Donald Trump

Linguistic Analysis on a Political Statement

 “What the hell do you have to lose?  Vote for me.” This statement has 2 sentences. The first one is a question and the second one is a command. The expected answer of this question is the reason behind the command.

The question is an indirect speech act; because, even though it is an interrogative sentence, it is declarative functionally. It does not elicit information, but it assumes that our society is divided into 2 classes: The first class that has something to lose, and the second class that does not have anything to lose.

The speaker talks to the people of the first class as a business man talks to his customers. He promises them that his goods (such as the wall and banning the Muslims) will protect what they have. But when he tried to talk to the people of the second class he talked as a business man who holds his employees’ weak points, to convey them to accept lower salaries! That is why he used his request in a direct speech act... imperative... a command verb. That is the speaker’s logic to convey people to vote for him... the logic of business man, not a politician who appreciates his voters.

Plus, no professional person can use this phrase “What the hell” in his work and not get fired. Looking at the situational context, we will find this phrase violated 2 maxims of conversation (i.e. conversation conventions): maxim of manner and maxim of quality, because the person who said it was a presidential candidate in his election rally in 2016, and he wants to present 300 million citizens of the most powerful state in the world!

Current Election's Goal

So, why the Republican Party nominated Donald Trump as their presidential candidate even though he does not have any political experience and he speaks and behaves in non political manner? Is that because the Global capitalism is no longer content with the politicians to lead the world for its interest, and it decided to lead by itself? If it is right it means that the Republican Party hanged itself -as a political party-by this nomination.

A lot of republicans understand that, and they understand the riskiness of their party's nomination for Trump. Also, they know that even though if Trump will win the election, he would not be able to achieve a lot of plans, such as banning the Muslims, because they are not constitutional. But the problem is that he would be still able to feed the hate in the society.

So, the goal of this election could be to defeat Trump as he presents the hate, authoritarianism, fascism, and Global capitalism's controlling over the politics. We know that Hitler has a lot of supporters, and he was elected by democratic means and free election. So, we cannot take the adventure and repeat the same mistake. We need to learn from others' mistakes. But this goal cannot not be achieved if Clinton, Stein, Castle and Johnson cannot not come together, and not divide the voices of the people who are against Trump.

On the other hand, some of Bernie Sanders supporters do not like Hillary Clinton. So, the vote of this election will be based on hate, not love. Most of those who will vote for Trump will not vote for him because they love him, but because they hate Clinton. And most of those who will vote for Clinton will not vote for her because they love her, but because they hate Trump. Both will not choose who they love more, but who they hate less. Both anti-Trump and anti- Clinton think if they will vote for the green party or independent candidate they would throw their vote in the trash.

So, it might be a historical chance for a third party to gather all these people behind it. But, which goal is more important: defeating Trump or to have a strong third party?!

White

The first day I worked in the Islamic school, the principle took me to the 11^th grade class. She introduced me to the students and then she left. Before I even opened my mouth, to say anything, a student raised her hand. I referred to her to talk.

-          “Are you Arab or white?” She asked.

I did not understand the question, because I thought she referred to my racial identity by “Arab” and my skin color by “white”.

-          “Cannot I be both?” I replied.

Later, I realized that these students were not just Muslims. They are American Muslims. So, they still looked at the whole world (including their religion) through their American culture. And “white” in American culture is not just color. It refers to the Caucasian race and European origin. 

How can we look at other cultures?

When you look at someone through your glasses, you do not see him, but you just see your impression about him.

When you try to look at him through his glasses, you do not see him neither, but you just see his impression about himself.

The only way you can see someone is to use both glasses when you look at him to see him between these both impressions.

Same thing when try to look at a different culture.

Prejudice is so deeply rooted in human nature, but that does not mean it can never be eliminated, or at least minimize its effects, the question is how.

Samovar, Porter & McDaniel (2013) considered knowledge as one of components of intercultural communication competence that influence one’s ability to interact effectively and appropriately in another culture. I think we cannot treat everyone with fairness and equity before we know their point of view and perspective.

But how can we learn about others' cultures? You cannot be tolerant of others' differences if you will try to perceive their differences based on your culture. That will lead to impede empathy in intercultural communication. So, you need to perceive others differences based on their cultures, not your culture.

We need to be able to see the world from others’ point of views and perspectives, not to see others from our point of view and perspective, and then we will be able to apply the professional and ethical standards that are free from cultural bias.