Community Voices features opinion pieces from a wide variety of authors and perspectives. (Submission Guidelines)

What Trump learned (or not) from Aristotle

MinnPost photo illustration by Corey Anderson

It would be difficult to imagine a more incongruous pairing of names in a headline than Donald Trump and Aristotle. The above title doesn’t mean that the Donald actually studied Greek philosophy, although the ancient one’s name may have passed blankly beneath his eyes as a young. inquiring student. As J.M. Keynes is known to have quipped, “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.” Or in this case, philosopher.

The Republican Party in its currently distorted form has been changing the conventional rules of political discourse. As outlined in Jeff Greenfield’s Politico piece, “Why the GOP Will Never Accept President Hillary Clinton” (Aug. 18), conservative leadership has shifted its focus over the past few decades from debating issues to delegitimizing the Democratic Party opposition. This change of emphasis has altered the tone and substance, or lack thereof, in our national political conversation. Whatever post-November consequences will result for governance and life in the U.S. will be due in large part to this new way of framing the debate, or what amounts to a different rhetorical style. To the extent that campaign advisers craft messages to create impressions and be persuasive, they are practicing rhetoric, which was invented by Aristotle. Knowingly or not, we are all his students.

Of course there have been a few developments in language and society in the past 2,500 years, but the original concepts of rhetoric still stand. In delivering a speech, or let’s call it a political performance, there is a speaker, an audience and the speech itself. When Donald Trump speaks publicly he immediately overwhelms us with his high estimate of his own character, erasing any notion of modesty or measured temperament. Then if he later attempts to dial down this personal bravado or backpedals on an issue, trying to appear more reasonable and acceptable, it comes across as contrived — a transparent ploy. So a major criterion that voters use to judge candidates is largely lost to Trump since one’s character is not expected to oscillate like a strange weather forecast. Nor are we used to candidates who present their qualification as a foregone conclusion, a contemporary divine right of kings.

Trump fares better addressing his audience of disaffected citizens. This demographic doesn’t seem to be bothered, as yet, by their man’s erratic behavior or condescending manner. Trump knows he has set the hook in this group and believes they will stay on the line through Election Day. His inability to reach other constituencies, however, is another matter and probably a fatal weakness. Minorities are unlikely to respond well to his hostile anti-immigrant positions or lame catch-up appeals, e.g., African-Americans should vote for him because they have nothing to lose.

The political message, platform, or worldview is usually how we sort and rate candidates, although there is a blending of personality and position. A “strong” individual will seem less likely to favor cooperative projects — withdraw from NATO — and more inclined to confrontational tactics — get tough with the Chinese. Given Trump’s history of uninformed or erroneous statements, together with an attention span not suited to prolonged deliberation, there is little solid ground on which to judge a hypothetical Trump presidency. But that’s not really an obstacle for his followers, who are willing to roll the dice in a desperate act of faith. The Donald will get them a better deal in a somehow better world.

Larry Struck

The usual ways of evaluating candidates — who he/she is, what they stand for, who their target voters are — suggest a shaky path to a Trump presidency. So it’s not surprising that his campaign is descending to character assassination, and worse, of his opponent as an election strategy. Why? Rational debate and careful examination of political differences are not Trump’s style and probably doomed to fail anyway. That means his resorting to more illogic and outright fabrication — the current Trump political brand — in what should candidly be described as a cynical bid for personal power.

If things don’t work out, and Trump loses his chance to fully unleash his inner demagogue, well, so what? The Donald has been covering his behind by informing us that the election is rigged anyway. We’ve also been told, just so we know, that in case of losing, either the general election or interest in the whole affair and dropping out prematurely, he can go back to a pretty great life, no doubt supervising beauty pageants and dreaming up new schemes to fleece investors like the very demographic his candidacy is aimed at. Returning to his private TrumpWorld would, in effect, be his middle-finger way of saying to the American people, “You’re fired!”

If Trump or his brain trust understood and applied effective rhetorical principles we would now know a lot about the candidates’ differences and have a more productive election cycle. (Aristotle, incidentally, also invented and formulated the discipline of logic, which is never a candidate’s best friend.)  As things stand, this presidential contest is revealing a darker but no less true side of American democracy. Either the Trump persona will turn stunningly malleable and hope to cajole or flatter us with newfound contradictory positions, or his campaign will march ahead using a scorched-earth strategy to annihilate his adversary. Likely some of both.

Aristotle’s reputation for knowledge and wisdom led him to be recruited as tutor to a promising young man who went on to accomplish great things. Comparing Trump and Aristotle’s earlier young ward yields an interesting contrast. Alexander the Great, no doubt a willing and attentive pupil, went on to conquer the known world. The Donald, on the other hand, is overawed by large buildings, loves the trappings of power and excels above all in admiring his own image. Hail the new conquering hero.

Larry Struck is a writer and former program manager based in Little Canada. He retains an early imprint of Aristotle’s value left from student days at the University of Chicago.


If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, email Susan Albright at

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (7)

  1. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/02/2016 - 02:39 pm.

    Aristotle Meets Trump

    Aristotle teaches us that there are three modes of persuasion: Using the personal character of the speaker; appealing to emotions; and proof through logical reasoning. Trump has the first two down cold. While most voters find his personality repellent, his bluster and tough-guy persona are just what his fan base craves. Similarly, his speeches are full of emotional appeal. It’s often stated incoherently, but it is an appeal to raw emotion.

    Where he falls down is in his logical reasoning. Trump seems to disdain consistency, and either cherry-picks facts, or makes them up out of whole cloth. It’s a poor basis for rational thinking. As Aristotle himself put it: “A statement is persuasive and credible either because it is directly self-evident or because it appears to be proved from other statements that are so. “

  2. Submitted by Joel Stegner on 09/03/2016 - 09:08 am.

    Don’t you mean the other Aristotle, as in Onassis

    Fabulous wealth, life lived large, trophy wife. Obviously Trump is modeling himself after that Aristotle. Or simply stated, that’s rich!

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 09/06/2016 - 01:05 pm.

      Close, But No Cigar

      Aristotle Onassis made his fortune himself. His family was wealthy, but they lost it all in the aftermath of WWI.

  3. Submitted by C.S. Senne on 09/03/2016 - 01:16 pm.


    Thanks, Mr. Struck, for a great article. I’m forwarding it to several “well-educated” friends!

  4. Submitted by Steven James Beto on 09/06/2016 - 04:26 pm.

    Wrong Century, Different Logic

    Trump doesn’t espouse Aristotle’s brand of logic, but interestingly, Trump may be diabolically rational. Consider instead, John Von Neumann and John Nash of the 20th century, and “Game Theory”. Mr. Trump may be smarter than you think, and may be betting that we are not. Follow his money and his taxes if you can.

    • Submitted by Jim Million on 09/07/2016 - 05:57 pm.


      Rational observation. Anyone following Trump’s quieter, more measured rhetoric of this Labor Day should take note. No irresponsible buffoon image lately—by tactical design, I’m pretty sure. Polls, for whatever reason, now tighten somewhat.

      As Trump continues to exhibit rational behavior and reasonable substance, network news outlets likely will cover him more extensively and more fairly. They simply must make a contest of incredible candidates a credible contest for viewers. Trump now offers them a possibly saleable image. That’s all they wish.

      This is the Donald Trump the Democrats should fear, if they fear for November even a little bit.

      (Notice a change in visuals lately? I do. More and more Joe Biden. Plan A-1, perhaps?)

Leave a Reply