Analysis of Trump's Use of 'Egregious' in the Charlottesville Speech
The recent racial strife in Charlottesville, Virginia, notably involved the former US President, Donald Trump. His use of language in relation to this event, particularly the word 'egregious,' has raised significant debate and scrutiny. This essay will delve into the context of his usage, the implications, and the broader implications for his communication strategies.
Context and Contextualization
Following the events in Charlottesville, Donald Trump delivered a speech where the controversial word 'egregious' was prominently featured. Careful analysis suggests that he likely used prepared notes rather than a spontaneous or extemporaneous speech. This implies a deliberate decision by his speech writers to frame the situation in a manner that might be perceived as more measured or academic, rather than emotionally charged.
Prepared vs. Spontaneous Speech
In a typical extemporaneous speech, speakers tend to use simpler language and more colloquial expressions. However, in Charlottesville, Trump utilized complex vocabulary like 'egregious'[1], which stands for 'extraordinarily or glaringly bad.' This deliberate choice to use large words and formal language suggests that someone else, presumably his speech writers, crafted the message for him. The critical question then arises: did Trump genuinely understand the meaning of these words, or were they implanted in his discourse without his full comprehension?
Egregious as a Politically Loaded Term
The term 'egregious' is often associated with legal jargon and formal writing. It may imply a deliberate choice to distance himself from the immediacy and fluidity of the situation. It's possible that Trump heard the word frequently in the purple prose used by his lawyers to describe the mistakes made by opposing parties or judges. The term 'egregious' is almost always followed by words like 'mistake' or 'error,' highlighting its role in formal and sometimes adversarial contexts.
Strategic Communication
The strategic use of such formal language in a public speech can be seen as an attempt to convey authority and objectivity. However, it can also be interpreted as a tactic to distance himself from the immediate emotions and sentiments of the moment. This careful crafting of language demonstrates the sophisticated and often deliberate nature of modern political communication.
Learning Curve
It's worth noting that Trump's understanding of certain terms seems to require careful teaching. The significant time it took for him to grasp the meaning of 'egregious' indicates that this was not an innate or spontaneous use of the term. It highlights the importance of speech writers and the extent to which the content of his public statements is influenced by external guidance.
Implications for Public Perception
The use of such formal or obscure language can have mixed implications on public perception. On one hand, it can be seen as an attempt to communicate in a clear and precise manner. On the other hand, it might be perceived as lacking authenticity and emotional connection. This raises questions about the role of speech writers in shaping the public dialogue and the broader implications for political communication in the digital age.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the use of 'egregious' in Trump's speech on the Charlottesville incident represents a deliberate choice influenced by his speechwriters. It highlights the complexity of modern political discourse and the role of carefully crafted language in shaping public perception. The understanding and use of such terms are indicative of a broader communication strategy that may be more about control and distance than genuine emotional engagement.