The impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump begins later today, January 21, 2020.
Most of us presume to know the conclusion: acquittal by the Republican-majority Senate.
If the conclusion is known, is there a good reason to have a debate, trial, or other procedure? What we call “epideictic” rhetoric, the rhetoric of ceremony, seems to be the appropriate category for this process, not “forensic” or “legislative” or “deliberative” rhetoric. This is all a show for politically engaged voters who care passionately about their partisan tribes.
Some of my colleagues would argue that cannot be the case. Surely this is meant to persuade the open-minded and magical moderates. What about the independents? The #NeverTrump Republicans?
The research on partisanship isn’t comforting.
Studies provide evidence that partisans rationalize complete flips of positions if they are told a quote by a major figure came from someone from their party or the opposition. Tell a Bush voter that Obama said something, and they will oppose the position, even if the real source was George W. Bush. Obama voters are no more reliable, shifting their views based on to whom a position was attributed.
Another study asked people about a crime committed during a campaign: someone stealing yard signs. If they agreed with the perpetrator, the study participants rationalized the crime. That was true of both Democrats and Republicans.
We’re tribal, and it is getting worse. Donald Trump knows this and knows how to play to his voting base.
Republican politicians may or may not be rationalizing their defense of Trump. Some probably have convinced themselves he is a victim of Democrats with sour grape syndrome. Some might believe he isn’t a great person, but they fear Democrats gaining power more. Others, a few, are cynical politicians playing to their voters.
I’ve met and I know politicians in both parties, and in some third parties. I know political operatives.
Most people in politics believe what they say. I know, that’s hard to imagine, but they are committed partisans. They believe their party is “right” and the other party is “wrong” and even dangerous for the national welfare.
My colleagues in academia cannot imagine people really would rather have Trump in office than vote for a more honest, more decent, Democrat. Yet, studies show partisans really do hate each other. They fear, in the literal sense, the other side.
Donald Trump is horrible. I don’t like him at all. But, there’s no reason to believe impeachment will change him. I fear it will only reinforce his supporters’ belief that Democrats are out to destroy Republicans, and vice-versa.
Democrats likely do believe they are standing for nation, not party. Yet, science suggests rationalizing is likely, too.
Rhetoricians want to believe in ethos and logos, but we know the danger of pathos. Appeals to emotion are stronger than appeals to logic, reason, and character. We are emotional animals.
Increasingly, I am convinced Trump’s use of Twitter and electronic media is brilliant. He might be operating on impulse, something of an instinct. Old-media publications and their websites don’t have the same emotional power as memes and Tweets. We know images and short messages work better than long, nuanced arguments.
Impeachment, which is the right thing to do, is going to help Donald Trump’s re-election. Democrats cannot imagine that’s true, but I believe the data suggest Trump’s victim narrative motivates his base. When he is acquitted, it might demoralize Democratic voters. So, doing what is right could produce the wrong result, long-term.
There will be a lot of polling data to study for years to come. Sadly, this is an experiment in rhetoric through which we will live.