What does this guy,
have to do with this guy?
I think the answer has something to do with “genres”--the types or categories of literature, film, music, and so on.
In film, genres essentially evolve in the same way. There is a period of innovation in
which the standards for the genre are set. Next, the genre enjoys a period of replication where the
genre becomes a powerful resource for filmic invention and a series of similar
films flood the market. Eventually,
the genre enters a period of self-reflexivity in which films begin to “talk
back” to the generic conventions that constrain them. And finally, self-reflexivity gives way to full blown
parody, spoof, and send-up.
Okay, that last little bit isn’t in keeping with classical
genre theory, but I think works anyway.
Also, I study comedy, so you knew I was going there eventually, right?
Here’s an example from the horror genre—because I like
horror films and because that is how Sharon Croft explained genre when I took
film studies at Capital University.
- Innovation—(1974) Texas Chainsaw Massacre & (1978) Halloween get the slasher genre going.
- Replication or “Can I get a sequel?”—(1980) Friday the 13th and (1984) A Nightmare on Elm Street define the slasher genre and generate franchises that still haven’t quite gone away.
- Self-reflexivity—(1996) Scream begins a slasher franchise that is keenly aware of its participation in the genre and occasionally references not only itself, but also other films in the genre.
- Parody—(2000) Scary Movie gets Ghost Face high and makes a pile of money mocking the slasher genre and horror films in general.
- Rebirth—(2004) Saw picks up the serial killing slasher, adds a creepy puppet, and earns its way into the Guinness Book of World Records as the most successful horror franchise in Hollywood history.
So what does this have to do with the Republican nominee for
president?
Rhetorical critics, like the one writing this post that you
are miraculously still reading, are at times quite taken with the idea of
genre. Speeches are often
classified as to how they respond to various occasions, how they function, or
which form or forms they prefer.[1] Beyond speeches, Glenn Richardson has
also noted how the genres of popular culture—like uh, I don’t know, horror
films—impress themselves upon other kinds of messages (notably political
advertisements) in order to convey complex meanings in apparently simple
packages. Essentially, these
genres are powerful sources for inventing persuasive messages. Appealing to a genre activates already
existing tendencies in audiences to like or dislike particular kinds of
messages and triggers emotions associated with the messages in the genre. This persuasive potential isn’t lost on
the power hungry and politically ambitious.
Given the overwhelming reliance on fear appeals (“Make
America Safe Again”) during the Republican National Committee’s quadrennial spectacular
scare-a-thon,[2] I find it no
small leap to suggest that contemporary conservative rhetoric is particularly
drawn to the signs and symbols of the horror genre. Of course, fear appeals in conservative politics aren’t new
(and, I should add, aren’t limited only to conservatives—the DNC had plenty of
Donald Trump centered fear appeals), but characterizing Republican-talk in
terms of the horror genre might be helpful in understanding the evolution of
conservative discourse that created a space where the Donald could take up the
standard for the GOP in the general election somewhere other than on The Simpsons.
Think about it.
Genres begin with innovation. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that contemporary
conservative discourse begins with Reagan. Which is to say, Reagan is the Leatherface of Republican
rhetoric, which is also to say, he was terrifying in ways that his rhetorical
descendants never really were/are (neoliberalism is a thing, people).
Bush Sr., then, takes up Reagan’s already existing genre and
functions as replication of a well established way of relating to the
world. Consider him Jason to
Reagan’s Leatherface—a burgeoning franchise that looks a lot like the original,
but is a little more predictable.
Speaking of franchises, Bush part Deux takes the genre out
of replication—he wasn’t really like
his dad or the Reagan—and into self-reflexivity. His rhetorical reliance on
social conservatism (of compassionate conservatism, as his campaigns preferred)
was certainly unorthodox, but thanks in no small part to some genetic
engineering and his penchant for being photographed near flags, he looked like
a president and he occasionally did things that reminded us of his Republican
predecessors (like, you know, invade Iraq). Exchanging the hockey mask for a ghost face, the result
(murder of innocents) was the same, but the genre appeared to be reaching its
limits and collapsing back in on itself.
And here we are. Republican slasher film rhetoric appears primed to make its last final generic evolution. If Trump is the new (orange-tinged) face of conservatism, perhaps his rhetoric is best understood as a generic parody. It all sounds familiar, comprised of the same old scare tactics and fear appeals of Reagan era rhetoric and its replicants, but it’s hard to take too seriously, almost like everything he says is accompanied by a wink and a nod. In fact, his incredible reliance on catchphrases, slogans, and talking points—without any of the argumentation—makes it seem almost as though he’s mocking Republicans rather than rallying them. His fear appeals are ridiculous, laughable, and reprehensible.
But that’s exactly why they’re appealing. The horror audience gets a double
pleasure from parody because it at once supplies the scare-tactics that they so
enjoy, but also rewards them for getting the jokes and catching the references
along the way. Republicans like to
be scared, so they tell the same ghost stories with many of the same characters
(immigrants, communists, and Clintons), but with Trump they get to revel in the
pleasures self-mockery and laughter as they celebrate and pay homage to their
rhetorical legacy all the while preparing it for rebirth with a touch of
torture porn.
The upshot, although liberal commentators and critics are at
once terrified and tickled by the idea of a Trump nomination, his expression of
the genre—though potentially lucrative and franchise worthy—isn’t likely to
scare audiences enough to have staying power. Trump’s Reagan/Bush parody isn’t scary enough to move his
audience to the polls, but the Republican Jigsaw killer—whoever he is—will be
something terrifying indeed.
[1] For more,
read something—anything—by Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Kathleen Hall
Jamieson. Joshua Gunn, too, has a
few good examples of rhetorical genre in press worth checking out. Oh, and other people, too. Just read stuff. Reading is good for you.
[2] http://time.com/4419725/rnc-fear-violence/;
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/despair_and_fear_after_trump_at_the_rnc.html;
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/donald-trump-delivers-dark-fear-mongering-rnc-speech-w430397;
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-rnc-convention-trump-safety-huppke-20160718-story.html;
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/19/fear_and_loathing_of_clinton_forget_melania_hillary_hating_took_center_stage_at_rncs_opening_night/;
