscape as one of existential threats, with phrases like “we have an evil world” underscoring his narrative.

The Strategy Behind the Rhetoric

Political analysts suggest that Trump’s intensified language is a response to the stress of a competitive election cycle. Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political rhetoric, notes that Trump tends to escalate his rhetoric when he feels threatened or insecure about his standing in the race. His recent comments about opponents, labeling them as “mentally impaired” or “stupid,” reflect a strategy aimed at undermining their credibility while rallying his base.

Trump’s aides argue that he is merely speaking the truth and addressing the pressing issues facing the nation. In a rally in Juneau, Wisconsin, he stated, “If we lose this election, this country is finished,” emphasizing the stakes he believes are involved in the upcoming vote.

Dark Rhetoric Across the Political Spectrum

While Trump’s rhetoric has darkened, it is essential to note that Democrats have also employed stark language during the campaign. President Joe Biden, before stepping aside for Harris, warned that a Trump victory could signify the end of democracy as Americans know it. Harris has continued this theme, cautioning about the “extremely serious” consequences of a Trump presidency.

The Democratic campaign has shifted towards a more optimistic tone, focusing on themes of “freedom” rather than “democracy.” However, Harris has not shied away from warning about the dangers posed by Trump, labeling him as having a “desire to be a dictator.”

The Impact of Polling and Strategy

Trump’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric may also stem from his awareness of polling data that shows a competitive race against Harris, particularly in key swing states. His campaign has acknowledged the need to focus on issues rather than personal attacks, yet Trump has consistently chosen the latter as a means to sway undecided voters. Analysts suggest that this strategy is designed to instill fear about his opponents, a tactic he has employed since his first presidential run.

Columnist Jonah Goldberg posits that Trump’s repugnant rhetoric is aimed at winning over undecided voters, particularly those who may not typically engage in the electoral process. By framing the election as a matter of survival for America, Trump seeks to motivate those who might otherwise remain apathetic.

Conclusion: The Future of Trump’s Rhetoric

As the 2024 election approaches, Trump’s rhetoric is likely to continue evolving. His speeches reflect a blend of fear-mongering and populism, targeting perceived threats from both within and outside the country. While his supporters rally around his aggressive stance, political analysts warn that such a strategy may alienate moderate voters who are crucial for a successful campaign.

In a political landscape increasingly defined by divisive rhetoric, the implications of Trump’s language extend beyond mere campaign strategy; they shape the broader discourse surrounding American identity, security, and democracy itself. As the election draws near, the question remains: will this dark rhetoric resonate with enough voters to secure a victory, or will it ultimately backfire?