Trump and the Dark History of Straight Talk

Terrific commentary.

One of the great problems for "a man of the people" who speaks in what is seen as an authentic style occurs when that person gets into office and tries to govern in the same way. Doesn't work. As a friend of mine, Michael Fauntroy, said in another context, they are demonstrating "their civic ignorance" by thinking that such complex matters can be handled so simply. The idea of a non-politician cleaning up left over messes is very appealing, until Jesse Ventura or an Arnold Schwarzenegger actually gets into office. Then, it tends to get ugly, fast.

Trump is a great danger to the world in large part not only because of his inexperience in handling the complexities of government, but because he has been captured by his own mind, which continually feeds him a loop telling him how wonderful he is, how brilliant every thought is and how everything he touches turns to gold. He lives a lie so complete, born of his need for bullying self promotion in the real estate business, that he cannot escape it himself.

This is not an unknown phenomenon in government or business. The person whose life revolves around their ego and boastfulness often succeeds for a season, only to come crashing down when the truth of their shortcomings can no longer be denied. The wall built around the self based on false conclusions of greatness makes a mighty sound when it falls. Trump has avoided this fate by sheer nerve and the cushion of his daddy's money.

Thank you. I have been longing for a public comment on the style of the current political language. Trump's ad hominem (if it can be called that), based on very little except vitriol or lies about generally accepted facts, is as exhausting to hear as it is disgusting to digest.

How else can Hillary Clinton, carefully trying to make sense to the electorate, given the years of slander of which she has been the target (beautifully elucidated on MSNBC on Friday by a Times reporter [?]), speak in other than the most measured tones on a national hookup? Her interviews with Rachel Maddow have shown the person I first saw in 1992 (earnest), but with a wacky sense of humor, that since she is female and is judged by a different set of rules from any male candidate, she must curb for larger audiences, particularly in light of her "untrustworthiness."

If you can find an alternate style for her, please pass it on to her. As the first woman nominee, she has so many extra hurdles, number one being her sex, that being obviously "feminine" in her approach could be devastating to her candidacy (still).

Again, thank you for your editorial.

Have seen this rhetoric before. Mr. Trump is plagiarizing a cartoon character called Popeye. "I am who I am."

Since the Republicans' 1994 "Contract with America," the party perfected aspirational double-speak, coaxing middle class Americans to vote against their own self-interest in the name of a brighter future magically brought by lower taxes for the wealthy. Now along comes Donald Trump, who's pulled back the curtain on this running charade and redirected the element of aspiration unto himself. Who would't want a gold-plated bathroom faucet, or a gold-plated building with name emblazoned on the entry, after all? It's terrific.

This is a great piece, but misses a teachable moment. Yes, authentic (vs. rhetorical) talk is supposedly how ordinary people talk, and it's used by leaders to connect with ordinary people. This makes it sound like a communications tool, and sometimes it is. But the larger frequent purpose is to deceive people. Too often, any solution phrased in a short simple sentence is a bad solution. This bad solution is adopted by the audience because they think it is right -- not because of the facts and reasoning, but because it was advocated in a "connected" moment. Instead of analyzing Trump's proposals, people say "he says what I think" or "he tells it like it is" or "he understands where I'm at" or any of the other validations we're sick of hearing. It's a way of selling thoughtless proposals to people who won't think.

Great column but let's not reduce Mark Anthony to such a willfully malevolent enemy of civil society as someone like Berlusconi. Anthony was a proven hero in battle, a brilliant strategician, and used rhetoric to awake people to an evil that had been committed by the establishment. He acted in service of higher values, with integrity, not as a morally bankrupt clown.

Post WW 2 promised and delivered a optimistic future. As the Social Democratic Welfare State Model gained ground many social ills, especially later on civil rights have been well accepted. As in all models these optimistic models are exhausted. Take your pick Racism, globalization, stagnate wages, a government deeply in debt, etc. etc. have people looking for change. Recent major experiments like democratizing the middle east, or Hope and Change, fell apart.So called political correctiveness is a bore, the elite are in a quandary.

Whatever happened to that interesting word - propaganda - ?
from Old French propagacion "offshoot, offspring" (13c.) and directly from Latin propagationem (nominative propagatio) "a propagation, extension, enlargement," noun of action from past participle stem of propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase; multiply plants by layers, breed," from propago (genitive propaginis) "that which propagates, offspring," from pro- "forth" (see pro-) + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten" etc etc etc.

I think the key is that Trump comes across as a loner. It is all about him and no one else. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has been hiding between Bill Clinton for so many years.

What we may need is more of a partnership in the presidency, a co-presidency, if you will. And Joshua Shenk has suggested the "Power of Two", in a book. Here is 1 minute with on partnership:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_3pS9GhEtI

It may be too late for Donald Trump, but for Hillary Clinton, the power of two may work, so she can win the election and become a very good president...

It takes two to Tango.
---------------------------

It's bizarre and inaccurate that you put Beppe Grillo in the same category as Trump, Boris Johnson, and Ted Cruz. First of all, he's not a nationalist -- if anything, he's a digital utopianism and internationalist. Second of all, he uses comic language and satire, which are recognizably complex rhetorical moves, in addition to his straight talk. Beppe Grillo is more like a Stephen Colbert or a Jon Stewart than a Trump. If you're going to write a classic rehash article about the rhetoric of authenticity, please pay more attention to the details of your argument.

trump's style worked in the primary because it was akin to waiving meth in front of an drug addict. It won't work to the larger general election audience. I've studied this election cycle closely and the man is just an idiot and that's not hyperbole.

HRC was a vulnerable candidate in this election due to all her and Bill's baggage. Unbelievably, trump has managed to shoot off all his fingers and toes in acts of self sabotage and over and over his lackies wish to excuse this because he's not a conventional candidate, but I'd be hard pressed to name someone else outside of politics who would ignore the conventions of running a standard campaign when they're down by 10 points nationally and 16 in a state like PA that everybody and their brother knows is vital to his chances. I have to believe that any success the trump companies have enjoyed over the years have done so not because of him, but in spite of him.

The Lord Donald Trump is a Money-worshiping my dog-eats-your dog Capitalist whose religion was best described by Edward Abbey: "Growth for the sake of growth (financial growth) is the ideology of a cancer cell."

And because the Lord Donald Trump has replaced Jesus as the savior of the world, Jesus' claim that it that is easier to ride a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven is no longer true.

In the Trumpian universe, rich men like the Lord Donald Trump ride their personalized space ships through the eye of the needle into heaven, and they also take all of their money and power with them to heaven. Nor do any earthly rules constrain them because they are the gods of their own universes.

What Mark Thompson avoids noting is that Trump's 'straight talk' and 'telling it like it is' contains an astounding level of outright falsehoods and deliberate lies, seasoned with a heaping portion of ignorance.

Whatever Hillary Clinton's flaws may be, she is not ignorant.

This is a fine piece of rhetoric which lacks only for truth. So-called authenticity is not restricted to populists like Trump and dictators like Hitler. It is merely a style of communication, and a persuasive one at that.. At its best it is the height of rhetoric, used by our most charismatic speakers to great effect. Such language has more meaning and relevance,, not less. whatever Kant's friend may have thought. And to the extent it communicants nationalism, that certainly does not make it a bad thing. If Hegel said anything contrary, I must have missed it. I don't know why the essay ignores the fact that authentic communication in the language of a charismatic and wise speaker is the essence of superior communication.

Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal"

The problem with Trump is not his method of communication. It is the quality, or lack of quality, of his thought.

My concern with Donald Trump is not his rhetoric of authenticity. It's his hateful rhetoric, his name calling and demonizing. Trump's hateful rhetoric has ended any hope for civility in this campaign. And that's too bad. Trump can use hateful rhetoric to sell a vague concept - Make America Great Again - to a substantial minority. But it takes more to win. In order to sell his plan to a majority, Trump must provide enough detail to establish the existence and credibility of his plan. He's uses hateful rhetoric effectively to get attention, but he cannot figure out when and how to drop that rhetoric and shift into a persuasive rhetoric needed to win over a majority.

'What we have lost and must strive to regain is a conception of rhetoric that strikes a balance between the demands of reason, character and empathy, and that strives for genuine truthfulness rather than theatrical “authenticity."'

We have this. His name is Barack Obama.

'for all its protests, anti-rhetoric is just another form of rhetoric'--of course, though telling the truth is not just another instance of speaking. in this case there isn't any truth to tell, just informed and well-intentioned opinion, and garbage; it should be clear here which is which. though not everyone that steps into the political arena engages in equivalently valueless rhetoric.

As pointed out in the article, successful political authenticity strategies usually have realistic causes. While it appeals to emotions and to what some may want to believe, elements of reality are required.
One can argue Hitler was successful because Germany was suffering a devastating defeat in WWI and impact of the global Great Depression. Today, white nationalist parties in Europe may be successful because of austerity measures taken by many EU countries after the 2008 financial crash and massive influx of refugees.
The America described by Trump does not exist. It may exist in the minds of Trump supporters, but it does not exist in reality. There are not hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants pouring into our country raping and murdering. Border security in the southwest has never been more intensive. There is net zero illegal immigration. Our economy has not been destroyed. Our military has not been decimated. Refugees and legal immigrants are already "extremely" vetted. Crime is not skyrocketing out of control; there are not racial riots occurring across the nation (some may recall the 1960's). Even anti-globalism denies the reality of a shrinking world and the human choices necessary to survive in it: cooperation, empathy, and tolerance.
Using partial fact and anecdotes are a part of Trump's rhetoric, but he mainly appeals to those who require validation of a delusional worldview.

Trump's itchy Twitter finger cancels out his awkward, scripted teleprompter performances. Most recently he gloated about the murder of a young mother pushing a stroller in Chicago, bragging it was an "I told you so" victory for him.

Hours later, after a huge reaction of outrage and disgust at his narcissism and callousness, he tweeted insincere condolences.

We've seen these moments before during the campaign and we'll see them again. Trump's handlers and surrogates can't keep him from relentlessly showing us exactly who he is.

In this otherwise fine essay, Mr. Thompson dances around the central problem with Trump's rhetoric that has made this campaign unique in recent American electoral history. Thompson devotes the first half of his column to a discussion of Trump's style, his reliance on the repetition of short, punchy sentences that mimic tweets. Although some observers have ridiculed Trump for this characteristic of his orations, it does not account for the storm of controversy that has surrounded his candidacy.

In the latter part of his essay Thompson refers, somewhat vaguely, to a lack of empathy and a tendency to demonize the "other," language associated with speakers who claim their comments express inconvenient truths which the elite refuses to acknowledge. Thompson compares this rhetoric to the bloodless language of a Hillary Clinton, who appeals to the intellect rather than the emotion.

Thompson, himself, employs the kind of abstract terminology he attributes to Clinton, when blunt language would serve his purpose better. Trump has ignited a firestorm of controversy, while also attracting devoted followers, by building his entire campaign around a systematic effort to divide Americans against each other and to incite contempt for the democratic institutions and principles that define this country.

Our best presidents, including Mr. Obama, all appealed to emotions in their speeches, but those emotions belonged to the better angels of our nature, not to the demons of discord.

Ronald Reagan once said that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

Isn't the government reflective of "we the people"?

What is the horrifying aspect of the government? Collectively, together, WE the people, as a majority dictate the path of our nation.

Political rhetoric fell into disfavor after the wars of religion in the 17th century. It is returning as we seem to be entering new wars of religion, with their accompanying violence, hatred, and fear. Is that a coincidence?

It seems Trump's technique of vociferous vomiting words and ideas that he cannot explain is the way to reach his uneducated and low expectation followers (they just want a white USA). It doesn't matter how backward, unrealistic and retrograde his outbursts are. The mental midgets in his midst like it and, worse of all, they believe it.
The problem is that once the election is over and their false prophet and messiah is out of the picture, what will become of them? Will the GOP take them back and, if the do, what for?

“I just want to tell it like it is”
-- Donald Trump

if so, why does Trump lie non-stop?

'..Technocratic policy-making delivered relative prosperity and security for the majority..' Here's where many a bombast was made: lack of prosperity and security. This is the world, not just our country, today. We've let the powerful run roughshod over politics, policies and a sense of shared humanity. We're so far down the rabbit-hole of inequality that it seems implausible to be able to move towards the light of true equality, democracy and unity. But, it is not as impossible as we think. We the People have vast untapped powers of redemption and revolution and love. Many of us are following the 'authenticism', as you call it, only because the system is so corrupt and rigged against the common good. Let us change that dynamic. Today.

The capacity of your average American for truth, honesty, plain speaking, clarity with respect to anything?

Without question the biggest obstacle in the way of truth in America is our incapacity to know ourselves as human beings individually, racially, ethnically and collectively and to live with ourselves, make things work between ourselves, in full knowledge of the differences between us. In America if we use the discriminatory capacities of our minds, judge differences of whatever type between individuals or races or ethnic groups, the result is that people often use this knowledge to the detriment of other people. So we Americans often swing to the other extreme and deny many differences which actually exist between people because we apparently feel it better to put our eyes out than have eyes which see differences between people only to exploit differences and hurt society as a whole.

Probably America cannot be clearly spoken of as being on the path to truth until we have human beings who can see clearly every little difference between individuals and races and ethnic groups yet who also demonstrate restraint, are unwilling to exploit these differences, but are rather determined to somehow make use of various abilities between people to make a workable team and to somehow give each individual a life in society.

It all comes down to whether we can know ourselves and each other inside and out and somehow make a team, live with ourselves. We lack foundation of truth.

"What we have lost and must strive to regain is a conception of rhetoric that strikes a balance between the demands of reason, character and empathy, and that strives for genuine truthfulness rather than theatrical “authenticity.”"

Sounds like a typical Obama speech.

Mr. Thompson, the language of the United States is English. It is a difficult language to master.

Having said that, how many politicians, save President Barack Obama, make themselves plainly understood to both the intelligent and the many intelligence-challenged? Learning is hard work.

Too many voters, I fear, focus not on how a thing said but what is said and how it is said and by whom it is said. Our precious language, its history, its beauty, its supple and delightful nuances, passes through the everyday here in America, made sterile by facile soundbites on television or on the radio, or on Twitter and Facebook, their character limits apparently designed to appeal to those less invested in deep reasoning and thinking among us.

Hillary Clinton is far from a gifted speaker but she can get a point across. She may be uneven and lacking the visceral charge of an Obama, but it's English that can be plainly be understood.

Donald Trump's employment of the tongue is an utter grab bag of disparate parts that lack comprehension and purpose. Those to whom he appeals are his mirror image who interpret language is a vehicle, nothing more, and certainly not an art form. Trump's use of language doesn't greatly differ from the nearly-incoherent Mitch McConnell or the slimy, chameleon-like phrases used by Paul Ryan. They use words to obfuscate, not to clarify.

Policy is words writ large; understanding them is necessary for an informed democracy. Trump understands this.

"Modern authenticism" is not just a reaction to the Enlightenment, it is a total refusal to respond to challenging situations in a polite, civil and well reasoned (i.e. reasoned using factual information versus emotion). Such recklessness, while unacceptable at any level, is manifestly dangerous when a leader engages in such rhetoric. Anybody doubting this is not looking at history and not aware of the present situation in Philippines with their new President.

Anyone remember Stephen Colbert's neologism "truthiness?"

In my opinion, Barack Obama’s rhetoric does aim for "balance between the demands of reason, character and empathy" that Mark Thompson asks for. I fear this is not enough to lead us out of the present darkness.

How can this argument about rhetorical technique be transposed to the forthcoming debates, as well as those that follow, to ensure that the candidates both use and tell the truth? MHL

"Authenticism" and Colbert's formulation "truthiness" are a natural pair.

Trump's one line, incomplete sentences are getting to be a bore. He still never says anything. His signature policy seems to center around immigration, changing with the wind. Be honest - does anybody consider immigration of that great of importance with all of the other things regular people deal with on a daily basis? Nobody I know has it even in the top ten. Congress is the holdup in this topic, they refuse to do anything at all in case they will anger some rich business owner who likes his labor cheap. Obama tried a few things on his own, but they really didnt take care of the 'problem'. I want to hear what Trump says about climate change and what his plans are to combat the problem. I want to hear his views on renewable energy. I dont want to hear about the dang wall (which we all know will never ever happen, it is logistically impossible to say nothing of the cost). I dont want to hear about emails, who cares what was sent years ago and really who among us can remember what emails we got, sent and deleted 6 or 7 years ago? I want some policy talk and hope the debates are really debates about the issues, but knowing Donald it will all be insults.

There's a difference in straight talk and a little boy throwing a fit.

Trump wants a fight, not an argument. Onlookers look at the body language anger accompanying this article.

In terms of rhetoric, I think it takes more effort to read between the lines of parataxis than syntaxis or hypotaxis.

If Trump says, "I'm an unapologetic racist and a know-nothing know-it-all just like my supporters." Then we will have heard the truth.

"Rhetoric" is tricky. Read Lincoln's second inaugural address. Starts off pretty simple, then moves on to that incredibly complex, incredibly moving conditional clause toward the end--"If . . . . .if. . . . . .as it was said three thousand years ago . . . .the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." But sometimes (and I am no Trump supporter)--sometimes you gotta tell it like it is. "I have a dream!" Another incredible speech! Now which is better? Different strokes, I guess.

The three major speeches given by Winston Churchill around the time of the Battle of France resonate still to this day because they're both eloquently written and they reflect a deep honesty, shared with the British Nation in both the most humble and mythological ways. Sir Winston has nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. In its June 4, 1940 "we shall fight on the beaches" speech, Sir Winston is adamantly lucid. Yes, a crushing defeat was avoided in Dunkirk, but "wars are not won by evacuations." By calling to the courage of the British People using the most elegant language, while never sugarcoating reality, Sir Winston's political speeches reach what the best litterary texts strive to attain: one step closer to the truth. This voice of deep honesty is out of the reach of both the raging demagogues and the obtuse technocrats, Both hide their misunderstanding of the world beyond their own peculiar sophistic lingos. Nations want the truth.

"I am a Republican, we will help the poor" Nine most terrifying words in the English language

Yes, straight talk that one doesn't want to hear is frightening. How about crooked talk? I seem to remember a current presidential candidate who claimed that the proposed TPP was the "Gold Standard" of trade agreements. Then she became aware of new facts, i.e., many Democratic voters didn't like it, so she changed her mind. And yet this candidate proposes to support and continue the policies of the current POTUS, while at the same time opposing one of his legacy policies. (Parenthetically, the German Industry minister opposes the proposed US-EU trade agreement because he claims while it is good for multinational corporations, it is bad for workers.)

Let's get some straight talk, perhaps by covering the campaigns of Johnson and Stein.

I think you got it right when you spoke of Trumps use of disdain for the "elites" and immigrants to get ahead. His use of " the other" as a scapegoat mirror Hiltlers methods. That's why this is not about "politics" to me, it's about stopping this sort of RHETORIC. Trump must be crushed to send a message to his followers and the world.

I'm with HER!

Authenticity may be valuable in showing the mask stripped off someone's bigotry, and part of Mr. Trump's appeal is certainly his lack of "political correctness". But his white nationalism has opened the gates of hate speech which in the past was in the fringes of politics. By giving license to his followers to shout "Lock her up" at one of the national political conventions, he let loose a mob that is close to lynch mobs shouting "Hang him high" or witch hunts or crowds who throw stones at a victim.

When you read a transcript of Trump's speeches, they are a horrifying mix of almost incoherent babble with a lot of repetition, the short sentences and the one-syllable words, sentence fragments, backtracking and other aspects. He reacts to the crowd and sounds more coherent than the written words imply.

This is anti-rhetoric but it is also very revealing of something essentially wrong, morally, intellectually, and perhaps mentally.

"“Now we’re getting to Labor Day, and things will be different.”

Labor day? Expect another meaningless deadline; fill in the blank. This time they REALLY mean it?

The boy crying "wolf" had more credibility.

"Who could possibly object to a politician saying “I want to be myself”?"

Who could possibly believe such drivel?

I hope your forthcoming book is more interesting than this essay, Mr. Thompson. Not that it isn't correct. It's just that there's nothing new in it. It's a rehash of what others have said a hundred times, a thousand times, in recent months.

Notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary, Trump's insincerity is palpable and his supporters seem unfazed, if not completely oblivious, to his failure to connect any semblance of truth to his rhetorical bellowing. The latest example being his "tweet" about the senseless death of NBA star Dwyane Wade's cousin proving "Just what I have been saying, African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP".

In a campaign, candidates may say almost anything using whatever oratorical style they feel most comfortable in order to attract and persuade voters. Once elected, a leader must convert his or her words into action.

Dictators have less difficulty fulfiling the promises in their "authentic" rhetoric. Too bad we live in a messy and inconvenient democracy. Our system of checks and balances makes getting stuff done far more challenging.

If Mr Trump is elected, how will he and his supporters react when his quick fix solutions to all our society's supposed ills fail to be enacted as promised by 1 pm on Jan 20, 2017?

It wrong to place Kierkegaard together with Nietzsche and Heidegger, because whereas Kierkegaard recommended the recovery of primitive Christianity as the solution to the crisis of modernity, Nietzsche and Heidegger sought to recover the "authenticity" of pre-Socratic, pre-rational Greece. As it is, this preference of the pre-rational Greece is what blinded Heidegger to the primordial irrationalism of the Nazis.

Another way of looking at anti-rhetorical rhetoric is that it manages to involve the individual search for self-fulfillment in a communal political effort. The best example being FDR's fireside chats or "speaking down to earth in a way that everybody can understand".
In the same general time period there is a 3 Stooges courtroom routine where the judge tells the stooges to stop their horsing around and to "Drop the vernacular!"
"Vernacular?" Curly says looking at his hat, "That's a Derby!"

“All I’m interested in is what needs to get done.” Sounds like the lady who is running for the job of POTUS.

Mr. Thompson says

What we have lost and must strive to regain is a conception of rhetoric that strikes a balance between the demands of reason, character and empathy, and that strives for genuine truthfulness rather than theatrical “authenticity.”

It hasn't been lost at all: I would put the rhetoric of Barack Obama squarely in this category.

Rhetoric was among the few subjects taught in ancient universities. Perhaps it served as innocculation so people weren't so easily fooled.

I'm curious as to how Clinton will do in the debates with Trump's slashing style of argument... Trumps speaking style reminds me of an inebriated guy at the bar, the force of his argument is in shouting epithets at anyone who disagrees him, the fear is the the person who disagrees that Trump is just one short step away from violence.
The moderator will be critical in the debates, concern is they won't be forceful enough to demand an answer and to call a non-answer what it is and make sure the audience knows he has been "called out"

Let's at least give Germany credit for outgrowing its 'authentic' fascist psychopath Adolph Hitler-led past and moving on to rebuilding good. modern, 'boring' public policy and becoming one of the strongest economies and better educated, balanced societies in the world through the leadership of competent 'boring' technocratic leaders like Helmut Schmidt, Helmut Kohl, Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel.

Meanwhile, half the American public still falls for the cultured anti-intellectualism and proud stupidity of Republican propagandists waving the flags of Gods-Guns-Gays and Whites R Us solidarity led by 'Compassionate Conservative' sloganeering and the wisdom of right-wing dunces and propaganda parrots like Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Sam Brownback.

Professor Bruce Loebs, who teaches the Rhetoric of Hitler and Churchill class at Idaho State University, said:

"People were most willing to follow him (Hitler) because he seemed to have the right answers in a time of enormous economic upheaval."

Historian Robert Waite writes: "Hitler was Nazidom. Seldom in the history of western civilization has so much depended on one man's personality. He created his own political theory and a government that could not exist without him."

Historian Roger Moorhouse wrote that Hitler "knew very well how to 'work' the camera, and paid painstaking attention to the cultivation of his public image".

Sound familiar, Donald ?

It's time for an American Angela Merkl.

“Once you heard the voice of a man, and that voice knocked at your hearts, it wakened you, and you followed that voice.” That was Adolf Hitler"

The measure I use to decide who gets my vote is their the scope of their social conscience. The Don gets a Hitler-sized F.

Excellent essay. Thank you.

"What we have lost and must strive to regain is a conception of rhetoric that strikes a balance between the demands of reason, character and empathy, and that strives for genuine truthfulness rather than theatrical “authenticity.”"

A balance of reason, character and empathy, incorporating genuine truthfulness - sounds like a description of the best speeches of President Obama to me.

So, apparently, what the author is seeking is not lost at all.

FYI, there's a longer--and stronger--formulation of this essay in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/27/from-trump-to-brexit-rheto...

Somewhere between a detached purveyor of data (Clinton) and an emotional staccato (Trump) there is, for some people, the ability to have that "voice" you mention. It is an ability to emote without being emotional, the ability to be intimate on a grand scale. Neither candidate possesses this ability which leaves us with well, just rhetoric.