Jennifer Mercieca, Texas A&M University

Donald Trump delivered his second Republican Party acceptance speech from the White House on Aug. 27, shattering the norm that presidents do not campaign at the public’s expense, and describing a nation in crisis.

Trump spoke of internal enemies intent on destroying the American way of life and offered himself as the nation’s only protection against widespread rampaging violence.

It was a speech meant to draw a stark contrast between Trump’s view of America and what he portrayed as his Democratic opponent Joseph Biden’s view of America.

I’ve been analyzing Trump’s rhetoric since 2015. I wrote about Trump’s appeal to authoritarian voters at his 2016 nomination acceptance speech in my new book, “Demagogue For President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump.”

This year’s speech was a repeat performance.

Trump repeatedly tried to create a sense of urgency about his reelection, calling this the “most important election in the history of our country.”

Trump said that “if the left gains power, they will demolish the suburbs, confiscate your guns, and appoint justices who will wipe away your Second Amendment and other Constitutional freedoms.”

“No one will be safe in Biden’s America,” Trump warned.

Biden borrowed from Trump’s playbook, tweeting out a response to the speech.

‘A wicked nation’

The months long protests against police violence and systemic racism against African Americans, the movement to pull down Confederate monuments, and even The New York Times’ 1619 Project provided the background for Trump’s attack on Biden’s view of America and his defense of his own record in office.

Trump claimed that “Joe Biden and his party repeatedly assailed America as a land of racial, economic and social injustice.” He told his audience that “in the left’s backward view, they do not see America as the most free, just, and exceptional nation on earth. Instead, they see a wicked nation that must be punished for its sins.”

In so doing, Trump’s speech rejected the concerns that a majority of Americans have about systemic racism while it offered solace to those Americans who think that the movement has gone too far.

Trump spoke in stark terms about the choice facing Americans in November. “This election will decide whether we will defend the American Way of Life, or whether we allow a radical movement to completely dismantle and destroy it,” he said.

And Trump promised to be the nation’s hero. He said that he would protect “the patriotic heroes who keep America safe,” while his opponents would “stand with anarchists, agitators, rioters, looters and flag-burners.”

He quoted one of his own memes, saying he is the only thing standing between vulnerable Americans and what he calls the nation’s dangerous enemies within. “Always remember,” he said, “they are coming after me, because I am fighting for you.”

Trump’s Republican nomination acceptance speech didn’t reach across the aisle to draw in the support of Democrats or Democrat-leaning Independents. It wasn’t a speech for all of America – it was a speech designed to appeal to Trump’s base and terrify them into voting for him. That’s authoritarian.

Jennifer Mercieca, Associate Professor of Communication, Texas A&M University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

President Muhammadu Buhari rejoices with Nigerian born Kaycee Madu, appointed Minister of Justice and Solicitor General for the Government of Alberta, in Canada.

Madu makes history as the first African born provincial Minister in Canadian history, and is also the Provincial Secretary and Keeper of the Great Seal of the Province of Alberta.

The President says as the first Black Justice Minister and Solicitor-General in Canada, Madu has written himself into history books, and urges Nigerians, both at home and abroad, to remain good Ambassadors of their country.

Mark Winfield, York University, Canada

Now into the third year of its mandate, the Ontario government under Premier Doug Ford is being assessed for its handling of the COVID-19 crisis. The impressions are mixed.

On a personal level, the premier’s responses to the pandemic have generally been regarded favourably. He has at times conveyed deep personal empathy for those affected by COVID-19 and their families.

At the same time, the province has struggled to provide effective responses to the COVID-19 crisis, seemingly uncertain of what direction to take or of the scope of its own authority and capacity.

Controversies over the government’s plans to reopen elementary schools without reducing class sizes are the latest in series of stumbles in managing the crisis.

‘Have fun’

The Ontario government was initially slow to recognize the scope of the pandemic and the risks it posed. COVID-19’s global spread was apparent by early March, yet the premier confidently advised Ontarians to “go away” and “have fun” over the March break holiday.

By the time a provincial lockdown was imposed on March 18, most of those travellers were already back in Ontario. Some brought the virus with them, where it began to spread into the community, most critically to long-term care facilities.

The disaster that ensued in long-term care centres has been well-documented. More than 1,450 long-term care residents have died of COVID-19. More may have perished due to neglect as portions of the care system, particularly in for-profit facilities, effectively collapsed.

Read more: The coronavirus exposes the perils of profit in seniors' housing

The province was again slow to respond, despite well-known risks in the sector, especially its increasing reliance on part-time itinerant staff, and more general concerns over the quality and level of care being provided in long-term care facilities. Many of these issues had been highlighted less than a year earlier in the July 2019 report of the inquiry into the murders of nursing home residents by nurse Elizabeth Wettlaufer.

The province’s promise of an “iron ring of protection” for care facility residents failed. The government then studiously avoided a formal judicial inquiry into the COVID-19 care home disaster, opting for a less formal commission, which will lack public testimony, under oath, by key officials in system.

Seasonal workers

Early warning bells were also sounded around the potential risks to large numbers of temporary foreign farm workers employed in Ontario. Crowded, unsanitary living conditions, as well as the vulnerability to deportation for workers who lack permanent resident status if fired by their employers, were again well-known long before the arrival of COVID-19.

Read more: Migrant workers face further social isolation and mental health challenges during coronavirus pandemic

Yet the province failed to take proactive action, despite having substantial legal authority to set and enforce standards and practices for farm operators under occupational health and safety, public health and agricultural legislation.

Those responsibilities were left to the ad hoc efforts of local health units, most notably in Windsor-Essex. The result was more than 1,000 cases of COVID-19 among temporary farm workers and at least three deaths.

School reopenings

The government’s latest missteps have been around the reopening of schools in September. Major concerns are being raised by health experts, school boards, teachers and parents about the government’s approach to opening elementary schools.

Read more: Coronavirus outbreaks are inevitable as Ontario plans to reopen schools

The government seems to be proceeding on a largely business-as-usual model with normal, pre-pandemic class sizes. Personal protective equipment will be provided for teachers, and masks are required for students in grades 4 to 8, and are recommended for younger children.

But health experts and public health authorities have highlighted the need to reduce class sizes to control COVID-19 in schools. With smaller classes, any outbreak would be limited to a smaller group. Teachers are also far more likely to be able to manage the behaviour of their students in smaller classes.

The Ford government, overall, has presented an image of deep concern and empathy for the victims of the pandemic. But it’s flailing when it comes to delivering the kinds of concrete, proactive measures that COVID-19 requires. The premier’s own management style remains more like that of a city councillor — someone who is genuinely trying to help his constituents, but suggests he’s up against forces beyond his control.

‘Final sign-off’

This is an odd stance for a premier who once declared that he had “final sign-off on everything in this province.” At times the government has seemed unable to grasp the scope of the many tools at its disposal to deal with the pandemic.

The province is spending nearly $6 billion annually to keep hydro rates artificially low. In that context, it should be able to find the means to implement a safer and more effective plan for reopening public schools, where there are significant risks of triggering a second wave of COVID-19.

Despite its challenges in dealing with COVID-19, the province has been quietly efficient in the ongoing pursuit of its pro-business agenda. In fact, in many ways, that agenda has accelerated under the cover of the pandemic.

The land development industry continues to be a favourite of the government. Proposed revisions to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe region released in June would compel municipalities to make land available to developers to accommodate doubtful projections of population growth to 2051.

The same proposed amendments would permit aggregate extraction operations (for example, gravel pits and quarries) in the habitat of endangered and threatened species. The province’s environmental assessment process, in place since the mid-1970s, was largely dismantled through the government’s omnibus “Economic Recovery Act” pushed through the legislature in July.

Read more: The erosion of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act threatens iconic Algonquin wolf

Where the government’s combination of empathy, administrative ineptitude and responsiveness to whatever developers and other industries seem to ask of it will lead is unknown. But that doesn’t serve the interests of Ontario residents very well. Nor does it provide a very strong basis on which to head into an election less than two years away.

Mark Winfield, Professor of Environmental Studies, York University, Canada

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

“They need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots. If they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting because they’re not equipped to have it.”
– President Donald Trump explaining to Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business why he’s been holding up stimulus negotiations, in which Democrats included $3.6 billion in emergency funding for USPS to help it handle election-related mail (August 13, 2020).

Throughout Donald Trump’s time in office, pundits have made a habit of declaring the latest scandal his point of no return. There was the Russia investigation, the hush money, the Charlottesville protests and Trump’s racist remarks, the border cages, the Giuliani-Ukraine debacle, the impeachment, the incompetent response to Coronavirus, the Russian bounties, the economic recession, and many others.

Yet, time and again, Trump has defied the prognosticators. He’s never been a popular president, but his hold on his base has been steadfast.

Which is why I completely understand your skepticism as I say the following: Trump’s recent acknowledgement that he’s holding up critical USPS funding for political reasons will likely doom his reelection prospects.

Nothing is certain in politics, of course, and there are still more than two months and many surprises before Election Day. But, if Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans respond with even a modicum of competence, it’s hard to see how Trump can come back from this one.

Trump’s fatal mistake wasn’t, in itself, sabotaging the U.S. Postal Service— actually, that was one of his only remaining pathways to reelection. Until the past two weeks, he was well on his way to pulling it off, quietly.

Instead, Trump’s fatal mistake was publicly admitting that he’s withholding critical funding for USPS for political reasons. In addition, a poorly timed letter sent yesterday by USPS to 46 secretaries of state, warning of election mail delays, made matters much worse for him.

Why It’s Fatal

To see why this seemingly small blunder, of all blunders, was Trump’s fatal mistake, consider the one secret to his endurance: A masterful use of ambiguity.

Most politicians use what I’d call negative ambiguity. They hold tight to information about their intentions and actions to leave their audience guessing. They either say nothing, or make noncommittal statements, such as “I’m still reviewing,” “I’m concerned,” or “I don’t want to prejudge.” Basically, picture Maine Senator Susan Collins here.

Negative ambiguity works by placing the audience in an “Uncertainty Trap,” where they fear making the wrong move and instead wait for more information. This buys politicians critical time, until it’s too late and everyone has moved on.

Trump, by contrast, relies on a different type of ambiguity — positive ambiguity. Positive ambiguity works not by limiting information, but by overwhelming your audience with information and contradictory signals. Rather than say “I’m not sure,” the politician using positive ambiguity says “probably” one day and “probably not” the next.

Whereas negative ambiguity works by keeping your audiences guessing, positive ambiguity allows different people to choose which signals to believe. This results is two groups that perceive your beliefs and actions in diametrically opposite ways, each sure they perceive you accurately, which fosters a political stalemate.

Positive ambiguity, however, is much riskier than negative ambiguity, because it requires that your audience be kept in balance. If your opponents gain a clear upper hand, you’d be providing them with just the fodder they need to act forcefully against you.

Which brings me back to Trump. Trump’s modus operandi has always been positive ambiguity. He contradicts himself often, sometimes even in the course of a single statement. Just this past week, Trump urged Americans to wear masks in his press briefing, but two lines later said that “Maybe they’re not so good.”

So what was so unusual about Trump’s statement about funding for USPS?

Prior to this week, there was still some ambiguity about what Trump was hoping to do with USPS. Trump’s Postmaster General and major Republican donor, Louis DeJoy, launched a spate of reforms in July that were officially designed to improve efficiency but effectively slowed down mail delivery. But then, last week, DeJoy vowed that election mail will not be slowed down. Trump, meanwhile, has been saying that absentee voting is good, but mail-in voting is bad, even though most states, including most battleground states, use absentee rather than universal mail-in voting.

In short, there’s been plenty of noise, but no clear signal that proved that Trump aimed to undermine USPS and actual votes by mail for political reasons. Republicans could hold on to the myth that it was all about efficiency, while Democrats cried foul and claimed it was all about the election.

But now, with Trump’s open acknowledgement that he was preventing USPS from receiving critical funds in order to improve his reelection chances, he relinquished ambiguity.
Not only that, but he did it over an issue that directly hurts his core constituents — namely, older White men, who depend on mail to provide them with medicine, social security checks, and other necessities.

Can he go back and deny it? He could try, but having conceded the point publicly, and on Fox Business of all places, even his amenable base would have trouble buying it.
Anti-Trump groups like VoteVets are already using this in their political ads. Others will likely follow.

Equally important, Trump’s acknowledgement gave Democrats all the ammunition they needed to raise the alarm and rally their voters. If, until this week, Trump’s use of USPS to sabotage the election was a nebulous possibility, now it seems like a certain reality.

As a result, there is no longer any ambiguity. Even if Trump retreated and allowed USPS to receive the additional funding it needs, he will not be able to erase the impression he’s created. Every mail delay, every lost ballot, every missing prescription, will now count against him. Try as he might to claim that underfunding USPS is about fighting voter fraud, the broader damage to him is already done.

What’s perhaps worse for Trump is that rather than make the 2020 election about Joe Biden, as he did so successfully to Hillary Clinton in 2016, he has now unambiguously and maybe irrevocably made the 2020 election about himself. That will cost him dearly.

Whether I’m right or wrong, we’ll know soon enough.
*Culled from Medium