Dangerous Demagogues and Weaponized Communication by demandside

DangerousDemagoguesand WeaponizedCommunication

JenniferR.Mercieca

Thisessayarguesthatwecanusefullyseparate “heroicdemagogues” from “dangerousdemagogues ” bywhetherornotthedemagogueallowsthemselvestobeheldaccountablefortheirwords andactions. “Dangerousdemagoguery” canbethoughtofas “weaponizedcommunication” that useswordsasweaponstoachievethedangerousdemagogue’sstrategicgoals.Theessayexamines severalrecentexamplesofdangerousdemagoguesusingweaponizedcommunicationstrategies, includingconspiracytheoristAlexJones,PresidentDonaldTrump,andNeo-NaziAndrew Anglin.Weaponizedcommunicationisadangerinanydemocracyasitcorrespondswith democraticerosion.

Keywords: authoritarianism,dangerousdemagogue,demagoguery,democracy,heroicdemagogue, weaponizedcommunication

“Thesepeoplearelyingscum,” saidinfamousconspiracytheoristAlexJoneson September29,2018,ashe “crashed” apanelatthe TexasTribune’sTribune PoliticsFestival. “ThesearethepeoplewhohelpedHitler,helpedStalincometo power.Thesearetheauthoritarianbootlickersoftheestablishment,” Jonessaid, pointingatmyco-panelistsandme. “I’mheretoexposethisfraud” (InfoWars). Thepanelwasentitled, “ThePoliticalRhetoricofDonaldTrumpandAlexJones: OnFakeNewsandWeaponizedCommunications,” andIwasoneofthree paneliststheretodiscusstheideascontainedinthisessay.

TheAnti-DefamationLeaguecalledJones “theconspiracyKing” forthingshe hassaidonhis InfoWars program(19).Joneshasclaimedtobelieve,amongmany things,thattheSeptember11,2001terroristattacksontheWorldTradeCenter andWashington,DCwerea “falseflag” perpetratedbytheUSgovernment.He hasdeniedtherewasamassshootingatSandyHookElementarySchoolin2012 andclaimedthatnewsstoriesaboutthetragedyfeaturedcrisisactorsratherthan murderedchildrenandtheirgrievingparents.InJones’sworld,juiceboxesmake

JenniferR.MerciecaisAssociateProfessorofCommunicationatTexasA&MUniversity,4234TAMU,College Station,TX77843,USA.E-mail: mercieca@tamu.edu

meninfertile,tainteddrinkingwaterturnsfrogsgay,BillClintoncausedthe1995 OklahomaCitybombing,aglobalistconspiracycouldsendeveryAmericaninto FederalEmergencyManagementAgencycamps,andsoon.Duringtheprevious severalmonthsJoneshadbeen “deplatformed”—bannedfromYouTube,Facebook,andTwitter;AppleandMicrosoftbannedhis InfoWars app;andPayPal ceasedfacilitatingInfoWars’sfinancialtransactions allbecauseheviolatedthe platforms’ termsofservice,largelyonthegroundsofhatespeechandinciting violence.Priortobeingdeplatformed,Joneshadatremendousfollowing.By January2017,Joneshadattractednearly9millionmonthlyuniquepagevisitors, whoreturnedtohispagenearly50milliontimeseachmonth.Jones’sYouTube videoshadaccumulatedmorethan1.2billionviews(Rutenberg).AllthatattentionhadtranslatedintogreatwealthforJones,whousedhisInfoWarswebsiteto selldietarysupplements,t-shirts,andemergencypreparednesssupplies items thatappealedtohisconspiracy-mindedaudience(Brown).

Suddenlydeplatformed,Jonesstruggledtoreachhisaudience.Carrying abullhornandaggressivelystandinginfrontofthestage,Joneshadcometo the Tribune festivaltomakeavideoforInfoWars.ThatvideoportrayedJonesas avictimofcensorshipaswellasawarriorforfreespeech. “Igetintheirfaceand Iexposethetruthandthat’swhatI’mgonnado,” Jonessaidinthevideo (InfoWars). “YouguyscallpeopleaNazialldaylong,thenyouguystryto suppresspeople’sspeech,youarethemodernbookburners,” heaccusedthe panelists. “Hey,heyWeaselWarzel,” Jonesyelledthroughhisbullhornat Buzzfeed reporterCharlieWarzelasheleanedintowardWarzelonthestagejustafew feetaway: “Yougoaroundpolicingtogetmyvideostakendown,sodon’tsitthere andactlikethatwhenItalkoverafascistlikeyouthatI’mabadperson.You’ re abootlickeroftheestablishmentandashamefulpersonandadisgracetothis country.”

AfterseveralminutesofJones “bullhorning” ourpanel,Iraisedmyhandto requestpermissiontospeak.Hemadeeyecontactwithmeandwithaheadjerkin mydirection,hebrieflypausedsothatImightaskmyquestion. “Wouldyoulike tojoinusAlex?” Iasked. “Wecouldgetyouachairandamicandhave aconversation?” Jonesbegantoshakehisheadno,buthedidnothavetimeto respondmorefullytomyinvitationbecausehisattentionwasimmediately absorbedbyaconfederatewhomhehadarrangedto “attack” him.TheconfederatestuckhistongueoutatJonesandpretendedtohithimwithapaperfan whileJonescalledhim “youraveragementallyillDemocrat” andsaidhe “felt sorry ” for theman’ s “mentalillness.” EventuallytheAustinPoliceDepartment escortedboththe “attacker” andJonesoutofthepanel the InfoWars video showedhimleaving,withhisvoicemodifiedtomakeJonessounddevilishas hesaid, “Iamhereindefianceofyourtyranny.Weareonlygrowingstronger.” Jonesrelocatedtoanearbystreetcornerandcontinuedhisbullhorneddiatribe untiltherainfinallydrovehimaway.

AlexJonesdidnotcometoourpaneltopersuadeuswewereglobalistspaidby GeorgeSorostodestroyhimandfreedom.Hedidnotcometoourpanelto exchangegoodreasonsforhisbeliefs,nordidhehaveourconsenttoengagein communicationwithus.Rather,Jonesattendedourpanelasan adbaculum threat offorceorintimidation tostageaconfrontationand “ expose ” usas “bootlickers” tohisaudienceforviolentretribution.BecauseJonestalkedoverus withhisbullhorn,wecouldnotenterintodiscussionordebatewithhim.Because Jonesrefusedtositdownanddiscussweaponizedcommunicationwithus,we couldnotquestionhimabouthistactics.BecauseJoneswouldnotconverse,we couldnotholdhimaccountableforhiswordsandactions.

AfterJonesleft,thepanelistsdiscussedhowhis “crashing” ourpanelwas aperfectexampleofthepointsthatwehadbeenmakingabouthisrhetoric.As IsaidthenandasIwillargueinthisessay,Jones’stacticsin “crashing” ourpanel canbestbeunderstoodas “weaponizedcommunication,” orthestrategicuseof communicationasaninstrumentaltoolandasanaggressivemeanstogain complianceandavoidaccountability.Specifically,weaponizedcommunicationis acollectionofrhetoricaltechniquesusedbywhatIargueare “dangerousdemagogues. ” Inthefollowingpages,Ifirstdistinguishbetween “heroicdemagogues” and “dangerousdemagogues,” andsecond,Iarguethatdangerousdemagogues arethoselikeJoneswhorefusetobeheldaccountablefortheirwordsandactions. Finally,Iconcludethatweaponizedcommunicationisitselfdangerousbecauseit facilitatesdemocraticerosionanddeniesconsent.

PreviousScholarshiponDemagoguesandDemagoguery

Rhetoricalstudieshasfrequentlyexaminedthetechniquesofdemagogues(as demagoguery),butithasstruggledtoestablishthecriteriabywhichwecould legitimatelyidentifydemagogues.Thisessayseekstocarefullyseparatethequestionsofwhocanorshouldbeconsidereda “demagogue” fromthequestionof howdemagoguesuserhetorictogainpower.Afterfirstacknowledgingthat demagoguescanbeheroicleadersofthepeopleratherthandangerousvillains, Iarguethatthereisasinglecriterionbywhichdangerousdemagoguescanbe identified:whetherornottheyallowthemselvestobeheldaccountablefortheir wordsandactions.Further,Iarguethatdangerousdemagoguesuseweaponized communicationtechniquestogaincomplianceandpreventthemselvesfrom beingheldaccountable.Heroicdemagoguescertainlyuserhetoric,buttheydo notweaponizecommunication.Ouranalysisofbothdemagoguesanddemagoguerywillimproveifwedistinguishthe “demagoguery” ofheroicdemagogues fromthe “demagoguery” ofdangerousdemagogues.InthisessayIfocusexclusivelyontheweaponizedcommunicationtacticsofdangerousdemagogues.

Historically,wehaverecognizedthat “demagoguery” (thetechniques,tactics, andstrategiesusedbydemagogues)isapotentialdangerinanygovernment basedonthewillofthepeopleinwhichpoliticalpoweriswonorlostbasedon

persuasionandvoting(Mathews).Forthatreason,rhetoricalscholars,intheir attemptstodistinguish “good” rhetoricfrom “bad ” rhetoricor “noble” rhetoric from “base” rhetoric,havebeenconcernedimplicitlyandexplicitlywiththe questionofdemagoguery.LargelyinresponsetoAdolfHitler’ srisetopowerin GermanyandlaterJosephMcCarthy’srisetothepoliticalforefrontinthe UnitedStates,rhetoricalscholarslikeBarnetBaskerville,ErnestG.Bormann, WilliamNorwoodBrigance,andCharlesW.Lomasbegantotakeaninterestin demagogueryintheearly1950s.Lomas,forexample,hopedto “ identifyand combatdemagoguerywhenitarisesinrespectablequarters ” (160).He describeddemagogueryas, “theprocessbywhichskillfulspeakersandwriters seektoinfluencepublicopinionbyemployingthetraditionaltoolsofrhetoric withcompleteindifferencetotruth … itsprimarymotivationispersonalgain” (161).AsLomas’sdefinitionimplies,earlierrhetoricalscholarshipondemagoguerywasmainlyinterestedinexposingdemagogueryinthehopeofpreventingtheillegitimateuseofrhetoricbythosewhoseekpoliticalpower.Inthese analyses,a “ demagogue” wasonewhoused “demagoguery,” demagoguery beingtheessentialcharacteristicofthedemagogue.

Morerecently,scholarshavecalledintoquestionconventionaldescriptionsof demagoguesanddemagoguery.In2004,J.MichaelHoganandL.GlenWilliams askedscholarstore-interrogateourassumptionsaboutdemagogueswhenthey arguedthatlabelingHueyLongasa “southerndemagoguereflectsaculturalbias, evenasortofelitiststereotyping” (151).Thenextyear,PatriciaRoberts-Miller pressedscholarstore-thinkourconceptofdemagogueryinorderto “develop acriticalrhetoricthatarticulatesstandardsforgoodpublicdiscoursethatdoes notexcludethealreadyexcluded” (“Democracy” 460).ResponsestoRobertsMillerbyJamesFrancisDarsey,StevenR.Goldzwig,andJ.MichaelHoganand DavidTellarguedthatdemagogueryisasociological,ratherthanarhetorical, problemandthatdemagoguerystudieswerethriving,albeitunderothernames. Inanotherapproachtorevitalizingdemagoguerystudies,JoshuaGunnexamined howdesire,hysterics,andlovemotivatebothdemagoguesandtheiraudiences (“Hystericizing”).Since2015,DonaldTrump’spoliticalcampaignhasrenewed bothpublicandscholarlyinterestindemagoguesanddemagoguery.Inparticular, Roberts-Millerhasusefullyandcarefullyhelpedustoseethatdemagoguesemerge from “demagogiccultures,” whicharerifewithbadargumentationandpolarizing propaganda(Rhetoric).

Mycontributiontothesediscussionsofdemagoguesanddemagogueryisto arguethattherearetwokindsofdemagogues oneaheroandoneavillain and thatwecanidentifythevillainousdemagoguebywhetherornottheypermit themselvestobeheldaccountablefortheirwordsandactions.Iarguethat unaccountability isthedefiningoressentialfeatureofthedangerousdemagogue. The dangerousdemagogue’sdemagoguery theirrhetoricaltactics areuseful insofarastheyhelpdemagoguestoavoidaccountability.Aswesawwiththe

268 Mercieca

exampleofAlexJonesaboveandasIwillexplainindetailbelow,dangerous demagoguesoftenuse “weaponizedcommunication” strategiestoaccomplish theirgoals.

WhoIsaDemagogue?

Accusingsomeoneofbeingademagogueisprimarilyafearappealcoupled withacritiqueof argumentumadverecundiam (argumentfromauthority)that constitutesapersonasanunfitleaderofthepeople.Howthedemagogueis judged “unfit” changesbasedonhow “demagogue” isconstructedwithinits “politicalfiction” (Mercieca, Founding).Allpoliticalcommunitieshave apoliticalfictionthatenablesself-understanding.Aculture’ spoliticalfiction tellsthestoryofpoliticalheroes,villains,andthebirthsanddeathsofgovernments.Withineachpoliticalfictionwefindacharacterwhoisoftenlabeled “demagogue ”— butwhoisalsosometimeslabeled “agitator, ”“ mob-master,” or (morerecently) “troll.” Nomatterwhichpoliticalfictionweexamine,wefind thattheaccusationofbeingademagoguerestsprimarilyonthefearofpower restinginthewronghands.

Despitetoday’scommonnegativeconnotation,wecanunderstand a “demagogue” tobeaherooravillain.Ifweturntothe OxfordEnglishDictionary, welearnthatademagogue(asanoun)hastwocontradictorydefinitions.Thefirst definitionisneutralorpositive: “inancienttimes,aleaderofthepeople;apopular leaderororatorwhoespousedthecauseofthepeopleagainstanyotherpartyinthe state.” Theseconddefinitionisexplicitlynegative: “aleaderofapopularfaction,or ofthemob;apoliticalagitatorwhoappealstothepassionsandprejudicesofthe mobinordertoobtainpowerorfurtherhisowninterests;anunprincipledor factiouspopularorator.” The OED describesthedemagogueaseitheraheroor avillain thedemagogueeitherdefendsthepeople’sinterestsfromcorruptionor usespolarizingrhetoricforhisorherowngain.Theseopposingcharacterizations reflectthefactthatitisdifficulttoknowhowtothinkaboutdemagoguesandalso reflectourhistoricambiguityaboutpopularrule.

Wearenotusedtothinkingofa “demagogue” asahero,butthatmightbe becauseourunderstandingofdemagogueshascomeprimarilyfromthecriticsof AtheniandemocracylikeAristotle,whobelievedthatitwasatbest “government intheinterestofthepoor” (1279b),andlikePlato,whobelievedthatitwas agovernmentinwhich “thepoor,winningthevictory,puttodeathsomeofthe otherparty,driveoutothers,andgranttherestofthecitizensanequalsharein bothcitizenshipandoffices” (557a).ClassicistM.I.Finelyexplainedthatwhile “thereisnomorefamiliarthemeintheAthenianpicture(despitetherarityofthe word)thenthedemagogueandhisadjutant,thesycophant,” ourunderstandingof Greekpoliticallifehasbeenundulyinfluencedbyantidemocraticwriters(4). After all,accordingtoFinely, “thereisnoeternallaw … why ‘demagogue,’ a ‘leaderofthepeople,’” mustbecomea “mis-leaderofthepeople” (6).

DangerousDemagoguesandWeaponizedCommunication 269

Writingin1938,AmericanpublicpolicyprofessorandjournalistMaxLerner distinguishedbetweenthe “truedemagogue,” who “lovesthematerialheworks with,thematerialofthemassmind,andheseeksalwaystoraisethelevelofthat material,asanartistseeksalwaystoworkinadenserandmoredifficultmedium” andthe “fakedemagogue,” who “fearshisart:hehatesanddespisesthemedium heworkswith;hesolicitstheextraneousaidofthosewithlargeandsecret campaignfunds;whenhefindshimselfinatightspot,hefallsbackonthesteel andbrutalityofpoliceorvigilantesorstormtroopers” (110).Lerner’ s “true demagogue” istheheroiccharacterofthe OED’sfirstdefinition—“apopular leaderororatorwhoespousedthecauseofthepeopleagainstanyotherparty inthestate”—andLerner’ s “fakedemagogue” isthevillainouscharacterofthe OED’sseconddefinition—“apoliticalagitatorwhoappealstothepassionsand prejudicesofthemobinordertoobtainpowerorfurtherhisowninterests;an unprincipledorfactiouspopularorator.” Ofcourse,wearecertainlymoreusedto thinkingofa “demagogue” asavillainousmemberofthepoliticalcommunity.If weagreewithLernerthatthetrueleaderofthepeopleistheheroiccharacterand thefakeleaderofthepeopleisthevillainouscharacter,thenhowcanwespotthe dangerousdemagoguewhomightuse “thesteelandbrutalityofpoliceorvigilantesorstormtroopers” toseizeandretainpower?Wecanbegintodothisby notingwhousesrhetoricasaweapontoavoidaccountability.

AccordingtoclassicistErnestBarker,inancientAthens “the ‘demagogue’ properhadnoofficialposition;hesimplyexercised,inapeculiardegreeand withapermanentinfluence,therightoftheprivatememberoftheassemblyto taketheinitiativeandproposeapolicy” (qtd.inAristotle, ThePolitics 168nLL). Historianstracetheriseofthe “demagogue” to429BCEwhenPericlesdied, openingupthespaceforthese “unofficial” leadersofthepeopletorisetopower. Thedanger,accordingtoBarker,wasthat “suchaleader havingnoofficial executiveposition couldexerciseinitiativeanddeterminepolicywithoutincurringpoliticalresponsibility,sinceitwasnothisdutytoexecutethepolicywhich hehadinducedtheassemblytoaccept” (Barker, qtd.inAristotle, ThePolitics 169n50).ThedangerousdemagogueofAthenianpoliticalcultureurgedfor policiesbutcouldnotbeheldaccountableforthosepolicies’ subsequentsuccess orfailure theywereunaccountable.Theconfluenceoftheriseoftheirresponsibleorunaccountableleaderofthepeople,democraticrule,andrhetorical trainingledsomepoliticalobserversinAthenstoimaginethattoproposepolicy andleadthepeoplewas necessarily tomisleadthepeople.

Politicalaccountabilityisnecessarybecauserhetoricandpoliticalpowerareso easilyabused.Justleadership requires accountabilityandtransparency anunaccountableleaderisdangerousinanypoliticalcommunity.Aspoliticalscientists StevenLevitskyandDanielZiblattexplainin HowDemocraciesDie,unaccountableleadersareespeciallydangerousindemocraticgovernments.Accordingto LevitskyandZiblatt,historicallydemocraticgovernmentshavebeenoverturned

byauthoritarianorunaccountableleaderslikeAdolfHitlerorBenitoMussolini who:(1)rejectedorshowedaweakcommitmenttodemocraticrules;(2)denied thelegitimacyofpoliticalopponents;(3)toleratedorencouragedviolence;and(4) werereadytocurtailthecivillibertiesofopponentsandthemedia(23–24).The essentialordefiningfeatureofademagogueasan “unaccountableleader” isuseful forunderstandingwhoisadangerousorfakedemagogueandwhoisaheroicor truedemagoguebecauseonlydangerousdemagogueswouldseekpowerasan unaccountableorauthoritarianleader.Accountableleadersofthepeople(heroic demagogues)wouldshowacommitmenttothedemocraticprocess,respect politicalopposition,discourageviolence,andprotectcivilliberties.Heroicdemagogueswoulduserhetorictoaffirmhumandignity,toliftthespiritsofthepeople, todebatevalues,andtosolveproblemsbyconsent.Alldemagoguesarenot authoritarians somearelegitimateandheroic “leadersofthepeople” who defendtherightsofthepeoplefromtheotherpartsofthestateanddosoby leadingjustly,respectingtheruleoflaw,andallowingthemselvestobeheld accountablefortheirwordsandactions.

DangerousDemagoguery:WeaponizedCommunication

BarkerandLevitskyandZiblattdidnotconsidertherhetoricalstrategiesbywhich authoritarianleadersgainedandretainedpower,butitseemsclearfromBarker’ s understandingofhow “unofficialleaders” gainedpowerinancientAthens,and LevitskyandZiblatt’sunderstandingofhow “authoritarians” gainedpowerin GermanyandItaly,thatrhetoricwascentral.Tofillthislacuna,Ihavearguedthat dangerousdemagoguesuseacertainkindofrhetoric:theyuse “weaponized communication” tactics.Again,byweaponizedcommunicationImeanthestrategicuseofcommunicationasaninstrumentaltoolandasanaggressivemeansto gaincomplianceandavoidaccountability.Communicationisinstrumentalwhen itisusedasatool,ameanstoanend.Communicationasastrategictoolis aggressivewhenitdeniesconsent,overwhelms,andactsasforce.Theseaggressive communicationtacticsdonotseektopersuade,whichrequiresconsentand mutualopennesstopersuasion,buttoforcecompliance,whichisacquiescence. Finally,thedangerousdemagoguewhoweaponizescommunicationdoessoto preventthemselvesfrombeingheldaccountable,frombeingquestioned,debated, fromhavingtogivegoodreasonsandpersuade.Dangerousdemagoguesnotonly useweaponizedcommunicationasanauthoritarianusesviolence,butweaponized communicationitselfisaformofviolence.Dangerousdemagogueswhoweaponizecommunicationare “informationterrorists” (McKewpar.3).

Onewaytothinkofweaponizedcommunicationisasthewidespreaduseof ad baculum (Latinfor “appealtothestick” orthreatsofforceorintimidation). Thinkingofdangerousdemagogueryasforce(asweaponizedcommunication) allowsrhetoricalscholarstodistinguishtherhetoricalstrategiesoftheheroic demagoguefromthedangerousdemagogue,thusacknowledgingthatrhetorical

tacticsbothsupportandareevidenceofthetwoformsofdemagogues.Simply, onesuresignthataleaderofthepeopleisadangerousmisleaderofthepeopleis byexaminingwhetherornottheleaderweaponizescommunication.Thesetactics willconstantlychange,butwecanpointtorecentexamplesofdemagogic weaponizedcommunication,including:propaganda,conspiracytheory,fake news,anddisinformation;doxingandspyingandexposingpeopletopublic ridicule,shame,andaggression;hatespeech,violentthreats,andbullying;distortingmeaning,takingwordsoutofcontext,intentionallyignoringcontradictory information;anddistortingpublicsentimentthroughbots,algorithms,andcomputationalpropaganda.Whilesomeofthesetacticsfallunderthetraditional purviewofrhetoricalstudies,manydonot.

Wetypicallythinkof adbaculum asalogicalfallacy,especiallyinargumentationanddebate.JamesJasinskiexplainsthat adbaculum appealsinvolvesome kindofthreatbutofteninvolveambiguitybecauseitissometimesdifficultto distinguishbetweenathreatandawarning(243). Adbaculum tacticsindebate mightincludethreatsofphysicalviolencebutalsocouldbeoverwhelming opponentsoraudienceswithinformationsothatitisdifficulttotrackthedebate’ s argumentsorhavetimetorefutethem,orthreateningtoreleaseprivateor embarrassinginformationaboutanopponent.Likewise,dangerousdemagogues haveused adbaculum attackstoput “pressureon[opponents]torefrainfrom takingupaposition” (VanEemerenandGrootendorst109–10).Beyondintimidationindebatecontexts,dangerousdemagoguestypicallyusethreatstoprevent theiropponentsfromholdingthemaccountable.Threatsareaneffectivemeansto anend:theyareinstrumentalwaysofgainingcompliancebecausetheyare difficulttoquestionorargueagainst.It’snoteworthywhenapoliticalleader uses adbaculum threatsbecausetheyarethemselvesaformofviolenceand antidemocratic.

Dangerousdemagoguesmayusemorethanverbalthreatsofforcetogain compliance.Forexample,accordingtoKennethBurke, “Hitleralsotellsofhis techniqueinspeaking,oncetheNazipartyhadbecomeeffectivelyorganized,and haditsarmyofguardsorbouncers,tomaltreathecklersandthrowthemfromthe hall.Hewould,herecounts,fillhisspeechwithprovocativeremarks,whereathis bouncerswouldpromptlyswoopdowninflyingformation,withswingingfists, uponanyonewhomtheseprovocativeremarksprovokedtoanswer” (212). ObviouslynotalldangerousdemagogueswillusephysicalforcelikeHitlerdid; however,all adbaculum attacks whetherornottheyinvokeactualphysical violence havethesameend:tousecoercionandintimidationtogaincompliance.Thefactthatphysicalviolenceispossiblemakes adbaculum thatmuch morepowerfulandthatmuchmoredifficulttoargueagainst.

Ifrhetoricisamethodofarrivingat phronesis viaconsentintheabsenceof sophia,thenweaponizedcommunicationisananti-rhetoricalmethodofgaining compliancecharacterizedbyaggression,disregardingethics,andinstrumentality.

Allweaponizedcommunicationtacticsaredesignedtooverwhelmaudiencesand arethusforce,or “pre-political” and “despotic” waystodealwithpeople,as HannahArendtexplainedin TheHumanCondition (26–27).Itisawholecollectionofeverchangingtacticsthatrelyonthemechanismofforcetoallow demagoguestogaincomplianceandpreventthemselvesfrombeingheldaccountablefortheiractions.Inisolationsometacticsmayseembenign,evenacceptable, butsincethesetacticsareusedstrategicallytoshortcutcriticalthinking,theirgoal istodenyaudiencestheopportunitytogivetheirconsent.

Todemonstratehowdangerousweaponizedcommunicationisfordemocratic governments,wecanmapcurrentlyusedtacticsontoLevitskyandZiblatt’ s authoritariantypology,whichtheyusedtoexplainhowdemocraciesdie.First, accordingtoLevitskyandZiblatt,authoritariansrejectorshowaweakcommitmenttothe “democraticrulesofthegame” (23).Theygivehistoricalexamples suchasrejectingorexpressingawillingnesstoviolatetheConstitution,underminingthelegitimacyofelections,andusingorendorsingextraconstitutional meanstochangethegovernment,suchasmilitarycoupsorviolentinsurrections. Dangerousdemagogueslikewiseuseweaponizedcommunicationtorejector showaweakcommitmenttothedemocraticrulesofthegameofpublicdeliberation,especiallytopreventthemselvesfrombeingheldaccountablefortheirwords andactions.Dangerousdemagoguesattemptto overwhelmthenewscycle to preventnegativestoriesfromgainingattentionbyorganizing,manipulating, andsubvertinghashtagsonsocialmedia;bytargetingpeopleforretweets;and dumpingunfavorablenewswhenpeoplearedistracted.Dangerousdemagogues attemptto distortreality byspreadingpropaganda,conspiracytheory,fakenews, anddisinformation.Dangerousdemagoguesattemptto distortmeaning bytaking wordsoutofcontext,intentionallyignoringcontradictoryinformation,and intentionallysubvertingthedominantmeaningsofkeywordsorusingdog whistlestoappealtotheirpartisans.Dangerousdemagoguesattemptto distort publicsentiment throughbots,manipulatingalgorithms,andcomputationalpropaganda.Dangerousdemagoguesalsousetypicalrhetoricalfiguresandfallacies suchas paralipsis and tuquoque tosaytwothingsatonceandaccusetheir accusersofbeinghypocrites.Inthesewaysandmore,dangerousdemagogues weaponizecommunication.Byattemptingtooverwhelmthenewscycleand distortreality,meaning,andpublicsentiment,dangerousdemagoguesrejectthe democraticrulesofthegameofpublicdeliberation,usingthesetacticstoprevent acriticalinterrogationoftheirwordsandactions.

Second,accordingtoLevitskyandZiblatt,authoritarians “denythelegitimacy ofpoliticalopponents” (23).Theygivehistoricalexamplessuchasdescribing rivalsassubversiveoragainsttheconstitutionalorder,claimingthatrivals representanexistentialthreattothenationorareactingasforeignagents,and describingtheirrivalsascriminalswhoarenotqualifiedtoholdoffice.Allof LevitskyandZiblatt’sexamplesofdenyinglegitimacyaretheresultofthe

rhetoricalpositioningofoppositionasillegitimateenemies,whichmakesthis criterionespeciallyrelevantforrhetoricalanalysis.Dangerousdemagoguesuse weaponizedcommunicationtodenythelegitimacyofpoliticalopponentsby using adhominem attackstoconstitutetheiroppositionasillegitimateandby using reification toconstitutetheiroppositionasnonhumanenemyobjectswho areillegitimate.Byusing adhominem attacksand reification,dangerousdemagoguesdenythelegitimacyoftheiropposition,whichdeniesthempoliticalstanding, makescriticismeasiertodisregard,andmakesitthatmuchmoredifficultforthe oppositiontoholdthemaccountablefortheirwordsandactions.

Third,accordingtoLevitskyandZiblatt,authoritarians “tolerateorencourage violence” (24).Theygiveexamples,suchashavingtiestoarmedgangsormilitias, sponsoringorencouragingmobattacks,andrefusingtocondemnorpraising politicalviolenceconductedintheirnameorelsewhereintheworld.Dangerous demagogueslikewiseuseweaponizedcommunicationtoconductviolenceorto signalthattheytolerateorencourageviolence.Dangerousdemagoguesusecommunicationplatformstospreadmaliciousinformationandspreadinformation maliciouslythroughdoxing,spying,andexposingtheiroppositiontopublic ridicule,shame,andaggression.Dangerousdemagoguesorganize,encourage,or failtopreventtheirsupportersfromusingcommunicationtechnologiestoattack theiropposition.Dangerousdemagoguesorganize,encourage,orfailtoprevent theirsupportersfromphysicallyattackingtheiropposition.Dangerousdemagoguesuse adbaculum threats, adpopulum appeals, adhominem attacks, reification, andappealstonationalorgroupexceptionalismtopolarizecitizensandthreaten theiropposition.Inthesewaysandmore,dangerousdemagoguesweaponize communicationbytoleratingorencouragingviolence.

Fourth,andfinally,accordingtoLevitskyandZiblatt,authoritariansarereadyto “curtailthecivillibertiesofopponentsandthemedia” (24).Theygiveexamplessuch asexpandinglibelordefamationlaws,restrictingprotestandgovernmentcriticism, threateningtopunishrivalpartiesormedia,andpraisingrepressivemeasurestaken byothergovernmentstorestrictthecivillibertiesofopponentsandthemedia. Dangerousdemagogueslikewiseuseweaponizedcommunicationtocurtailcivil liberties.Recentexamplesincludejailing,threatening,andunderminingjournalists, refusingtoholdpressconferences,lyingtoreportersandsubsequentlyblaming reportersforcarryingfalsestories,threateninglibel,attemptingtobankruptor devaluemediacompaniestoforcethemoutofbusiness,speakingonlytofavorable mediaorganizations,forcinggovernmentworkerstosignnon-disclosureagreements, surveillingcitizensbymonitoringsocialmedia,deployingfacialrecognitionsoftware totrackcitizens,andbyusingrhetoricalappealssuchas Americanexceptionalism, reification,adpopulum, adbaculum threats,and adhominem attacksagainstpolitical oppositionandthepress.Inalltheseways,dangerousdemagoguesweaponize communicationtorestrictthecivillibertiesofopponentsandthemedia.

LevitskyandZiblattwarnthatviolatingevenoneofthesefourruleswould indicatethatapotentialleaderhasdangerousauthoritariantendencies.Likewise, wecouldsaythesameaboutanypotentialleaderwhoweaponizescommunication inoneofthesefourways.Suchapersonwouldbeadangerousdemagoguewho wouldbedifficulttoholdaccountabletotheruleoflawonceinpower.Wesaw manyoftheseweaponizedcommunicationtacticsdeployedbyAlexJonesinthis essay ’sintroduction he “crashed” apanel,createdpoliticaltheater,declaredit theoneandonlytruth,andintheprocessexposedthepaneliststopublicridicule andmaliciouscommunicationfrom InfoWars supporters.Jonesusedabullhorn totalkoverthepanel,therebygainingcompliance.Jonesrefusedtoparticipatein thediscussion,therebypreventinghimselffrombeingquestionedorheldaccountableforhiswordsandactions.Insodoing,Jonesviolatedauthoritarianrules one,two,andthreeabove heviolatedthedemocraticrulesofpublicdeliberation,deniedthelegitimacyofhisopposition,andexposedhisoppositionto potentialviolence.ButJonesisnottheonlydemagoguewhoweaponizescommunication.Foranotherusefulexample,then,wemightturnourattentiontoan episodefromthe2016U.S.presidentialcampaign.

OnApril27,2016, GQ publishedJuliaIoffe’sprofileoffuturefirstladyMelania Trump,whichtoldthestoryofMelania’schildhoodinSlovenia,herfamily,her modelingcareer,andhowshemetandmarriedDonaldTrump.TheTrumpswere nothappythatthestoryalsoincludedinformationaboutMelania’ssecrethalfbrotherorMelania’slegalissueswithherbeautybrand,attackingthestoryas “yet anotherexampleofthedishonestmediaandtheirdisingenuousreporting” on Melania’sFacebookpage.Inresponse,neo-NaziAndrewAnglincalledforhis StormerTrollArmyto “sendheratweetandletherknowwhatyouthinkofher dirtykiketrickery.MakesuretoidentifyherasaJewworkingagainstWhite interests,orsendherthepicturewiththeJudestarfromthetopofthisarticle. Gogoogogogoogogogo.BecauseI’dbetdollarstohotdogsshe’saLOLCOW” (“EmpressMelania”;seealso “Lolcow”).StormersfloodedIoffe’se-mail,phone, andTwitterwithtoxicandintimidatingmessagesandgleefullypostedscreen shotsoftheirmessagestoIoffeintheircommentsonAnglin’sarticle.Ioffe confirmedtheattackbyretweetingsomeoftheanti-Semitictweets,images,and phonecallsthatshereceived,filingapolicereportagainstthethreats,and discussingthecoordinatedattackontelevision.Inresponse,Anglinposted, “Let itbeknown,Jews:ifyougoagainstus,youwillendupwithhurtfeelingsfrom meanwords” (“JuliaIoffe”).

Afewdayslater,onMay4,2016,DonaldTrumpbecametheRepublican Party’spresumptivenominee. “Someofyoursupportershaveviciouslyattacked thiswomanJuliaIoffewithanti-Semiticattacks,deaththreats,” WolfBlitzersaid toTrumpon CNN (SituationRoom). “Thesepeoplegetsoangry.What’ s your messagetothesepeople?” heasked. “Ihaven’treadthearticle,” Trumpresponded, denyinganyknowledgeoftheeventsandshiftingthetopicfromwhatTrump

wouldsaytocondemntheattackerstowhatTrumpthoughtIoffehaddoneto earntheattacks, “butIheardthatitwasaveryinaccuratearticleandIheardit wasanastyarticle.” BlitzeragainaskedTrumptocommenton “thedeaththreats thatfollowed.” Trumpsaid, “Idon’tknowaboutthat.Idon’tknowanything aboutthat.Doyoumeanfansofmine?Iknownothingaboutit.Idon’thave amessagetothefans.” TrumpdeniedassociationwiththeStormerTrollArmy, butpraisedthemashis “fans.” Seemingly,DonaldTrumphadnoqualmswiththe StormerTrollArmy’sthreateningtactics;hecertainlydidnotcondemnthemin his CNN interview.

Trump’sresponsetoBlitzerfollowedarhetoricalstrategythathefrequently usedwhenreportersquestionedhimabouthisweaponizedcommunicationtactics.Typically,whenreporterstriedtoholdTrumpaccountablefortheeffectsof hisweaponizedcommunicationhefirstdeniedknowledgeoftheevent;second, deniedassociationwiththepeopleoract(andmaybepraisedthemas “fine people” or “fans”);third,questionedwhatthepersonhaddonetodeservethe attack;and,fourth,used tuquoque toaccusehisoppositionofsimilartactics.In fact,Trumphadalsofrequentlyused adbaculum threatstointimidatehis opponents(Mercieca, “100Days”).Hefrequentlyexplainedhisaggressiverhetoric bycallinghimselfa “counterpuncher,” butitoftenseemedhewasthefirsttoland arhetoricalpunch.

InhisinterviewwithBlitzer,Trumpdeniedanyknowledgeaboutthethreatsto Ioffeandcalledthewhitenationalistswhoweaponizedcommunicationtothreatenherhis “fans,” whichwhitenationalistslikeAnglinreadasanendorsementfor theworkoftheStormerTrollArmy. “AskedbythedisgustingandevilJewish parasiteWolfBlitzertodenouncetheStormerTrollArmy,TheGloriousLeader declined,” wroteAnglin(“GloriousLeader”). “TheJewWolfwasattemptingto StumptheTrump,bringingupstormerattacksonJewterroristJuliaIoffe.Trump respondedtotherequestwith ‘Ihavenomessagetothefans’ whichmightaswell havebeen ‘HailVictory,Comrades!’” (pars.1and2).Accordingtothewhite nationalists,Trump’sdenialofknowledgeabouttheattackswasactually astrategicembrace: “always remember:helookedstraightatthecameraand said ‘Ihavenomessageforthefans.’ Anythingafterthatisjustpolitics,” Anglin wrotethenextday(“IWillNotRage” pars.6and7).Whenwhitenationalists usedacoordinatedattacktothreatenandintimidateIoffeonbehalfofTrump, theyusedweaponizedcommunicationtoviolateauthoritarianrulenumberone byshowingaweakcommitmenttothedemocraticrulesofthegameofpublic deliberationandviolatedrulenumberthreebyshowingapropensityforviolence. Inotherwords,accordingtothetypologysetoutinthisessay,Anglinandthe StormerTrollArmyaredangerousdemagogueswhouseweaponizedcommunicationtacticstogaincomplianceandavoidaccountability.

WhileAnglinledtheStormerTrollArmy’sattackonIoffe,Trumpalsoused severalweaponizedcommunicationtacticsinthisexample:first,hesoughtto

underminejournalistsandthemediaindustrybycallingIoffe’ s GQ articlefurther evidenceof “dishonestmediaanddisingenuousreporters” onMelaniaTrump’ s Facebookpage(Trump) violatingauthoritarianrulenumbertwobydenyingthe legitimacyofoppositionandrulenumberfourbybeingwillingtorestrictthecivil libertiesoftheopposition.Second,whenTrumprefusedtoholdthewhite nationalistsaccountablebycondemningtheattackheviolatedauthoritarianrule numberthreebytoleratingorencouragingviolence.And,third,Trumpused evasionanddenialtopreventWolfBlitzerfromholdinghimaccountableforthe attackduringhis CNN interview:Trumpwouldneitheradmittoknowingthatthe attackhadoccurredorthathissupportersinitiatedtheattackinhisname violatingauthoritarianrulenumbersone,two,three,andfourbyrefusingtoplay bythedemocraticrulesofthegameofpublicdeliberation,denyingthelegitimacy ofopposition,associatingwiththosewhocommitviolenceandtoleratingviolence,andshowingawillingnesstocurtailcivilliberties.Therefore,accordingto thetypologysetoutinthisessay,Trumpwasadangerousdemagoguewhoused weaponizedcommunicationtacticstogaincomplianceandavoidaccountability.

Intheseexamples,Jones,Trump,andAnglinwerealldangerousdemagogues whousedsimilarweaponizedcommunicationstrategiesforsimilarends.Andyet noneofthemweretechnically “leaders”—or,atleasttheywerenotleadersinthe traditionalsenseofbeingelectedofficials.Jonesledamultimillion-dollarmedia empiredevotedtospreadingconspiracy,Trumpledapoliticalcampaign,and Anglinledthewhitesupremacistmovement.Likethe “demagogues” ofAncient Athens,eachwasan “unofficialleaderofthepeople” whorefusedtobeheld accountablefortheirwordsandactions.Ofcourse,weaponizedcommunication tacticscanbeusedbyanyone,whetherofficialorunofficialleadersofthepeople. Despitetheexamplesusedhere,weaponizedcommunicationtacticsarenot restrictedtotherightwingofthepoliticalspectrum,althoughtheydosupport thecurrentiterationoftherightwing’sangrypopulism.

Conclusion:TheDangerofWeaponizedCommunication

OnOctober25,1931,JohnDeweygavearadiolectureontherelationship betweeneducationanddemocracyintheageofmass-mediatedpropaganda. “Democracywillbeafarce, ” explainedDewey, “unlessindividualsaretrained tothinkforthemselves,tojudgeindependently,tobecritical,tobeableto detectsubtlepropagandaandthemotiveswhichinspireit ” (98).Dewey assumedthatcitizencriticscouldpreventdangerousdemagoguesfromattainingpowerbyusingtheirrationalitytoassesspublicdiscourse therebyholding leadersaccountablefortheirwordsandactions.Publicspeaking,communication,andargumentationscholarshavelikewisearguedthatdemocraticcitizenshiprequirestrainingincriticalthinkingsothefallacioustechniquesof demagogueswillnotpersuadetheuninformedelectorate.Atleastonemethod forcontrollingthedemagogue’spower,therefore,couldbeforcitizenstouse

criticalthinkingtoanalyzeademagogue ’srhetoric.Sinceleadingthepeople requiresarelationshipbetweentheleaderandthepeople,itmakessensethat thepeoplehavearesponsibilitytoholdtheirleadersaccountablefortheir wordsandactionsandpreventthemfrombeingdemagogues.Yetmanyofthe weaponizedcommunicationtacticsdescribedherecannotbedetectedeasily, makingitdifficultforeventhemostvigilantcitizencriticstoholdtheirleaders accountable.Ofcourse,thisispreciselytheproblemwithweaponizedcommunication:itpreventsinstitutionsandcitizensfromholdingdangerousdemagoguesaccountablefortheirwordsandactions.

Whatcanwesayaboutthedifferencebetweenthedangerousdemagogue’ s weaponizedcommunicationandtheheroicdemagogue’suseofrhetoric betweenpersuasionascomplianceversuspersuasionas phronesis?Weaponized communication’scomplianceisforcewhereasrhetoric’ s phronesis requiresconsentandthusisnotforce.To “assent” means “tothink” andto “consent” means to “togetherthink.” Toassentistoholdanopinion;toconsentistoholdan opinionincommonwithanother.Consentrequirespermission;onewhoconsentsagreestoadoptthefeelings,perceptions,thoughts,orjudgmentsofothers (Mercieca, “Fourteenth” 307).Yetactualconsentisimpossiblewithweaponized communication.Compliancemaybesecured,butconsentisnot.Thedifference betweenthesetwoperspectivesisnoteworthyherebecauseweaponizedcommunicationisinherentlydespotic:itdeniesindividualstheabilitytodecidefor themselves.Heroicdemagoguesuserhetorictopersuade;dangerousdemagogues useweaponizedcommunicationtogaincompliance.

“Howabsurditistotrytochangetheworldbypropaganda,” statedTheodor W.AdornoandMaxHorkheimerin1947: “propagandamakeslanguagean instrument,alever,amachine.Itfixestheconditionofmen,astheyhavecome tobeinundersocialinjustice,bysettingtheminmotion.Itcountsonbeingable tocountonthem.Deepdownallmenknowthatthroughthistooltheytoowillbe reducedtoatoolasinafactory” (255)Propagandaisbutonetacticofweaponized communication,butwhatistrueofpropagandaistruefortherest:weaponized communicationtreatslanguageasaninstrument,asameanstoanendandit treatspeopleastools.HorkheimerandAdornowrotethatpropagandawas “misanthropic” becauseitdenied “thatpolicyoughttospringfrommutual understanding” (255).Likepropaganda,weaponizedcommunicationismisanthropic,anditenablesdangerousdemagoguestogaincomplianceandprevent themselvesfrombeingheldaccountablefortheirwordsandactions.Weaponized communicationtacticstreatcommunicationaspureinstrumentality,usingrhetoricaltacticsandpeopleasmachines.

Acknowledgments

TheauthorthanksRyanSkinnellforhisintellectuallygenerouseditingofthis essayandAlexJonesforprovidingthisessaywithitsgrippingopeninganecdote.

ORCID

JenniferR.Mercieca http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2276-9729

WorksCited

Adorno,TheodorW.,andMaxHorkheimer. DialecticofEnlightenment.London:Verso,2016. Print.

Anglin,Andrew. “EmpressMelaniaAttackedbyFilthyRussianKikeJuliaIoffeinGQ!” Daily Stormer 28Apr.2016.Web.30Oct.2018.

_____. “GloriousLeaderDonaldTrumpRefusestoDenounceStormerTrollArmy.” Daily Stormer 6May2016.Web.30Oct.2018.

_____. “IWillNotRageIfTheLeaderDenouncestheTrollArmy.” DailyStormer 7May2016. Web.30Oct.2018.

_____. “JuliaIoffeonStormerTrollArmy: ‘AWholeArmySeemstoHaveBeenSnappedInto Action.’” DailyStormer 30Apr.2016.Web.30Oct.2018. Anti-DefamationLeague. “RageGrowsinAmerica:Anti-GovernmentConspiracies.” ADL Nov.2009.Web.30Oct.2018.

Arendt,Hannah. TheHumanCondition.2nded.Chicago:UofChicagoP,1958.Print. Aristotle. Politics.Trans.H.Rackham.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUP,1944.Web.10May2019.

_____.ThePoliticsofAristotle.Trans.ErnestBarker.Oxford:OxfordUP,1942.Print. Baskerville,Barnet. “JoeMcCarthy,Brief-CaseDemagogue.” Today’sSpeech 2.3(1954):8–15. Print.

Bormann,ErnestG. “HueyLong:AnalysisofaDemagogue.” Today’sSpeech 2.3(1954):16–19. Print.

Brigance,WilliamNorwood. “Demagogues, ‘Good’ People,andTeachersofSpeech.” The SpeechTeacher 1.3(1952):157–62.Print.

Brown,Seth, “AlexJones’sMediaEmpireIsaMachineBuilttoSellSnake-OilDietSupplements.” NewYorkMagazine 4May2017.Web.30Oct.2018.

Burke,Kenneth. ThePhilosophyofLiteraryForm:StudiesinSymbolicAction.Berkeley:Uof CaliforniaP,1974.Print.

Darsey,JamesFrancis. “PatriciaRoberts-Miller,Demagoguery,andtheTroublesomeCaseof EugeneDebs.” Rhetoric &PublicAffairs 9.3(2006):463–70.Print. “Demagogue,n.” OEDOnline.OxfordEnglishDictionary2018.Web.30Oct.2018.

Dewey,John. TheLaterWorksofJohnDewey,1925–1953,Vol.9:1933–1934.Charlottesville: InteLex,1996.Digitalfile.

Finely,M.I. “AthenianDemagogues.” PastandPresent 21.1(1962):3–24.Print. Goldzwig,StevenR. “Demagoguery,DemocraticDissent,and ‘Re-VisioningDemocracy.’” Rhetoric&PublicAffairs 9.3(2006):471–78.Print. Gunn,Joshua. “HystericizingHuey:EmotionalAppeals,Desire,andthePsychodynamicsof Demagoguery.” WesternJournalofCommunication 71.1(2007):1–27.Print.

Hogan,J.Michael,andL.GlenWilliams. “TheRusticityandReligiosityofHueyP.Long.” Rhetoric&PublicAffairs 7.2(2004):149–71.Print.

Hogan,J.Michael,andDaveTell. “DemagogueryandDemocraticDeliberation:TheSearchfor RulesofDiscursiveEngagement.” Rhetoric&PublicAffairs 9.3(2006):479–87.Print. InfoWars. “WatchAlexJonesCrashAnti-AlexJones/TrumpEventinAustin:DemsHoldAntiFreeSpeechEventinPublic.” AlexJones’ InfoWars 29Sept.2018.Web.30Oct.2018. Ioffe,Julia. “MelaniaTrumpInterview:MarriagetoDonaldTrump,aSecretHalf-Brother,and PlasticSurgeryRumors.” GQ.GQ27Apr.2016.Web.30Oct.2018.

278 Mercieca

Jasinski,James. SourcebookonRhetoric:KeyConceptsinContemporaryRhetoricalStudies. ThousandOaks:Sage,2010.Print.

Lerner,Max. It’sLaterThanYouThink:TheNeedforaMilitantDemocracy.NewYork:Viking, 1943.

Levitsky,Steven,andDanielZiblatt. HowDemocraciesDie:WhatHistoryRevealsaboutOur Future.NewYork:Viking,2018.

“Lolcow.” UrbanDictionary 2008.Web.30Oct.2018.

Lomas,CharlesW. “TheRhetoricofDemagoguery.” WesternSpeech 25(1961):160–68.Print. Mathews,Joe. “AlmostAnyPoliticianinaDemocracyIsaBitofaDemagogue|TheTakeaway. ” ZócaloPublicSquare 8Sept.2017.Web.30Oct.2018.

McKew,Molly. “JudgeKavanaughandtheInformationTerroristsTryingtoReshapeAmerica.” Wired 3Oct.2018.Web.30Oct.2018.

Mercieca,JenniferR. “100DaysofPresidentialThreats.” TheConversation.TheConversation 25Apr.2017.Web.30Oct.2018.

_____. FoundingFictions.Tuscaloosa:UofAlabamaP,2010.Print.

_____. “TheFourteenthAmendmentandthePrivilegesandImmunitiesofAmerican Citizenship.” QuarterlyJournalofSpeech 101.1(2015):306–11.Print. Plato. Republic.Trans.PaulShorey.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUP,1969.Web.10May2019. Roberts-Miller,Patricia. “Democracy,Demagoguery,andCriticalRhetoric.” Rhetoric&Public Affairs 8.3(2005):459–76.Print.

_____. RhetoricandDemagoguery.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUP,2019.Print.

Rutenberg,Jim. “InTrump’sVolleys,EchoesofAlexJones’sConspiracyTheories.” The NewYorkTimes 20Feb.2017.Web.30Oct.2018.SituationRoomwithWolfBlitzer. CNN4May2016.Web.30Oct.2018.

Trump,DonaldJ. “ThearticlepublishedinGQtoday…”” Facebook 27Apr.2016.Web.30Oct. 2018.

VanEemeren,F.H.,andR.Grootendorst. Argumentation,Communication,andFallacies: APragma-DialecticalPerspective.Hillsdale:LawrenceErlbaum,1992.Print.