This thesis is an exploration of affect theory and emotional rhetoric in the 2016 Presidential Election, and specifically in Donald Trump’s candidacy, first through a series of rhetorical readings of Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail and after his election. The first section of this thesis focuses on Donald Trump and the various rhetorical spaces he uses to reach his supporters through affectual means. Next, I will apply affect theory to Trump’s political rhetoric in order to illustrate how affect is intrinsic to his rhetoric and how he communicates to his audience. I find that utilizing texts by cultural rhetoric critics, namely those which discuss affect theory and the culture of emotion such as Sara Ahmed’s The Cultural Politics of Emotion, and culture and rhetorical spaces in Julie Lindquist’s A Place to Stand: Politics and Persuasion in a Working Class Bar, allows us to better understand the underlying cultural impetuses which created the conditions for Donald Trump’s presidency. In the third section, I examine how these theoretical frameworks provide an understanding of how fake news contributed to the current American climate of a post-truth media culture. And in the final section, I explore how satirical rhetoric is employed both as a defense against and as a rhetorical utility for Donald Trump, namely in his use of carnivalesque techniques and rhetoric to appeal to his voter’s sense of rebellion against and cynicism toward the political establishment. In doing so, I argue that Trump’s use of affect, particularly in his targeted approach to appeal to his base’s existential, socio-economic, and racial fears, was essential to his success in the 2016 Presidential election. / Master of Arts

During the last decade the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has brought increased attention to the issues pertaining to police brutality and the systemic discrimination of black Americans. At the same time as the movement has experienced growing support, its opposers have also consolidated. Among them president Donald Trump has proved to be one of the staunchest critics of Black Lives Matter. This has further strengthened the movement's oppositional role in relation to the US government. Therefore this bachelor's thesis examines what role the Trump-administration plays in the portrayal of Black Lives Matter. Using the Essex School of discourse analysis the statements of Trump and his administration towards the movement are examined, and through them discourses opposed to BLM are identified. Through the theoretical lenses of postcolonialism and post-marxism the Trump-administration’s statements can be shown to portray BLM as a violent and extremist socialist movement. The statements have the effect of rendering BLM as distinct from regular americans and as opposed to american values in various ways. This has the additional effect of creating division among the supporters of BLM themselves as they are torn between allegiance to the movement and the nation. The Trump-administration’s statements towards BLM are concluded to stem from the discourses of “American Exceptionalism”, “Neoliberalism” and “Law and Order”. This indicates that previously mentioned discourses are in opposition to BLM.

New media technologies, especially social media, continue to challenge previous notions regarding agenda melding activities. Recent observations have been made during chaotic and turbulent conditions, where participants behave contradictory to what is expected by previous agenda setting and melding theories. This study attempts to examine the content shared amongst ordinary users on Twitter directly following a sudden crisis event, specifically the US Capitol riot from January 6th, 2021. This was done through a quantitative content analysis, where the agenda melding activities as well as rhetorical purpose were examined in order to observe ordinary users’ behaviours during the crisis event. Along with an open discussion regarding what this might entail for US democratic functions or relations, and a general invitation for future research regarding similar issues.    The results of this study showed further support for contradictory agenda melding activities in relation to a crisis event. Where instead of seeking out safety and agreement in the majority, users engaged in arguments, discussions and challenged each other’s views and opinions publicly online.   In examining the content following the Capitol riot, this study hopes to shed light on a subject of study that needs further exploring, as well as arguments for future development of previous theories.

This study focuses on the construction of American identity over time as it relates to U.S. foreign policy. It is based on the insights of poststructuralism and variants of discourse theory. In particular, the study depicts the historical development of identity representations within U.S. foreign policy discourse from 2008 to 2020, in order to demonstrate how the ongoing construction of identity enabled Donald Trump's disruptive foreign policy. Much of identity research in IR focuses on Self/Other relationships and understudies affirmative representations of identity. The current study fills this research gap by examining processes of affirmative linking in the construction of identity. The main results of the study found that the Trump administration's identity representations radically diverged from those of the Obama administration. The latter articulated America predominantly as a leader in the world, while the former reconstructed American identity as one of being a victim. However, two representations of American identity stayed constant: America as an inspiration to others and America as a force for good in the world.

The aim of the study was to examine the ways in which the presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were portrayed in articles regarding the first presidential debate of 2016. We also wanted to examine the differences and similarities between the framing of the two candidates as well as which frames varied between the newspapers from Sweden and the USA and which they had in common. We made a qualitative framing analysis of 14 articles from 14 different newspapers half of which were from Sweden and half from the USA. The result shows that Hillary Clinton is most often portrayed as an experienced and professional politician whereas Donald Trump is portrayed as her opposite in both regards. The framing of Trump shows him as an outsider from the business world, who has a history of controversial behavior in which he is accused of both racism and sexism. Both candidates are portrayed as highly disliked by the American people. They are also portrayed as dishonest as a consequence of their respective scandals where they are being accused of having hidden something from the public – Clinton in her use of a private e-mail server during her time as secretary of state – Trump due to his unreleased tax returns. The American and the Swedish articles frame the candidates similarly, although the American newspapers are more prone to the usage of harsh language in describing the candidates and their actions in the debate. The Swedish newspapers tend to use less emotive words in re-telling the debate.

Denna uppsats undersöker vilket innehåll USA:s president Donald Trump fyllde begreppen ”vi” och ”dom” med via sitt Twitterkonto under de sista tre veckorna av presidentvalrörelsen 2016. Analysen motiveras av att den kan ge en fingervisning om vilken politik Trump kommer att verka för som president. Forskningsfrågan för studien är: Med vilket innehåll fyller Donald Trump, genom sitt Twitterkonto, signifikanterna ”vi” och ”dom”? Uppsatsen ingår i forskningsfältet politisk kommunikation och utgår från ett teoretiskt ramverk som lägger stor vikt vid språkets funktion i konstruktionen av verkligheten. Som metod används diskursanalys, där betydelserna för ”vi” och ”dom” tolkas utifrån hur begreppen sammankopplas med andra betydelsebärande begrepp och den kontext som tweetarna är skrivna i. I uppsatsens analys framkommer det att Trump konstruerar en motsättning mellan ”vi” och ”dom” som baseras på religiös tillhörighet och ursprung, och där ”dom” som är muslimer eller har invandrat från Latinamerika utgör problemet. Utifrån den konstruerade problembilden kan politiska krav som att stoppa invandringen från muslimska länder och att deportera miljontals invandrade från Latinamerika, framstå som logiska lösningar. Lösningar som också har presenterats av Donald Trump. Denna typ av politiska förslag riskerar leda till att ytterligare öka främlingsfientligheten och de sociala spänningarna i USA. / This paper examines the content US President Donald Trump filled the terms "us" and "them" via his Twitter account during the last three weeks of the presidential election campaign in 2016. The analysis is motivated because it can give an indication of what kind of policy Trump will suggest as president. The research question for this study is: With what content does Donald Trump, through his Twitter account, fill the signifiers "us" and "them"? The essay is part of the research field of political communication and is based on a theoretical framework which places emphasis on the function language has as a tool for the construction of reality. Discourse analysis is used as method, which implicates that the meanings of "us" and "them" is interpreted on the basis of how the concepts are connected with other meaningful concepts and the context in which the tweets are produced. According to the analysis of this paper, Donald Trump constructs an opposition between "us" and "them" based on religious affiliation and origin, in which "them" – who are Muslim or immigrants from Latin America – are the problem. Based on this constructed conflict, the political demands to stop immigration from Muslim countries and deport millions of immigrants from Latin America, appears as logical solutions. Solutions that has also been presented by Donald Trump. This type of policy proposals could lead to a further strengthening of the social divisiveness and an increase of xenophobia in USA.

Donald Trump tog världen med storm när han deltog i det amerikanska presidentvalet och sedermera blev vald. Uppsatsen undersöker om Donald Trump kan placeras på en fascistisk skala baserat på hans uttalanden i sex tal; samt hur det kristna stödet, som Donald Trump erhöll i valet, kan förklaras. Sex tal analyseras med basen i kvalitativ textanalys och kategoriseras i fem kategorier för fascism.   Det kristna stödet kan förklaras genom gemensamma värderingar, Lakoffs Strict Father morality, i kombination med rädsla. Rädslan över vad som ska hända med AFS med Hillary Clinton som president är stor, är en tung faktor för konservativa kristna att rösta på Donald Trump. Studien kommer fram till att Donald Trump kan klassificeras som semi-fascist då han delvis uppfyller de kriterier som studien grundar sig på. / Donald Trump chocked the world when he decided to run for president of the United States of America, and won. This study examines if Donald Trump may be placed on a fascist scale based on his statements in six speeches; and how the Christian support, that he received, may be explained. The speeches have been analysed based on a qualitative text analysis and been categorized in to five categories of fascism.   The Christian support may be explained by common values; Lakoff’s Strict Father morality, in combination with fear. The fear for what may happen to the U.S. with Hillary Clinton as president has a big impact on why conservative Christians voted for Donald Trump. The conclusion of this study is that Donald Trump can be classified as a semi-fascist as he partly fulfils the fascist criteria this study presents.

Ever since the dawn of democracy, its very existence has been threatened by people whose intention has been to exploit the system to gain all power for themselves. These antagonists are called demagogues. By 2018 accusations about demagoguery and demagogic rhetoric are directed at many world leaders, not least US President Donald Trump. But what does such an allegation really mean? The existing research on demagogic rhetoric lacks a distinct framework for what is included in the concept, which undermines the meaning of these statements. This essay aims at investigating which rhetorical topics characterize demagoguery and, by doing this, expand the theory of demagogic rhetoric. A new methodology consisting of six topics is introduced, and its analytical potential is tested by an analysis of Donald Trump. The result of the analysis both shows that the president’s rhetoric repeatedly reflects the six topics, and that the new methodology works well to analyse demagogic rhetoric. This essay shows how social and political circumstances, for example political instability, can favour demagogues, and furthermore, it shines a light on the crucial consequences that demagoguery potentially can have on democratic society. Finally, the essay highlights the importance of increased understanding of demagoguery to protect and strengthen the democratic society, and suggests that this understanding can increase partly through research on demagogic rhetoric.

After Donald Trump won the presidency, his use of social media has gotten massive attention because of its incredibly inappropriate content. Many people question how appropriate his use of Twitter is, and in the linguistic field prominent voices point out that the former businessman does not have the skills to speak; he only talks (McWhorter, 2017). As America’s President with views of his own about worldly events, it is of special interest to see how people interact with him online. Because of the low 39% approval rating, one can assume that many disagree with him, possibly in a way involving irony. One sub-type of irony is described as “the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning” (Merriam-Webster, 2018), and it is reasonable to assume that some responses to Trump’s tweets use irony to present an alternative view of his actions or opinions. The study sets out to find replies to Trump’s tweets that are ironic and identify if they correspond to earlier developed theories of irony. The replies are examined to determine which of Grice’s maxims of conversation that is flouted the most. The data included 337 replies of which 78 (23%) were shown to follow an ironical pattern, mostly in order to ridicule and condemn Trump. 88 % of all comments disagree with Trump’s tweets. The most applicable theory of irony is the echoic interpretation theory by Wilson and Sperber, and the most flouted maxim is relevance. / Sedan Donald Trump ställde upp i presidentvalet och till slut vann valet, har hans användning av sociala medier fått mycket uppmärksamhet p.g.a dess olämpliga innehåll. Många har ifrågasatt lämpligheten i hans Twitter-användning, och lingvistiskt sett menar framstående röster att den tidigare företagsmannen inte äger förmågan att tala; han kan bara prata; och det gör han på Twitter som USA:s president och ger sin egen syn på världsliga händelser. Därför är det av intresse att titta på hur människor reagerar och tilltalar honom på nätet. Med tanke på hans låga popularitetssiffra på 39%, kan det förmodas att många inte håller med honom, och att ironi används som ett sätt att uttrycka en annan åsikt. Ironi beskrivs som “användningen av ord för att uttrycka någonting annat eller speciellt det motsatta av den bokstavliga meningen” (översatt från Merriam-Webster, 2018), vilket är hypotetiskt förväntat i svar till Trumps tweets. Denna studie syftar till att identifiera ironiska kommentarer på Trumps tweets och se om de överensstämmer med tidigare utvecklade teorier kring ironi. Även analys av vilken av Grices konversationsmaximer som bryts oftast görs i studien. Studiens data inkluderar 337 kommentarer, av vilka 78 (23%) är ironiska, oftast med intention att förlöjliga och fördöma Trump. 88% av alla kommentarer håller inte med om innehållet i Trumps tweets. Den mest applicerbara ironi-teorin var “echoic interpretation” teorin (Wilson & Sperber), medan den mest ignorerade konversationsmaximen var relevans.

Donald Trump, välkänd affärsman, programledare och numera USA:s 45:e president. Hur lyckades egentligen en man som inte varit i en politisk position tidigare övertyga ett helt land att han har vad som krävs för att styra det? Studien skall ta reda på vilka retoriska begrepp Trump använt sig av under sin valperiod och vilken effekt de har gett. Med en kvalitativ studie och retorisk analys undersöks Donald Trumps tal under the Republican National Convention, 2016. Den retoriska teorin anväands med hjälp av olika former såsom ethos, pathos, logos, ordfigurer och tankefigurer samt troper. En analys av hans användning av retorik och kommunikationsteorier görs för att få en så konkret bild som möjligt av hur Trump talade för att påverka sina väljare. Med hjälp av både videoformat och ett transkript av det valda talet dras slutsatsen att Trump varit en skicklig talare under det valda talet, då han fått med sig många människor till att stå på hans sida. Han för sig som en politiker bör och är tydlig med vad han vill förändra och vad som kommer ske när han blir president. Retoriken är en viktig del inom politiken och det gäller att använda den rätt för att nå ut till så många anhängare som möjligt. Trump har lärt sig av tidigare politiker hur viktigt retoriken är och nu ses han själv använda sig av den för att kunna vinna presidentvalet, trots att hans bakgrund saknar samma politiska erfarenhet som hans motståandare besitter. Trump har genom denna analys bevisats vara en duktig talare och kunnig inom det retoriska fältet. Han talar knappt en enda mening utan ett retoriskt begrepp och tidigt kan retorikens påverkan på hans röstare förstås. Han följer olika presidentiella strukturer och använder sig av de kommunikationsteorierna som presenteras. Trump vill vara en man för folket och lyckas övertyga med argument fyllda med ethos, pathos, logos samt ett bekvämt användande av figurer och troper. Hans framträdande är som en president bör vara. / Donald Trump, wellknown businessman, tv-host and nowadays the 45th president of The United States. How did a man without earlier political position convince a whole country that he had what it takes to rule it? This study will find out what rhetorical concepts Trump has used during his election and what effect it has given. With a qualitative study and a rhetorical analysis the speech made by Donald Trump during the Republican National Convention 2016 was examined. The rhetorical theory is used through different forms such as ethos, pathos, logos, word figures and thought figures as well as tropes. An analysis of his use if rhetoric and communication theories has been made to get an as clear picture as possible of how Trump affected his voters. By using both video format and a transcript of the chosen speech it can be concluded that Trump indeed was a skilled speaker during the chosen speech, which led to many people standing on his side. He acts like a politician should and is clear on what he wants to change and what will happen once he becomes president. Rhetoric is an important part of politics and should be used properly to reach out to as many supporters as possible. Trump has learned from earlier politicians how important rhetoric is and now he can be seen using it himself to win the presidental election, despite his lack of previous political activity and experience that his opponent possesses. Trump had through this analysis proven to be a great speaker and knowledgeble within the rhetorical field. He barely speaks a single sentence without any rhetorical concept and early on, the rhetorical impact on his voters can be understood. He follows different presidential structures and uses the communication theories which are presented. Trump wants to be a man for the people and succeeds to convince with arguments filled with ethos, pathos, logos as well as a comfortable usage of figures and tropes. His performance is as a presidents should be.