Anybody else wonder if Trump was pandering to the Brexit group when he used the British spelling for judgment [judgement] when he questioned Hillary’s credentials? There seems to be a large similarity of angst and anger in both groups, just as there is a similar dislike of Hillary’s obscurantism.
There must be a term from rhetoric describing someone who comes down squarely and decisively on both sides of an issue. I hope a reader can help me with that, because for every issue I can think of, Donald Trump has done just that. What I’m looking for is the antithesis of diallage (accent on second syllable, final e is pronounced).
A fun comparison can be made to the logic in Soggy Sweat’s 1952 address to the Mississippi Legislature. His speech began with, “I will take a stand on any issue no matter how fraught with controversy.” The body of the speech came down clearly for and against repealing prohibition and ended with, “That is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.”
In light of the news, I think I can now safely tighten two of my predictions about the election.
1. By November tenth, there will be vocal claims of election fraud and stealing the election.
2. By the end of April, 2017, there will be calls to impeach the winner.
And, just to give everyone a few big words:
1. The Donald’s descriptions of opponents are nearly always dysphemisms (the antonym of euphemisms).
2. It is easy to argue that politicians are misologists or obscurantists, people who hate logic or people who wish to befog not clarify. That seems like a more benign interpretation of their rants than Higbie’s Law.
3. Politicians’ orations are normally , intended to please the mob.
4. An argument that combines both sides to make its point is diallage.
Remember Higbie’s Law about Politicians: If a politician says something it’s a lie. Most politicians don’t lie because they never say anything. Last verifiable assertion I can remember was 20 years ago, “I did not have …”