Metaphors of populists – A cognitive linguistic study of conceptual metaphors in political speeches by Donald J. Trump and Nigel Farage

(1)

Student

VT 2020

Examensarbete för kandidatexamen, 15 hp Engelska

Metaphors of populists – A cognitive

linguistic study of conceptual

metaphors in political speeches by

Donald J. Trump and Nigel Farage

(2)

(3)

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the use of conceptual metaphors in political speeches by Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. Conceptual metaphor theory is applied as the framework for the study. Metaphorical linguistic expressions are identified with help of the method Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP). The conceptual metaphors giving rise to the metaphorical linguistic expressions are identified and categorized into different domains in the study. The analysis demonstrates that the use of metaphors is ubiquitous. The metaphors related to the salient domains of politics, nation, immigration, economy, and morality are discussed and further investigated in the analysis. The analysis shows that metaphors are employed in the construction of populist discourse and to evoke the emotion of fear by mainly drawing from embodied elements. A notable parallel between Trump and Farage is the use of the Moral Order metaphor which subsequently reveal their moral values.

(4)

(5)

1 Introduction

In recent years, populist movements have gained ground and “disrupted the politics in Western societies” (Inglehart and Norris, 2016, p. 1). In the USA and in England, the popularity of populist movements among voters has surged which can be ultimately

observed in the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States as

well as in the triumph of the pro-Brexit, in which Nigel Farage who is the former leader of the UK Independence Party played a central role, with the result of the U.K. leaving the European Union. Seemingly, the populist rhetoric of Trump and Farage has been effective (Rowland, 2019, p. 343; Block and Negrine, 2017, p. 178). Language is an essential tool in any type of discourse, especially so in political speeches. Trump and Farage have evidently used this tool effectively in their speeches to gain support, persuade and win voters. This thesis will employ a qualitative approach and explore the language used in their political speeches. For the purpose of doing such a study, cognitive linguistics and conceptual metaphor theory will be applied. Specifically, the essay will explore the main issues and topics and the way they are metaphorically framed in Trump’s and Farage’s political speeches.

(8)

6

2 Aim and Research Questions

The main aim and purpose of the study is to analyse and investigate conceptual metaphors used by Donald Trump in two campaign speeches and by Nigel Farage in two different political speeches. This thesis studies similarities and differences between the two speakers. To do so, metaphorical linguistic expressions used in the speeches are identified and analysed in terms of their respective conceptual domains related to conceptual metaphors. The analysis attempts to answer the following questions:

• What kinds of conceptual metaphors are used by Donald Trump and Nigel Farage in their speeches? What kind of similarities or differences can be observed between them?

• What are the underlying metaphorical structures of the metaphors used by the Donald J. Trump and Nigel Farage?

(9)

7

3 Theoretical Framework

3.1 Key Concepts

Lexical unit/Lexical item – Word.

Populist – Populist and populism are ill-defined terms and often misapplied in discourse (Gagnon et al. 2018, p. 6). The following definition will be applied in this study:

Scholars from across Europe and the Americas have identified a core set of ideas at the heart of every populist force. They call something populist if it expresses the belief that politics embodies a struggle between the forces of good, understood as the will of the common people, and the forces of evil, associated with a conspiring elite. Thus, populism is a polarizing (Manichean) discourse that is people-centric and anti-establishment. (Team Populism, 2018, p. 2)

Concept (as used in cognitive linguistics) – A concept according to cognitive linguistics is a mental representation with a set of typical features (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2014). Concepts can be abstract, such as LOVE, as well as concrete, such as PLANTS. Cognitive concepts are written in small capitals (Kövecses, 2010, p. 6).

(10)

8

Source domain – The more experiential, concrete conceptual domain from “which we draw metaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual domain” (Kövecses, 2010, p.4).

Target domain – The more abstract conceptual domain which “we try to understand through the use of the source domain” (Kövecses, 2010, p.4).

3.2 Metaphors

The folk understanding of metaphors is significantly different from how cognitive linguistics explains metaphors. The traditional view of metaphor is that it is merely a poetic expression and a matter of figure of speech. However, “metaphorical thought need not be poetic or especially rhetorical” (Lakoff, 2016a, p. 5). Much of our reasoning and conceptualisation are grounded metaphorically. We employ metaphors in everyday thought as our conceptual system is “fundamentally metaphorical in nature” (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p. 3). Metaphors are not only pervasive in everyday language, they also “structure how we perceive, how we think, and what we do” (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p. 3). Metaphors are ubiquitous, they are not just a matter of figure of speech, they largely structure human thinking.

3.3 Conceptual Metaphor Theory

(11)

9

3.3.1 Conceptual Metaphors and Metaphorical Linguistic Expressions

Kövecses (2010, p. 4) stated that a distinction must be made between conceptual metaphors and metaphorical linguistic expressions. Metaphorical linguistic expressions are merely the language of the more concrete source domain. For example, the phrase “he’s without direction in life” (Kövecses, 2010, p. 3) is a metaphorical linguistic

expression which derives from the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY. We

understand the phrase with the help of the underlying metaphor which is the source of the expression. Metaphorical linguistic expressions are written in italics whereas and conceptual metaphors are written with small capitals.

3.3.2 Conceptual Metaphor

A metaphor “is understanding and experiencing one kind of things in terms of another” (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p. 5). That is, a metaphorically structured concept is the understanding of one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain. The conceptual domain we try to understand is called target domain and the conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expressions from is called source domain (Kövecses, 2002, p. 4). Some concepts, such as LOVE, are “structured almost entirely metaphorically” (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p. 85). Generally, the target domain is abstract whereas the source domain is often more concrete. For example, LIFE, LOVE and IDEAS are abstract target domains, while JOURNEYS, FOOD and PLANTS are concrete source domains. Abstract concepts such as LOVE and IDEAS require metaphorical definition because such concepts are not “clearly enough delineated in their own terms” (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p. 118). Thus, we typically “conceptualize the less clearly delineated in terms of the more clearly delineated” (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p. 59).

Concrete and delineated concepts such as PLANTS and FOOD are grounded in our natural

kinds of experiences in the world and have sufficient internal structures which can be utilized when defining abstract concepts. The target domain is also only partially structured and understood in terms of the source domain (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003, p. 5). It is only partially structured because the target domain we want to understand cannot be entirely the same as the source domain.

An example of a conceptual metaphor is AN ARGUMENT IS WAR. The

(12)

10

domain, ARGUMENT, in terms of the source domain, WAR. We use expressions which

derive from the source domain WAR when we speak about the target domain

ARGUMENT. Below are some examples which illustrate how the conceptual metaphor AN ARGUMENT IS WAR is realized linguistically through metaphorical expressions:

Your claims are indefensible.

He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms were right on target.

I demolished his argument.

I’ve never won an argument with him. You disagree? Okay, shoot!

If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out.

He shot down all of my arguments. (Kövecses, 2002, p. 5)

The examples demonstrate how numerous metaphorical linguistic expressions cluster together and such a cluster of linguistic expressions is what constitutes a conceptual metaphor (Kövecses, 2010, p. 149). Most people would probably not even notice that they are in fact using metaphors when uttering such expressions. However, it is metaphorical linguistic expressions like these which “reveal the existence of the conceptual metaphors” (Kövecses, 2010, p. 7). Moreover, we generally need to use several different source domains to make sense of a target domain. A certain concept has typically a great deal of different aspects to it, therefore, a single source domain is not enough to understand all the distinct aspects of a concept. For example, the conceptual metaphor AN ARGUMENT IS WAR is not enough to truly comprehend the concept ARGUMENT and all its aspects. Distinct aspects such as content, progress and

strength of the concept ARGUMENT is understood through the conceptual metaphors: “AN

(13)

11 3.3.3 Embodiment and Metaphors

Embodied cognition is a theory which argues that our cognition is fundamentally shaped by our bodies and how our bodies interact with the physical world (Kövecses, 2010, p. 116-119). According to Kövecses (2010) “concepts in general are not disembodied abstractions but embodied: grounded in subjective, felt experience” (p. 118). In other words, how we think is fundamentally based on our human and bodily experiences. To illustrate, how we talk about emotions is highly embodied. For example, our body temperature increases when we get angry, this happens physiologically and is not metaphorical. It merely occurs naturally in our body when we get angry. However, our conceptual system draws from this basic human experience. Therefore, anger is often understood in terms of heat. Consequently, conceptual

metaphors such as ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER and ANGER IS FIRE are

based upon this notion and are grounded in our human experiences (Ungerer and Schmid, 2006, p. 135). That is, they are embodied.

3.3.4 Metaphorical Mapping

The metaphorical process of understanding a concept in terms of another concept is made possible by metaphorical mapping. Metaphorical mapping means that there are systematic conceptual correspondences between the source and the target domain (Kövecses, 2010, p. 6). Conceptual elements of the source domain are mapped onto the elements of the target domain. Kövecses (2010) illustrated metaphorical mapping by using the example of LOVE IS A JOURNEY:

Source : JOURNEY Target : LOVE

the travelers ⇒ the lovers

the vehicle ⇒ the love relationship itself

the journey ⇒ events in the relationship

the distance covered ⇒ the progress made

(14)

12 decisions about which way to go

⇒ choices about what to do

the destination of the journey

⇒ the goal(s) of the relationship

(p. 9)

The mapping structure of LOVE IS A JOURNEY illustrates how we understand, or

conceptualize, LOVE in terms of JOURNEY. Notably, the mapping structure between the

two domains LOVE and JOURNEY reveals that there are a systematic set of

correspondences. The constituent elements of JOURNEY correspond with the constituent

elements of LOVE. It is through these mappings we come to know a metaphor which, in

most cases, happens unconsciously (Kövecses, 2010, p. 10). Kövecses (2010, p. 10) also pointed out that there are established and fixed mappings and that not any element of the source domain can be mapped onto any element of the source domain. Thus, any possible metaphorical linguistic expressions must fit within the conventional mappings of a conceptual metaphor.

3.4 Metaphorical Framing

Framing is “the process by which people develop a particular conceptualization of an issue or reorient their thinking about an issue” (Chong and Druckman, 2007, p. 104). Thus, metaphorical framing is when metaphors are employed in such a process. Studies have demonstrated that the use of different metaphors in discourse can cause people to reason differently about issues (Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2011; Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2013; Matlock, Coe and Westerling, 2017).

(15)

13

“talking about crime as a virus lead people to propose treating the crime problem the same way as one would treat a literal virus epidemic” (Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2011, p. 2) and “talking about crime as a beast lead people to propose dealing with a crime problem the same way as one would deal with a literal wild animal attack” (Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2011, p. 2). Furthermore, the experiments found that the impact of the metaphorical framings is mainly covert as people did not recognize that metaphors influenced their reasoning about crime.

The effect of metaphorical framing on reasoning is also revealed in discourse about wildfires in a study conducted by Matlock, Coe and Westerling (2017). The study examined risk assessment among people regarding wildfires. Participants first had to read a paragraph about a wildfire and then had to answer questions which were designed to exam perceptions of risk. A fire was either framed as a monster wildfire, which is metaphorical framing, or a major wildfire, which is not metaphorical framing. A fire being framed as a monster encourages “people to think about fear, damage and destruction” (Matlock, Coe and Westerling, 2017, p. 253). The results showed that participants in the study perceived that there was greater risk when a fire was framed as monster wildfire than when it was merely framed as a major wildfire. The empirical work suggests that the metaphors people are subjected to, subsequently influence reasoning and how people might attempt to solve issues.

3.5 Metaphors in Politics

Metaphors are pervasive in everyday life, thus, metaphors also ought to be pervasive in politics. Lakoff (2003) stated that metaphors “play a central role in the construction of […] political reality” (p. 159) and that many of them “are imposed upon us by people in power” (p. 160) such as political leaders. Lakoff (2009) explained in The Political Mind that “if we hear the same language over and over, we will reason increasingly more in terms of the frames and metaphors activated by that language” (p. 15). Hence, how often certain metaphors are repeatedly used in discourse by politicians matters a great deal as those metaphors will become more entrenched. Moreover, Charteris-Black (2011) analysed metaphors which were used by different political leaders in Politicians

(16)

14

Charteris-Black (2011), metaphor is persuasive in political discourse due to the fact that “it potentially has a highly persuasive force because of its activation of both conscious and unconscious resources to influence our rational, moral and emotional response, both directly – through describing and analysing political issues – and indirectly by influencing how we feel about things” (p. 50-51). Thus, the employment of metaphors by politicians can have a great influence on their popularity and what they ultimately can achieve politically.

3.5.1 Metaphors Used to Justify War

Lakoff (1991) demonstrated the importance of metaphors in political discourse and how metaphors can be used to influence public opinion. In his article Metaphor and War, he discusses the role of conceptual metaphors in discourse over whether the USA should go to war in the gulf against Saddam Hussein in the 1990s. Some of these metaphors

which Lakoff (1991) mentioned were WAR IS POLITICS PURSUED BY OTHER MEANS,

POLITICS IS BUSINESS, STATE IS A PERSON and the so called The Fairy Tale of the Just

War.

(17)

15

hidden or ignored. For example, the metaphors employed for justifying going to war in the Gulf ignored the costs of the war in terms of human lives and other severe consequences.

Lakoff (2009, p. 125-128) also mentioned a similar scenario in the aftermaths of 9/11. Immediately after 9/11, the administration spokesmen referred to the attack as a crime. However, talking about terrorism as a crime quickly changed and the administration began to employ the metaphor of war in its rhetoric. The war metaphor was an effective metaphor for the conservatives, and it has successfully served their political interests (Lakoff, 2009, p. 128-130). Arguably, it all boiled down to which sets of metaphors were used to win over the public opinion. It further illustrates the importance of metaphors in political discourse.

3.5.2 Metaphors and Political Thought: Strict Father and Nurturant Parent

Lakoff (2016a) also analysed political metaphorical thought in his book Moral Politics:

What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don’t in which he argued that all politics is

based upon morality. Lakoff (2016a) argued that all politics is moral because “when a political leader proposes a policy, he or she assumes that the policy is right, not wrong or morally irrelevant” (p. 10). According to Lakoff (2016a), republicans and democrats “typically support opposite policies because they have opposite moral worldviews – opposite notions of right and wrong” (p. 10).

Lakoff (2016a, p. 33) argued that the metaphor THE NATION IS A FAMILY is

at the epicentre of U.S. politics. The government is thought of as the parent and the citizens of the nation are the children. There are mainly two distinctive models which derive from the FAMILY which structure liberal and conservative reasoning. The conservatives’ notion of the FAMILY is structured by the so-called Strict Father model, whereas the liberals’ notion of the FAMILY is structured by the so called Nurturant Parent model (Lakoff, 2016a, p. 33). These two models have mainly different sets of moral priorities which give rise to different worldviews:

(18)

16

following of strict guidelines and behavioral norms […] Nurturant Parent morality has a different set of priorities. Moral nurturance requires empathy for others and the helping of those who need help. To help others, one must take care of oneself and nurture social ties. And one must be happy and fulfilled in oneself, or one will have little empathy for others. (Lakoff, 2016a, p. 35-36)

Most people have both of these two opposing models of the FAMILY and most people are moderates which means that they apply the two opposing models in different contexts and issues (Lakoff, 2016a, p. 11).

3.5.3 Donald Trump and Conceptual Metaphors

(19)

17

4 Material and Method

4.1 Material

The material of the study consisted of several speeches delivered by Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. Donald Trump’s speeches were collected from Trump’s official campaign website. Two campaign speeches delivered by Trump were chosen for the analysis. One of the speeches was delivered on October 13th, 2016 by Trump at a campaign rally in

the state of Florida. The second speech was delivered on November 1st, 2016 by Trump

at a campaign rally in Wisconsin.

Nigel Farage’s speeches were transcribed from audio to text solely for the purpose of this thesis. Two different speeches held by Farage were chosen from YouTube. The two videos were then transcribed from audio to text. One of Farage’s speeches was delivered at a UKIP conference called #SaferBritain on 29th September 2016. The other speech was delivered at an anti-EU rally called Grassroots Out in

Newport on 29th March 2016.

Only four speeches were chosen in order to narrow down the scope of the investigation. The two speeches also preceded Trump’s and Farage’s eventual political successes which were Trump’s victory in the American presidential election and UKIP’s noteworthy role in the Brexit-campaign.

4.2 Metaphor Identification

(20)

18

1. Read the entire text–discourse to establish a general understanding of the meaning.

2. Determine the lexical units in the text–discourse

3. (a) For each lexical unit in the text, establish its meaning in context, that is, how it applies to an entity, relation, or attribute in the situation evoked by the text (contextual meaning). Take into account what comes before and after the lexical unit.

(b) For each lexical unit, determine if it has a more basic contemporary meaning in other contexts than the one in the given context. For our purposes, basic meanings tend to be

—More concrete; what they evoke is easier to imagine, see, hear, feel, smell, and taste.

—Related to bodily action.

—More precise (as opposed to vague) —Historically older.

Basic meanings are not necessarily the most frequent meanings of the lexical unit.

(c) If the lexical unit has a more basic current–contemporary meaning in other contexts than the given context, decide whether the contextual meaning contrasts with the basic meaning but can be understood in comparison with it.

4. If yes, mark the lexical unit as metaphorical. (p. 3)

(21)

19

Moreover, the identified metaphorical occurrences were also categorised into different domains, or themes, according to the target domains of the metaphors. These domains exhibited in which areas most of the metaphors were employed within.

4.3 Resources Used

The dictionary which was consistently used was the Macmillan English Dictionary in its electronic form. The thesis used the Macmillan English Dictionary due to Pragglejaz Group’s (2007, p. 16) elaboration on its suitableness when applying the MIP method.

Oxford English Dictionary was also used and consulted at times when further

information was needed for certain lexical items.

Occasionally, the analysis also consulted the second draft of the Master Metaphor list (1991) by Lakoff, Espenson and Schwartz. The Master Metaphor List (1991) is a compilation of metaphors which have been identified in research papers, research seminars, published books and student papers. The list contains conceptual metaphors, the conceptual domains of the metaphors as well as examples of metaphorical linguistic expression for each of the conceptual metaphors.

(22)

20

5 Results and Analysis

In this chapter, the findings are presented with an interpretation and analysis. The metaphorical linguistic expressions identified in the speeches are presented in combination with an analysis. A large number of different metaphors were identified, however, only a small selection of the metaphors from the most common and significant domains are exemplified and investigated due to the qualitative nature of this thesis.

5.1 Main Domains

A total of 126 of metaphorical linguistic expressions are identified in Nigel Farage’s speeches and 102 metaphorical linguistic expressions are identified in Donald Trump’s speeches. The share the domains which the metaphorical linguistic expressions are categorised into are presented below:

Donald Trump Nigel Farage

Politics .29 .32 Nation .15 .17 Immigration - .14 Morality .14 .02 Miscellaneous .19 .17 Economy .13 .06

Spatial Orientation and size .07 .12

Military .03 -

Table 1.0 Domains of the metaphors showed in percentages.

5.2 Politics

A salient similarity between the analysed speeches is that a substantial part of the metaphors stems from the domain of politics. The analysed speeches are political campaign speeches, hence, much of the discourse within these speeches concern politics and policies. Moreover, POLITICS is an abstract concept; therefore, we need to

(23)

21

domains are employed to understand different aspects of the target domain which is shown in the discussion below. A noticeable similarity between Trump and Farageis that both employ the metaphors POLITICS IS WAR and POLITICS IS A GAME. Linkevičiūtė (2019, p. 54) also found these conceptual metaphors to be frequently used by Trump.

5.2.1 WAR, Trump: (N = 9) Farage: (N = 10)

The metaphor POLITICS IS WAR is commonly used in Trump’s and Farage’s speeches. It

is common as there are many conceptual correspondences between the domains. The structure of war is similar to the structure of politics. The higher frequency also suggests higher degree of conventionality. In one of Farage’s speeches giving in to the EU is talked about as surrendering:

1. We have surrendered that to Brussels, we have surrendered that to a new concept of EU citizenship.

Surrendering in a war is mapped onto being compliant politically. The metaphor evokes a frame which include a situation between two adversaries: The EU, an occupying force, and Britain. Farage also refers to the referendum vote to leave the EU as Britain’s

Independence Day:

2. We’ll win the referendum and June 23rd will become

Independence Day.

Victory in a war against an occupying force is mapped onto the success of the political referendum. The framing suggests that if a voter wants to be free and independent, he or she must vote for Brexit. Farage also frames it as if Britain is an EU member who does not have any power. It further implies that Britain is below the EU in this hierarchy, even though, the EU is an organisation ruled by all its member states which also includes Britain.

(24)

22

3. Above all else, you are Americans – and you are entitled to leadership that honors you, cherishes you and defends you.

4. She was attacking millions of moms and dads who love their children and want a better future for all Americans.

Soldiers in a war is mapped onto politicians and fighting in a war is mapped onto political activity. These are the predominant mappings identified in Trump’s discourse. Noticeably, the political sphere is morally divided between the forces of evil and the forces of good within this framing.

5.2.2 JOURNEY, Farage: (N = 6)

The notion of progress in politics is understood through the metaphor POLITICS IS A JOURNEY in Farage’s speeches:

5. What we need to do, what the leave campaign needs to do, and what I have urged vote leave the official designated vehicle.

The political organisation EU is talked of as a vehicle. Members of the EU are located inside this vehicle which is on a journey towards a political goal.

5.2.3 NATURAL PHENOMENON, Farage: (N = 5)

Certain notions of POLITICS are also understood in terms of a natural phenomenon, STORM, in Farage’s discourse:

6. Well in three storms time it’ll be the lesser end, and the public are voted and it’s going to be called storm Nigel.

(25)

23 5.2.4 FOOTBALL/SOCCER, Farage: (N = 6)

A culturally specific metaphor employed repeatedly in one of Farage’s speeches is POLITICS IS FOOTBALL or in General American English POLITICS IS SOCCER:

7. But as a result of this remorseless torrent, the leave campaign, the official leave campaign, has effectively spent the last fortnight

defending its own goal doing their best to stop the other side putting the ball into the net decrying all that has been said as being

nonsense.

Teams and the actual act of playing in a football match, of the source domain is mapped onto the political sides and political debate and campaigning. It is an effective metaphor in a British context as the source domain FOOTBALL evokes a frame which is well-established among people in the U.K. The metaphor stresses the competitive nature of politics. Similar to POLITICS IS WAR, there are several conceptual correspondences

between FOOTBALL and POLITICS. Football is understood through the metaphor

FOOTBALL IS WAR as well.

5.2.5 GAME, Trump: (N = 9) Farage: (N = 4)

Politics is also understood in terms of a game, POLITICS IS A GAME, in Trump’s and Farage’s discourses. The metaphor is mainly employed for mapping the aspects of competition and the adversarial relationship. To exemplify, Trump says the following:

8. This is our chance – our one chance – to fix our rigged system and create prosperity for each and every American.

The political system is rigged, similar to how a card-game is rigged. Such a game creates unfair competition.

The conceptual correspondences between POLITICS and GAME concerning

(26)

24

9. It’s the people versus the politicians.

There are only two sides competing in this game. The only logical choice is to follow the political line of Farage if you are a part of the people according to this framing.

5.2.6 BUSINESS, Trump: (N = 2)

Trump refers to voting as an act of buying, POLITICS IS BUSINESS, within one of his speeches:

10. This is a message for any Democratic voter who have already cast ballots for Hillary Clinton and who are having a bad case of

Buyers’ Remorse.

Consumers are mapped on to voters and commercial goods are mapped on to presidential candidates. The act of buying is mapped on to the act of voting. An election is essentially conceptualised through a business frame. This is not surprising as Donald Trump is a businessman.

5.3 Nation

5.3.1 CONTAINER, Trump: (N = 4) Farage (N = 7)

The nation is conceptualised as a container which is subject to an inflow of immigrants in Farage’s discourse:

11. Unprecedented flow into Britain.

(27)

25

naturally a type of container. Thus, the metaphor A NATION IS A HOUSE is a subordinate

metaphor stemming from the metaphor A NATION IS A CONTAINER. This subordinate metaphor inherits the distinct traits and limitations of a container. A door of a house should not be open, it should be closed to anyone who is outside of the house according to this type of framing.

The nation is also conceptualised as a container which can hold liquid in Trump’s discourse:

12. Then, I am going to order a review of every single regulation issued over the last eight years. All needless, job-killing regulations will be cancelled. Millions of new jobs will come

pouring in.

Jobs, understood through the metaphor JOBS ARE WATER, are the liquid that will be poured into the container if Trump is elected. It implies that the container should be filled, as the content which is filling the container is something which is sought after, unlike the immigrants conceptualised as water in Farage’s discourse. The higher frequency suggests conventionality. The container metaphor is embodied as it is grounded in our basic human experience and knowledge of spatiality.

5.3.2 STATES ARE BOUNDED REGIONS IN SPACE, Trump: (N = 10)

In the analysed speeches, as well as throughout Trump’s presidential campaign, a reoccurring and frequently used mantra is that Trump is going to Make America Great Again:

13. We Will Make America Prosperous Again. We Will Make

America Safe Again. And Will Make America Great Again.

The mantra derives from the universal metaphor STATES ARE BOUNDED REGIONS IN

(28)

26

that there is a past state in which the USA used to be in and that the USA can enter it again with the help of Trump and his political policies. The past state also incorporates a positive connotation, that is, the past state is preferred over the present state or any future states.

5.4 Morality

5.4.1 MORAL ORDER, Trump: (N = 9) Farage: (N = 2)

The metaphor THE MORAL ORDER IS THE NATURAL ORDER, also called the Moral Order metaphor, sheds light on and reveals at least a certain part of Trump’s and Farage’s morality and worldview. The Moral Order metaphor assumes that there exists a moral hierarchy in the world “based on a folk theory of the natural order” (Lakoff, 2016a, p. 81). Trump employs the metaphor in his criticism of Hillary Clinton:

14. Americans. She looks down on them – she looks down on all the people who make her life possible.

A hierarchy is conceptualised as a vertical scale. It is based on the humanly experience of verticality through vision and body, hence, it is embodied. People higher up within a hierarchy look down on the people beneath them. The hierarchy in this utterance is the rich and powerful above the poor and powerless. Moreover, Trump also utilizes the Moral Order metaphor when he argues that American people should come first:

15. They want change, they want justice, and they want a government that puts the American people first.

Farage also employs the Moral Order metaphor in a similar manner:

16. It’s about time we started putting the interests of our own people

(29)

27

Trump and Farage place their own people above people from other nations. In Trump’s discourse, Clinton is portrayed as immoral because she explicitly points out her own place within the moral hierarchy. However, it is not regarded as immoral when Trump and Farage point out their countries’ conceived superior position within the moral hierarchy of the world.

The Moral Order metaphor also lies behind the reasoning of the following expression by Farage:

17. We’re told that Britain isn’t big enough, that Britain isn’t strong enough, to run our own affairs and make our own trade deals.

The hierarchy in this utterance is strong above weak, and big above small. This framing implies that if you are big and strong you can be independent and sovereign. A nation ought to strive for dominance within the hierarchy in which that nations exists within. The hierarchy before Brexit incorporated the EU as being positioned above Britain. After Brexit, Britain would no longer exist within that hierarchy and Britain would become the dominant actor within its own domain. Being powerful and dominant is connected to strength and size. To be strong is to be moral, or in other words, MORALITY IS STRENGTH, and striving for being strong is central according to the Strict Father model (Lakoff, 2016a, p. 71). These notions are observed in Trump’s discourse as well:

18. We Will Make America Strong Again.

The reasoning behind this utterance is constructed by MORALITY IS STRENGTH, but also

(30)

28

5.5 Immigration and Immigrants

5.5.1 WAR, Farage: (N = 13)

Immigration is a reoccurring theme and is mainly understood in terms of war, IMMIGRATION IS WAR (N = 13) in Farage’s speeches. It further illustrates the conventionality of the war metaphor. Farage repeatedly mentions that Britain must take control of its borders:

19. I want us to take back control of our borders.

Furthermore, Farage says within the context of migration that the nation must be

defended:

20. It seems to me that it is the primary job of government to defend

the realm.

Enemies in a war is mapped onto immigrants. To invade is mapped onto to immigrate. The nation, which is a container, must control the borders, which is the surface of the container, as there are enemies, the immigrants, who are attacking it. However, the nation has already lost the control of the surface. The government, here understood

through A GOVERNMENT IS A PERSON, ought to protect the nation’s people from enemies,

immigrants, in Farage’s framing.

5.5.2 WATER, Farage: (N = 3)

Farage refers to the immigrants coming to Europe and Britain with the verb ‘to flow’,

that is, the metaphor IMMIGRATION IS WATER:

(31)

29

The water metaphor is also used by Farage when he mentions terrorists:

22. And the most vital thing we could do to protect this country against this horrendous terrorist wave.

Quantity and movement of water are mapped onto number and movement of

immigrants and terrorists. The metaphor IMMIGRATION IS WATER is already well

established in discourse regarding immigration (Dervinyte, 2009, p. 51). The expression consequently lumps terrorist together with immigrants as both are bodies of water. All

water becomes dangerous. Farage utilizes fear in this metaphorical framing. Noticeably,

IMMIGRATION IS WATER appears together with another metaphor which is A NATION IS A CONTAINER. Using these two metaphors in conjunction consequently creates the persuasive effect that Britain ought to limit immigration. A container can become full, or overflow, as a container has a certain capacity. Employing this metaphor suggests that the need for limiting the inflow into the container, or in this case limiting immigrants into the nation.

5.5.3 VIRUS, Farage: (N = 1)

Germany welcomed a large number of refugees during the European migrant crisis in 2015 and on New Year’s Eve 2015-16 a wave of sexual assaults by immigrants took place in Cologne (Smile, 2016). Regarding this incident, Farage mentions that immigrants are bringing crime with them to Europe:

23. I am not saying that we’re not immune from such problems in this country.

(32)

30

5.6 Economy

5.6.1 AFFLICTION, Trump: (N = 8)

The metaphor NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT IS AN AFFLICTION give rise to several

linguistic expressions mentioning Hillary Clinton (N = 2), trade (N = 2) and regulations

(N = 4) in Trump’s discourse. Drawing from the source domain AFFLICTION illustrates

embodiment. Namely, the notion of physical suffering is mapped on to the notion of economical suffering:

24. For those who have been hit by hard times, they understand better than anyone that it’s Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street agenda that has

crushed the middle class of this country.

Trump also says that workers are suffering from trade practices and it is he who can lift this affliction and relieve the workers:

25. On that first day, I am also going to instruct the Department of Commerce to immediately begin a review of all foreign trade practices that unfairly hurt American manufacturing. I will use every lawful Presidential power to achieve relief for our workers.

Trump further draws from the source domain AFFLICTION when mentioning regulations:

26. Then, I am going to order a review of every single regulation issued over the last eight years. All needless, job-killing

regulations will be cancelled.

The moral action within this framing is to get rid of the afflictions, or the killers. By

doing so, jobs, understood through JOBS ARE LIVING BEINGS, would be saved and Trump

would become the saviour. The metaphor NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT IS AN

(33)

31

suggests it is conventional. Calling to mind physical suffering is easily done as it is a very basic human experience which is relatable.

5.6.2 THEFT, Trump: (N = 1)

Trump says that jobs have moved oversees and he frames this as a theft, JOBS MOVING

ABROAD IS THEFT:

27. We are living through the greatest jobs theft in the history of the world.

(34)

32

6 Discussion

Both Trump and Farage employ a great amount of conceptual metaphors in their speeches. Charteries-Black (2011, p. 50-51) stressed the importance of metaphors in politics. Correspondingly, the analysis demonstrates the pervasiveness of metaphors within Trump’s and Farage’s political speeches. The notable effects of these metaphors are further discussed in this chapter.

6.1 Populism

In Farage’s discourse the salient feature of populism which is people-centric and anti-establishment is observed in the utterances where Farage employs the conceptual

metaphor POLITICS IS A GAME (N=4)and the Moral Order metaphor (N = 2). He argues

that it is the “people versus the politicians” and that the interests of the people should be put first. Similarly, Trump’s discourse is also people-centric when he says put “the American people first”. This creates the opposition we/they, also observed in the study

of Trump’s POLITICS metaphors by Linkevičiūtė (2019, p. 54). Such a discourse implies

that the will of the people which is embodied by Farage and Trump should be put first. Additionally, Trump frames other countries as criminals in his theft metaphor which demonstrates the opposition, we/they. The dichotomy is also evident in Farage’s discourse concerning the European Union and immigration. The EU and immigrants become enemies by using the war metaphor.

Furthermore, the belief of a conspiring elite is a central notion for populists according to Team Populism (2018, p. 2). This is observed in Trump’s

discourse when he employs the metaphor POLITICS IS A GAME (N = 9) and says that the

(35)

33

6.2 Fear

The analysis of metaphors in Trump’s and Farage’s political speeches suggests that the emotion of fear motivates the employment of certain metaphors. Lakoff (2016) argued that “fear triggers the Strict Father model; it tends to make the model active in one’s brain” (p. 42). A politician who acts according to, and favours, the Strict Father model presumably wants to generate a sense of fear. Metaphorical framing inducing fear might also sway opinions among addresses (Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2013, p. 2; Matlock, Coe and Westerling, 2017 p. 253). Fear can contribute to “magnify people’s perception of the threat posed by an issue” (Flusberg, Matlock and Thibodeau, 2018, p. 7). According to Lakoff (2009), even the language of fear, for example using lexical items such as “threat” or “attack” repeatedly, can “continue to evoke fear once the neural circuits have been fixed in your brain” (p. 40). Flusberg, Matlock and Thibodeau (2018) stated that “fear can motivate people to pay attention, change their beliefs, and take action about” (p. 6) political issues. The metaphors which Trump and Farage employ to generate fear, worry and anxiety are concerning different issues.

Immigration is mainly conceptualised in terms of war and immigrants are dehumanized as water pouring into the country in Farage’s discourse. Fear is “one of the primary functions of war metaphors in political rhetoric” (Flusberg, Matlock and Thibodeau, 2018, p. 6). Immigrants become enemies and flowing water which can ultimately cause physical harm and destruction. The notion of physical harm is an embodied element. The water metaphor is not an embodied metaphor but rather an

example of a resemblance metaphor. Furthermore, Farage employs the metaphor CRIME

IS A VIRUS to create fear or worry. Namely, immigrants are infected with a virus and this virus is crime. Embodied simulation is partly applied to understand it as we emulate a frame in which the virus results in physical illness. The virus metaphor creates one potential solution which is to isolate potential virus carriers and to not let them enter as they can infect and cause harm to the rest of the population.

(36)

34

the domain of the economy in Trump’s speeches. These metaphors, except for the theft metaphor, draw from the embodied element, causing physical harm, of the source domain to cause fear.

These findings support and reinforce the argument that Trump, as well as Farage, employ the Strict Father model in their political reasoning. Lakoff (2016b) has previously focused on American politics and that Trump, overall, frames and basis his policies on the Strict Father worldview. Arguably, both Farage and Trump attempt to trigger the Strict Father worldview by using certain conceptual metaphors which aim to give rise to fear or worry.

6.3 Morality

The analysis shows that the use of the Moral order metaphor reveals moral values. The most salient parallel between Trump and Farage is the employment of the Moral Order metaphor. The Moral Order metaphor is observed in Trump’s (N = 8) and Farage’s (N = 2) speeches in expressions concerning that one’s own nation, or own people, should come first. According to Lakoff’s Strict Father model, the Moral Order Metaphor “fits naturally […] with the literal parental authority central to the Strict Father family” (Lakoff, 2016a, p. 81) The emphasis on the nation before other nations demonstrates a tribal view of the world. Human nature is fundamentally tribal (Clark, Liu, Winegard and Ditto, 2019). The Moral Order metaphor gives rise to a conceptualisation which arguably activates and reinforce innate human behaviour. The interests of the in-group should be placed above the interests of the out-group according to the metaphor. Debatably, Farage’s standpoint on stopping immigration stems from, and can be explained by, the Moral Order metaphor as according to this metaphor the nation’s own people come above other peoples.

(37)

35

6.4 Consequences and Outcomes

Arguably, politicians who want to win an election ought to strive to employ metaphors which might resonate among voters. These metaphors should also be repeatedly used as such a strategy will cause their metaphors to become more conventionalized within the minds of the public. According to Lakoff (2009) everyone has “both strict and nurturant worldviews in their brain, with each neutrally bound to certain issue areas” (p. 119). A certain worldview can thus be reinforced by repeatedly employing certain metaphors, not only in the minds of people whose worldview is already in alignment but can also be activated in the minds of people whose worldview which is not in alignment. Lakoff (2009) stated that “if we hear the same language over and over, we will think more and more in terms of the frames and metaphors activated by that language” (p. 15). Politicians such as Trump and Farage, often labelled as populists, are increasingly common in politics (Inglehart and Norris, 2016, p. 1). A possible consequence is that the metaphors they employ will become more widespread. Their adversaries will be forced to employ the metaphors used by them as they must combat them by negating and questioning them. The metaphors will be further reinforced as they are repeatedly used, and the public will consequently reason increasingly in terms of those metaphors.

Everyone ought to become conscious of the metaphors we use in any type of discourse. Lakoff (2009) explained why it is important:

It is important to understand political thought. If that thought is unconscious, it is all the more important to understand it, since unconscious thought has a more powerful effect than conscious thought. When thought is conscious, you can discuss it, question it, try to counter it. When it is unconscious, is has free rain. (p. 74)

Hence, greater awareness of the metaphors used in political discourse is essential.

6.5 Limitations and Further Studies

(38)

36

are used consistently by Trump and Farage or not. A bigger sample size of speeches is needed for a future study. The metaphors and domains might vary widely due to context as well. Another limitation is that the data was rated alone by the author without any co-raters. Co-raters or co-analysts would help to establish the reliability of the method being used in the analysis. A method used by Gibbs, Okonski and Hatfield (2013, p. 146) illustrate how this can be done. To eliminate possible reliability issues, several analysts should use the same methodology and code the data. Afterwards, the analysts should meet and discuss any discrepancies and together try to decide whether a certain lexical item or sentence is used metaphorically or not and if so how to classify and define it.

(39)

37

7 Conclusion

Political issues are often of an abstract nature and the findings illustrate how these abstract concepts are understood in terms of more concrete concepts. A politician needs to use language effectively to persuade potential voters of his or her arguments and ideas. Farage and Trump have been arguably successful of convincing the voters in their countries. This thesis discusses some of the conceptual metaphors used by them and the effects of their metaphorical discourse in that process.

There are several parallels between Trump and Farage found in the analysis. Populist discourse that is people-centric, anti-establishment, and implying the existence of a conspiring elite is observed by analysing the metaphors. Moreover, a salient similarity between Trump and Farage is their use of the Moral Order metaphor concerning that one’s own nation and people should come first. This metaphor fits with the Strict Father morality.

Another striking similarity is the employment of metaphors to create fear by mapping over the embodied element, physical harm, from the source domains. Fear also triggers The Strict Father model. Fear is created by metaphors concerning immigration in Farage’s speeches, whereas fear is mainly generated by metaphors regarding the economy and political advisories in Trump’s speeches.

These metaphors can potentially influence reasoning among addresses. It has been demonstrated that metaphorical frames influence opinions about issues that induce fear (Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2013, p. 2; Matlock, Coe and Westerling, 2017 p. 253) and these findings suggests that Trump and Farage exploit that fear by employing specific kinds of metaphorical discourse in their speeches. Increased widespread use of these metaphors might essentially influence reasoning and the frames employed in the minds of the public (Lakoff, 2009, p. 15).

(40)

38

8 References

8.1 Primary sources

Donald J. Trump Campaign Website. (2016, November 1) Donald J. Trump in

Wisconsin: It is time for new leadership.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-in-wisconsin-it-is-time-for-new-leadership (Accessed 2017-03-24)

Donald J. Trump Campaign Website. (2016, September 12) In North Carolina, Trump

Delivers Remarks on Hillary Clinton 'Deplorables' Attacks. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/in-north-carolina-trump-delivers-remarks-on-hillary-clinton-deplorables-att (Accessed 2017-03-25) Patriotic Populist. (2016, April 30). UKIP Nigel Farage MEP Gives Speech On

Immigration At '#SaferBritain' Conference [Video File]. Retrieved and

Transcribed from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZLJ8gFtCnE

(Accessed 2017-04-05)

RobinHoodUkip. (2016, March 30). Grassroots Out NewPort Nigel Farage Speech

[Video File]. Retrieved and Transcribed from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc0P_AOIM6k (Accessed 2017-04-13)

8.2 Secondary sources

Block, Elena., Negrine, Ralph. (2017). The Populist Communication Style: Toward a Critical Framework. International Journal of Communication, 11(1) 178-197.

British National Corpus (BNC). https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/ (Accessed 2020-03-20)

Charteris-Black, Johnathan. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of

metaphor. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Print.

Chong, Dennis., Druckman, James N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of

(41)

39

Clark, Cory., Liu, Brittany., Winegard, Bo., Ditto, Peter. (2019). Tribalism is Human

Nature.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331823894_Tribalism_is_Huma n_Nature(Accessed 2019-12-10 17:07)

Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/(Accessed 2020-03-20)

Dervinyte, Inga. (2009). Conceptual EMIGRATION and IMMIGRATION Metaphors in the Language of the Press: a Contrastive Analysis. Studies about

Languages, 14(1) 49-55.

Flusberg, Stephen J., Matlock, Teenie., Thibodeau, Paul H. (2018) War metaphors in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(1), 1-18.

Gagnon, Jean-Paul. Beausoleil, Emily. Son, Kyong-Min. Arguelles, Cleve. Chalaye, Pierric. Johnston, Callum. (2018). What is populism? Who is the populist?. Democratic Theory, 5 (2) 6-26.

Gibbs, Raymond W., Okonski, Lacey., Hatfield, Miles. (2013). Crazy creative metaphors Crazy metaphorical minds?. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(2) 141-159.

Inglehart, Ronald F., Norris, Pipa. (2016). Trump, Brexit, and the rise of Populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash. Harvard Kennedy School

Faculty Research Working Paper Series, 1-52.

Kövecses, Zoltan. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Print.

Lakoff, George. (1991). Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf. 1-17.

Lakoff, George. (2009). The Political Mind. London: Penguin Books. Print.

Lakoff, George. (2016a). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Print.

Lakoff, George. (2016b). Understanding Trump.

https://georgelakoff.com/2016/07/23/understanding-trump-2/ (Accessed 2017-05-27)

Lakoff, George. Espenson, Jane. Schwarz, Alan. (1991). Master Metaphor List. (2nd ed.)

(42)

40

Lakoff, George., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Print.

Lakoff, George., Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By – With a New Afterword. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Print.

Landau, Mark J., Keefer, Lucas A. (2014). This Is Like That: Metaphors in Public Discourse Shape Attitudes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(8) 463-473.

Linkevičiūtė, Vilma. (2019). Conceptual Metaphors in Donald Trump’s Political Discourse: Politics Domain (2018). Studies about languages, 34(1) 46-55.

Macmillan English Dictionary. https://www.macmillandictionary.com/(Accessed 2020-03-20)

Matlock, Teenie., Coe, Chelsea., Westerling, A. Leroy. (2017). Monster wildfires and metaphor in risk communication. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(4) 250-261. Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words

in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1) 1-39.

Rowland, Robert C. (2019). The Populist and Nationalist Roots of Trump’s Rhetoric.

Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 22(3) 343-388.

Smile, Alison. (2016). As Germany Welcomes Migrants, Sexual Attacks in Cologne Point to a New Reality. The New York Times. 14 January.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/world/europe/as-germany-welcomes-migrantssexual-attacks-in-cologne-point-to-a-new-reality.html

(Accessed 2020-04-12)

Stanford University. (2018). Cognitive Science.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/#Concepts (Accessed 2017-04-17)

Team Populism. (2018). Policy brief on populism in Europe and the Americas: What, When, Who, And So What? Team Populism, 1-13.

The Oxford English Dictionary. https://www.oed.com/(Accessed 2020-03-20)

Thibodeau, Paul H., Boroditsky, Lera. (2011). Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning. PLoS One, 6(11) 1-11.

(43)

41

(44)

42

9 Appendix

9.1 Speeches by Trump

9.1.1 Donald J. Trump in Wisconsin: It is time for new leadership

I want to begin by thanking the great Wisconsin leaders who are here with us today: Chairman Reince Prebius, Senator Ron Johnson, Congressman Sean Duffy, and Brad Courtney, the state party chairman. A special thank you to Governor Scott Walker, who has done such a terrific job in Wisconsin.

Most importantly, I want to thank all of you here in attendance today, and everyone who is a part of this magnificent movement to Make America Great Again.

In just 1 week, we are going to win the Great State of Wisconsin and we are going to win back the White House.

We are on the cusp of incredible, historic change that transfers power from a failed political establishment and returns that power to our families, communities and citizens. Real change begins with immediately repealing and replacing Obamacare.

It’s just been announced that the residents of Wisconsin are going to experience massive double-digit premium hikes. In the great state of Arizona, premiums are going up more than 116% percent.

More than three-quarters of the counties in Wisconsin are losing Obamacare insurers next year.

…

Obamacare is a catastrophe.

Yet Hillary Clinton wants to double-down on Obamacare, making it even more expensive.

I’m asking for your vote so we can replace Obamacare and save healthcare for every family in Wisconsin.

Real change also means restoring honesty to our government. …

(45)

43

As it also turns out, one of the top Department of Justice officials, the Assistant Attorney General, is a close associate of Podesta. The two met for dinner after Clinton testified about Benghazi, and Podesta described him as the man “who kept me out of jail.”

This is a good time to make an important public service announcement. This is a message for any Democratic voter who have already cast ballots for Hillary Clinton and who are having a bad case of Buyers’ Remorse. Wisconsin is one of several states where you can change your early ballot if you’ve made a mistake. So if you live here, or in Michigan, Pennsylvania or Minnesota, you can change your vote.

…

We are living through the greatest jobs theft in the history of the world.

- Hutchison Technology laid off 411 workers right here in Eau Claire and moved their jobs to Thailand.

- Honeywell laid off 974 workers making printed circuit boards in Chippewa Falls. Their jobs went to China.

- TTM Technologies laid off 166 workers in Chippewa Falls. Their jobs went to China, Japan and South Korea.

- Celestica laid off 240 workers. Their jobs went overseas.

A Trump Administration will stop the jobs from leaving America, and we will stop the jobs from leaving Wisconsin.

...

We will also repeal the Obama-Clinton defense sequester and rebuild our badly depleted military.

That includes support for nearby Fort McCoy.

I’m honored to have the endorsement of 200 top Admirals and Generals and 22 Medal of Honor Recipients.

…

To all Americans I say: it is time for new leadership.

Just think about what we can accomplish in the first 100 days –

(46)

44

core; support the men and women of law enforcement; save the 2nd amendment; and appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Hillary wants us to think small, wants us to believe things can’t change, and wants our lives to revolve around Washington, D.C. I am asking you to dream big, to push for bold change, and to believe in a movement powered by the people and by their love for this country.

…

Our movement represents all Americans, from all backgrounds, and all walks of life. We are asking for the votes of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and first-time voters.

We are asking for the vote of every American who believes truth and justice – not money and power – should rule the day.

We are fighting for every citizen who believes that government should serve the people – not the donors and special interests.

We are fighting to unlock the potential of every American community, and every American family, who hope and pray and yearn for a better future.

With your vote, we are just 1 week away from the change you’ve been waiting for your entire life.

Together, We Will Make America Wealthy Again. We Will Make America Strong Again.

We Will Make America Safe Again. And We Will Make America Great Again.

9.1.2 In North Carolina, Trump Delivers Remarks on Hillary Clinton 'Deplorables' Attacks

Thank you. I am so thrilled to be back in the great state of North Carolina.

In 56 days, we are going to win this state – and we are going to win the White House. But to do that you must get out and vote, and that means early voting which begins on October 20th.

(47)

45

Our vision of hope stands in stark contrast to my opponent’s campaign of hate.

Hillary Clinton has been running a hate-filled and negative campaign with no policy, no solutions, and no new ideas.

By contrast, I’ve been going around the country offering detailed plans for reform. All of these reform plans are available on our website.

While my opponent slanders you as deplorable and irredeemable, I call you hardworking American patriots who love your country and want a better future for all of our people.

You are mothers and fathers, soldiers and sailors, carpenters and welders. You are Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

Above all else, you are Americans – and you are entitled to leadership that honors you, cherishes you and defends you.

Every American is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect in our country.

Whether you vote for me, or whether you vote for someone else, I will be your champion in the White House.

Hillary Clinton represents only the insiders, the donors and the special interests.

I will be speaking more about Hillary Clinton’s disqualifying remarks in a minute, but first let me invite onto the stage some people who can tell you themselves what they think of her spiteful comments.

I have some more thoughts on Clinton’s remarks I will be sharing momentarily, but first I want to tell you what I am going to do to make your life better.

We’ve outlined a detailed plan on trade, on immigration, on rebuilding the military, on changing our foreign policy.

I’ve delivered a plan on defeating Islamic terrorism, on reforming our tax code, on unleashing American energy, and on providing school choice to every disadvantaged child in America.

We’ve released policy after policy, solution after solution.

Every day, we are putting forward new ideas to make your life better. The change will start right away, the moment I take my oath of office.

(48)

46

Then, I am going to order a review of every single regulation issued over the last eight years. All needless, job-killing regulations will be cancelled. Millions of new jobs will come pouring in.

We are going to lift the restriction on American energy – this will create another half a million new jobs a year.

That’s just the beginning.

On my first day in office, I am going to ask Congress to send me a bill to immediately repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare – this will instantly save another 2 million jobs.

I am also going to propose a massive tax reduction to unleash prosperity in every city and state in our country.

On that first day, I am also going to instruct the Department of Commerce to immediately begin a review of all foreign trade practices that unfairly hurt American manufacturing. I will use every lawful Presidential power to achieve relief for our workers.

You can read the full 7-point trade plan on my website, DonaldJTrump.com.

North Carolina has lost more than 4 in 10 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA. Bill Clinton signed it, and Hillary Clinton supported it.

Right here in Ashville, you’ve lost 1 in 5 manufacturing jobs since China joined the World Trade Organization – another Hillary-backed deal.

Hillary Clinton owes all of you an apology. And I think you’ll get that apology right around the same time Hillary Clinton hands over the 33,000 emails she deleted.

By the way, Hillary Clinton destroyed her emails after she received a congressional subpoena. They used a special software called bleach bit.

She even made her 13 different phones disappear – some of them were even destroyed with a hammer.

Hillary Clinton obviously had a whole lot to hide, including her pay-for-play scandals at Secretary of State.

Pay-for-play with UBS, with Russian Uranium, with contracts for her friends and family in Haiti.