William Benoit. Communication Studies. Volume 68, Issue 3. July/August 2017.
American political campaigns are an extremely tumultuous activity. This tendency was greatly exacerbated in 2016 with the emergence of Donald Trump as a Republican candidate. He surprised many when he secured the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. He survived attacks on many grounds, including accusations that he was a misogynist (see, e.g., Benoit & Glantz, 2017). Hillary Clinton survived an unexpectedly strong primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. At the end of the primaries, Republican Donald Trump faced off against Democrat Hillary Clinton in the general election. No presidential election campaign in recent memory has been as divisive as 2016. An ABC/Washington Post poll in August found that “with registered voters, the two are basically tied: Clinton has 59% unfavorability and Trump has 60%,” the lowest presidential candidate popularity ratings ever recorded (Collins, 2016, para. 4). However, in addition to their many detractors, both contenders had attracted ardent adherents and the outcome of the election remained uncertain until the bitter end.
On Friday, October 17, 2016, days before the second presidential debate, The Washington Post released a story and uploaded footage that had been leaked, a video made during a 2005 visit by Mr. Trump and TV host Billy Bush (from “Access Hollywood”) to the “Days of Our Lives” TV show set (Fahrenthold, 2016). In the video, Trump makes several remarks about women that were widely perceived as offensive. The business magnate found himself instantly under severe attack from people from both ends of the political spectrum. Given the heated context of a presidential election, attacks from the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and from other Democrats, could be expected. Clinton (2016) tweeted “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president” (para. 1). However, criticism also rained down on the Republican nominee from members of his own political party.
The 2016 Republican presidential nominee was disinvited from an appearance in Wisconsin with Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who said “I am sickened by what I heard today” (Allen & Schouten, 2016, para. 12). Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus also criticized Trump: “No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner” (Allen & Schouten, 2016, para. 15). Both Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney, Republican presidential nominees from 2008 and 2012, made separate attacks on Trump. McCain declared that “Donald Trump’s behavior this week, concluding with the disclosure of his demeaning comments about women and his boasts about sexual assaults, make it impossible to continue to offer even conditional support for his candidacy” (Bult, 2016, para. 31). Mitt Romney issued this tweet: “Hitting on married women? Condoning assault? Such vile degradations demean our wives and daughters and corrupt America’s face to the world” (Allen & Schouten, 2016, para. 31). Other Republicans joined the chorus of criticism aimed at Trump. Senator John Thune of South Dakota declared that “Donald Trump should withdraw… immediately” (Bult, 2016, para. 12). Carly Fiorina, businesswoman and former GOP presidential candidate, agreed: “Today I ask Donald Trump to step aside” (Bult, 2016, para. 17). On Saturday, the day after the video surfaced, Bult (2016) provided a list of 26 prominent Republicans who disavowed their nominee, a list that continued to grow as time passed. Mr. Trump faced a serious threat to his image and, consequently, to his campaign for the Oval Office. A presidential election is influenced by a myriad of messages and other factors. Nevertheless, these revelations and the firestorm of accusations they provoked had the potential to destroy Trump’s chances of obtaining the Oval Office.
This article presents a rhetorical criticism of the defense of Mr. Trump’s statements in this video. First, the approach employed in this analysis, Image Repair Theory, will be explicated. Then Trump’s words from the video will be reviewed. Then messages from Donald Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, will be scrutinized along with pertinent statements from the final two general election debates. Finally, this image repair effort is evaluated and implications are discussed.
Method: Image Repair Discourse
There is a rich literature on the rhetoric of self-defense or apologia (see Ware & Linkugel, 1973), image repair (Benoit, 1995b, 1997b, 2015a), or crisis communication (see, e.g., Sellnow & Seeger, 2013). Koesten and Rowland (2004) offered a theory of atonement, a perspective intended to shift the focus of attention from self-defense to make amends. Hearit (2006) discussed three potential responses to guilt: denial, shift blame, and mortification. Seeger and Griffin-Padgett (2010) proposed a theory of renewal with four key characteristics: It is leader based, it takes a prospective rather than a retrospective perspective, it offers a provisional rather than a strategic response to crisis, and it is intended to reconstitute an organization by taking advantage of situational opportunities. Coombs’ Situational Crisis Communication Theory (2012) identified five options for dealing with crises: denial, distance, ingratiation, mortification, and suffering of the accused. Benoit’s Image Repair Theory (Benoit, 1995a, 2015a) emerged in the midst of this context of perspectives on reputation defense and identifies message strategies for responding to accusations of wrongdoing and will be employed to analyze this defense. This approach identifies five general strategies and several more specific tactics for a total of 14 potential image repair strategies (see Table 1). Image Repair Theory takes as a departure point the idea that accusations (or suspicions) of wrongdoing prompt image repair (Ryan, 1982) and that such threats to reputation have two components—blame and offensiveness (Pomerantz, 1978). These two concepts correspond to the concepts of belief and value (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).
Table 1 Image Restoration Strategies
| Denial | ||
| Simple Denial | Did not perform act or act is not harmful | I did not take your money. |
| Shift Blame | Another performed offensive act | A madman poisoned Tylenol capsules. |
| Evade Responsibility | ||
| Provocation | Offense was a response to bad act of victim. | I broke your laptop because you didn’t pick me up after work. |
| Defeasibility | Lack of information or ability to prevent offense. | Icy road caused me to lose control of my car. |
| Accident | Mishap | Didn’t see your car when I hit it. |
| Good Intentions | Meant well | Planned to give you birthday present but I forgot. |
| Reduce Offensiveness | ||
| Bolstering | Stress positive traits, deeds | Clinton boasted of first-term accomplishments (Lewinsky). |
| Minimization | Portray offense as less serious than it appears | I broke your iPhone but it was a very old model. |
| Differentiation | Portray offense as less vile than similar offenses | I didn’t steal your car; I borrowed it without permission. |
| Transcendence | More important values | I stole food to feed starving child. |
| Attack Accuser | Reduce credibility of accuser, or suggest victim deserved offense, or divert attention | Monica Lewinsky lied her entire life. |
| Compensation | Reimburse victim | Disabled moviegoers who were denied admission given free movie passes. |
| Corrective Action | Plan to repair damage and/or prevent reoccurrence | I stained your sweater; I will have it dry-cleaned. |
| Mortification | Apologize | Hugh Grant apologized to Elizabeth Hurley. |
Source: Benoit (1995a, 2015a).
Denial
Denial is subdivided into two specific strategies. First, simple denial can assume three guises: The accused can dispute that the offensive act occurred, deny that the accused is responsible for the objectionable act or reject the idea that the act is actually offensive. Any of these kinds of denial, if accepted by the intended audience, have the potential to help repair the rhetor’s reputation. Second, those accused of wrongdoing also have the option of trying to shift the blame elsewhere. If another person (or group or organization) actually committed the offensive act, the accused should not be held responsible for that act. These strategies focus on the blame component of an accusation (except for rejecting the notion that the act is harmful, which addresses offensiveness).
Evade Responsibility
The second general image repair strategy—evading responsibility—has four variants. A defense can argue the offensive act was a reasonable response to someone else’s offensive act, so the accused’s response should be viewed as a reasonable reaction to that provocation. Defeasibility claims that the rhetor did not have the knowledge or ability to avoid committing the offensive act. A rhetor can explain that the offensive act occurred by accident. Fourth, a defense can suggest that the act was performed with good intentions. These strategies also attempt to address the blame component of an accusation.
Reduce Offensiveness
Six different options are available to rhetors to try to reduce the offensiveness of an accusation. First, a rhetor can seek to bolster his or her own image in an attempt to strengthen the audience’s positive feelings toward him or her. The idea here is that these positive feelings will offset the negative feelings that arose from the offensive act. Minimization indicates that the act in question is less offensive than it appears. Differentiation seeks to distinguish the act in question from other similar but more offensive actions. In comparison, the act performed by the rhetor may seem less offensive to the audience. Transcendence attempts to justify the offensive act by putting it in a more favorable context. One defending an image can try to attack his or her accusers. This strategy could reduce the credibility of the accusations and/or suggest that the victim deserved what happened. Compensation offers to give the victim money, goods, or services to help reduce the negative feelings toward the accused. These strategies focus on the offensiveness component of the accusation.
Corrective Action
Corrective action expresses a commitment to repair the damage from the offensive act. This general strategy can take two forms. The rhetor can promise to restore the state of affairs before the offensive act or the rhetor can promise to prevent recurrence of the offensive act. This strategy concerns offensiveness.
Mortification
The last general strategy admits responsibility and asks for forgiveness. An apparently sincere apology can help restore the rhetor’s image with the intended audience. This general strategy does not directly address either blame or offensiveness but asks the audience for forgiveness.
Research has applied Image Repair Theory to defensive discourse in several contexts, including investigation of corporate image repair such as Sears (Benoit, 1995b), AT&T (Benoit & Brinson, 1994), USAir (Benoit & Czerwinski, 1997), Firestone (Blaney, Benoit, & Brazeal, 2002), Dow Corning (Brinson & Benoit, 1996), and Texaco (Brinson & Benoit, 1999). Other studies investigate image repair in sports and entertainment, including Hugh Grant (Benoit, 1997a), Tiger Woods (Benoit, 2013), Murphy Brown (Benoit & Anderson, 1996), Tanya Harding (Benoit & Hanczor, 1994), Oliver Stone (Benoit & Nill, 1998b), Terrell Owens (Brazeal, 2008), Taiwanese Major League Baseball pitcher Chien-ming Wang (Wen, Yu, & Benoit, 2009), and Floyd Landis (Glantz, 2009). Research has examined international image repair, including Queen Elizabeth (Benoit & Brinson, 1999), the United States and Japan (Drumheller & Benoit, 2004), Saudi Arabia and the United States (Zhang & Benoit, 2004), China and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, a viral respiratory disease (Zhang & Benoit, 2009), and the United States and Taiwan (Wen, Yu, & Benoit, 2012). Political image repair is another topic of interest, with research on George W. Bush (Benoit, 2006a, 2006b; Benoit & Henson, 2009), Ronald Reagan (Benoit, Gullifor, & Panici, 1991), Clarence Thomas (Benoit & Nill, 1998a), Chris Christie (Benoit, 2015b), Gary Condit (Len-Rios & Benoit, 2004), Bill Clinton (Blaney & Benoit, 2001), Barack Obama (Benoit, 2013, 2016), Newt Gingrich (Kennedy & Benoit, 1997), Kenneth Starr (Benoit & McHale, 1999), Eric Shinseki (Benoit, in press), and National Public Radio (NPR; Benoit, 2011; see also, Benoit, 1982, 1988). This article uses the strategies identified by Image Repair Theory as a critical lens to analyze Trump’s discourse.
Trump’s Words from “Access Hollywood”
Ryan (1982) argues convincingly that we must understand the accusations before analyzing a defense. Accordingly, this analysis of Trump’s defense begins by identifying the accusations leveled against him in this case. A rhetor might decide not to address a given criticism, but it could be a serious mistake to accidentally overlook a criticism. It is imperative for rhetorical critics to understand the accusation(s) made against the accused before attempting to evaluate the accused’s response. Allen and Schouten’s (2016) article reports Mr. Trump’s remarks to Billy Bush from this video:
“I did try and f*ck her,” Trump tells Bush in reference to a married woman, while acknowledging he was unsuccessful. “I moved on her like a b*tch but I couldn’t get there,” Trump says. Later in the video, as Trump and Bush spot Arianne Zucker… the real estate mogul says: “I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her,” adding that he immediately starts kissing “beautiful” women when he encounters them. “I don’t even wait,” Trump says. “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything—grab them by the p*ssy.” (para. 3–5)
Donald Trump was married to Melania Trump at the time, so these statements could imply that he was willing to commit adultery. The crudity of these remarks was congruent with the criticism that he had a misogynist attitude. The accusation of misogyny echoed criticisms made against Trump in the primary (Benoit & Glantz, 2017) and reiterated in the general election campaign. Mr. Trump was subjected to a firestorm of criticism—including attacks from fellow Republicans—often repeating Trump’s own remarks and frequently playing or providing a link to the leaked video. The Republican nominee’s reputation and his presidential campaign were seriously threatened, put at risk by his own words.
Critical Analysis of Trump’s Image Repair
This analysis will examine five texts: a brief post on Trump’s Web page by Trump (October 7), a video tweeted by Trump (October 8), another brief post on his Web page from his wife Melania Trump (October 8), and statements made by Trump in the second (October 9) and third (October 20) presidential debates. The blame component of the accusation could not be disputed in this case because the video clearly demonstrated that Mr. Trump made these comments. The image repair discourse perforce had to contest the question of offensiveness of his words.
Trump’s Initial Statement
His initial statement employed three strategies (Trump, 2016a, para. 1). First, he used transcendence in two discrete ways. He declared that his statement was merely “locker room banter, a private conversation.” This statement suggested that Trump’s right to privacy undermined the accusations. Then he observed that “Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course—not even close.” These statements propose two different contexts for interpreting his remarks: private conversations and Bill Clinton’s remarks on the golf course. It also employed minimization noting that these utterances occurred “many years ago.” Presumably, this defense implies that these statements no longer reflect Trump’s attitudes. Finally, the initial statement employed mortification: “I apologize if anyone was offended.” This discourse was brief and only marginally apologetic.
Trump’s Video Tweet
The second stage of the image repair effort emerged in a video posted to Trump’s Twitter feed the next day (Trump, 2016b, para. 1). His revised defense employed multiple strategies: mortification, differentiation, transcendence, minimization, attack accuser, and corrective action.
One strategy employed in the second phase was mortification. Trump dropped his conditional apology (“if”) and declared that “I’ve said and done things I regret. And the words released today on this more than a decade old video are one of them…. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize” (Trump, 2016b, para. 2) This is a straightforward apology. He said he regrets his action, admits his behavior is wrong and apologizes. Although no agreement exists in the literature about which elements are essential to an apology (Benoit, 2015a), most would agree these statements qualify as an apology.
This message repeats his use of minimization (an old video). He also used another form of minimization, attempting to lower his audience’s expectations about his behavior: “I’ve never said I was a perfect person nor pretended to be someone that I’m not.” This statement suggests that the audience should have lower expectations for his behavior because he did not claim perfection, helping reduce the offensiveness of Trump’s statements from the video.
Differentiation cropped up in two distinct forms. First, he differentiated between the words he spoke and his essential character: “Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am.” He also worked to differentiate his words from the deeds of others: “[T]here is a big difference between the words and actions of other people. Bill Clinton has actually abused women and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed, and intimidated his victims.” Trump argues that his words are less offensive than Bill Clinton’s and Hillary Clinton’s actions. These criticisms of his opponent and her husband also function to attack his accuser. This strategy worked to deflect attention away from the attacks on Trump.
Transcendence was also used to suggest that there are more important issues that people ought to focus on instead of this video. He argued that “This is nothing more than a distraction from the important issues we’re facing today. We are losing our jobs, we’re less safe than we were eight years ago, and Washington is totally broken. Hillary Clinton and her kind have run our country into the ground.” He elaborated the problems we face today: “I’ve spent time with grieving mothers who’ve lost their children, laid off workers whose jobs have gone to other countries and people from all walks of life who just want a better future” that are, Trump suggests, much more important than his statements in this video. A bit of bolstering can also be seen here as Trump reports that he has spent time with people who are suffering.
Finally, Trump employs of corrective action: “I pledge to be a better man tomorrow and never, ever let you down” (para. 4). He could not take back the words he spoke in the video but he could promise not to repeat the offense. He asserts here that he will never behave this way again and promises that he will not disappoint his supporters.
Melania Trump’s Statement
Melania Trump’s statement (2016, para. 1) utilized four strategies: apology, differentiation, transcendence, and bolstering. It began by observing that “the words my husband used are unacceptable and offensive to me.” This remark does not enact an image repair strategy: It functions to enhance her credibility, suggesting that she was reasonable and not merely offering a knee-jerk defense. Then she told the audience that she accepted his apology: “I hope people will accept his apology, as I have.” This statement explicitly urged people to accept his apology. Because she was a victim of his words (her husband’s remarks could have embarrassed her and they implied that he might commit adultery), her willingness to accept his apology could have been a point in her husband’s favor.
Melania Trump also used differentiation in her statement, asserting that his statement “does not represent the man that I know.” This remark echoed Trump’s statement that “these words don’t reflect who I am.” This defense does not deny that he did say these things (and, of course, there was video evidence that he had said them), but it tries to differentiate these words from his “true” nature.
She also employed transcendence, suggesting that we should “focus on the important issues facing our nation and the world” (para. 1). Again, Melania Trump’s defense parallels her husband’s (second) defense in which he said, “This is nothing more than a distraction from the important issues we’re facing today.” The audience should focus on issues that really matter, not on these statements from Mr. Trump.
Finally, Melania Trump’s statement included an instance of bolstering. She declared that her husband “has the heart and mind of a leader.” This strategy attempts to offset an offensive act with other, favorable qualities of the accused. Of course, some could take a defense from the accused’s spouse with a grain of salt.
Trump’s Defense in the Second Presidential Debate
Trump’s defense advanced five image repair strategies in the second debate (Trump, 2016c): mortification, differentiation, transcendence, bolstering, and attack the accuser. His defense on Monday actually started before the debate itself began. He held a predebate press conference with women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct (Alberta & Levinson, 2016). This was an instance of attacking the accuser, attempting to deflect attention away from the criticisms of Trump arising from the video tape.
One strategy employed in the debate itself is mortification. Trump admitted that “I’ve said things” and “I’m embarrassed by it” (2016c, para. 25). He reiterated his expression of regret (“I’m not proud of it,” para. 51) and apologized directly to his family and to the American people: “I apologize to my family. I apologize to the American people” (para. 16). Trump apologized for “those words” (para. 54). The statement that he was embarrassed reinforces his apology.
Trump also deployed differentiation in this debate using two arguments. He appeared to deny making the offensive remarks when he declared “No, I didn’t say that at all” (2016c, para. 16). However, in response to a follow-up probe, he clarified his position. When asked if he ever did any of the things he talked about in the video, Trump said, “No, I have not” (para. 27). So, although he did not deny making the offensive remarks, he differentiated what he said from what he did. He also returned to his comparison of his words with Bill Clinton’s behavior: “Mine are words and his [Bill Clinton’s] was action” (para. 52). He explicitly claimed that his words were less offensive than Bill Clinton’s deeds. He declared, “There’s never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women” as Bill Clinton (para. 21).
He returned to his defense of transcendence, dismissing his comments as mere “locker room talk,” a phrase that cropped up six times in the debate (2016c, para. 16, 19, 51). The argument here is that, when viewed in these contexts (private conversations, Bill Clinton’s behavior), Trump’s statements are less offensive than they seem.
He also employed bolstering in the second debate, maintaining that “I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women that I do” (2016c, para. 23). This strategy was not elaborated further here.
The most frequently employed strategy in the debate was to attack Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the general election and one of his principal accusers. After mentioning Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual misconduct with several women (presumably pertinent because he is Hillary Clinton’s spouse), Trump criticized Hillary Clinton’s actions when she was First Lady: “Hillary Clinton attacked these same women and attacked them viciously” (2016c, para. 53). Trump referred to his opponent as “the devil” (para. 65). He characterized her as “lying again” (para. 87), having “tremendous hate in her heart” (para. 340), and possessing “very bad judgment” (para. 148). He also promised that “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we’re going to have a special prosecutor” (para. 67). He reiterated his characterization of his opponent as being a liar and indicated that she would be put “in jail” under his presidency. His repeated criticism of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton’s spouse, could also reflect unfavorably on Clinton, functioning to attack one of his accusers.
Trump’s Defense in the Third Presidential Debate
The situation confronting Trump changed in the days between the second and third debate. Several women came forward to report that Mr. Trump had engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with them. This led Chris Wallace (2016, para. 150) to say that, since the second debate, “nine women have come forward and have said that you either groped them or kissed them without their consent. Why would so many different women from so many different circumstances over so many different years… Why would they all make up these stories?” Mr. Trump offered two refinements to his defense in order to deal with these new accusations (Trump, 2016d). He declared that “those stories have been largely debunked” (para. 153) and asserted that “I don’t know those people” (so I could not have groped them, para. 153). The business magnate also added to his use of the strategy attacking accusers, criticizing the motive behind these attacks: “I think they want either fame or her [Hillary Clinton’s] campaign did it” (para. 156). He reiterated his use of bolstering: “Nobody has more respect for women than I do” (para. 270).
Evaluation of the Image Repair Discourse
Two things should be noted at the beginning of the evaluation of this image repair effort. First, it is not sufficient to simply include an image repair strategy in a defense: A strategy must be developed persuasively to have any hope of being effective. For example, “I didn’t do it [wink wink, nudge nudge]” qualifies as an instance of denial, but it is unlikely to be convincing. Second, image repair can be helped or hindered by messages from others.
Evaluating the persuasiveness of this defense is complicated by the highly divisive political campaign context. Research has established that Democrats and Republicans respond to a given message in different ways (Jarman, 2005). In this particular case, the audience is not just divided by political party affiliation because so many Republicans disavowed their nominee; that is, his reputation was threatened by both Democrats and Republicans. It is unrealistic to expect someone in this situation could persuade everyone, but convincing even half of his audience would be difficult.
Mr. Trump had a large number of adherents who did not waver in their support. However, many other Republicans jumped ship and joined those who expressed outrage at Trump’s video remarks; his poll numbers began to decline after the release of this video. A Marquette University poll conducted from Thursday to Sunday found that support for the Republican nominee declined across a variety of demographic groups: evangelicals, men, whites with no degree, independents, likely voters, whites with college degrees, and women (Bump, 2016). His support began to waver.
The mortification in Trump’s initial statement was really only a pseudo-apology. Although the literature does not agree on a clear set of required components of apology (Benoit, 2015a), it is clear that an apology should include some acknowledgment of remorse or regret for the offensive action. Trump’s initial statement (“I apologize if anyone was offended,” emphasis added) is conditional (“if”); it fails to concede any wrongdoing on Trump’s part. He may have recognized its inadequacy because later that day he released a video with a more fully developed apology. His wife’s statement that she accepted his apology—and Mr. and Mrs. Trump’s use of bolstering—reinforced his defense.
Minimization (the remarks occurred years ago) was also unlikely to help very much: The fact that the attacks employed a video featuring Mr. Trump making these potentially offensive remarks endowed the accusations with presence (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969), making these newly discovered statements seem current. The additional accusations about Trump’s alleged sexual misconduct that surfaced between the last two debates also worked against this image repair effort. Reducing expectations, another form of minimization, has been found to help image repair in other cases (Benoit, 2014, 2015b).
other cases (Benoit, 2014, 2015b). Trump’s use of differentiation (he said offensive things but did not actually engage in the acts he talked about) was a useful argument, although it was weakened by the succession of women who alleged other instances of inappropriate behavior by Trump (an illustration of the idea that an image repair effort is influenced by other messages). This case had similarities to the accusations against Bill Cosby, which mounted over time as more alleged victims came forward (see, e.g., Carter, Bowley, & Manley, 2014).
Arguing that his words were less offensive than Bill Clinton’s deeds (differentiation) was another strategy that may have helped the defense. However, complaints about Bill Clinton were old news. The argument that we should pay attention to more important issues (another instance of transcendence) was another element of the defense that may have helped the defense.
Attacking accuser was an interesting aspect of Trump’s defense. Criticisms of his accusers’ motives in the third debate are an attempt to reduce the credibility of their accusations and this use of attack accuser is nothing new (see, e.g., Benoit, 2011; Benoit & Nill, 1998b; Furgerson & Benoit, 2013). Heretofore attack accuser has been said to either reduce the credibility of the accusations (as just mentioned) or to suggest that the victim deserved what happened. Trump’s use of attack accuser, particularly in the second debate, served a third purpose. Calling her the devil, a liar, and a person whose heart is filled with hate, along with making the threat to put her in jail appeared to be attempts to deflect attention away from the accusations leveled at Trump. I do not argue that this is the first time attacks have been employed to deflect attention away from the accused; however, this use of attack accuser is not widely discussed in the literature on image repair
After accusations from other women surfaced, Trump used denial to respond to these attacks. He declared that these accusations had been “largely debunked.” This statement (“largely debunked”) is not a particularly strong defense. It is not clear where they were debunked (other than by Trump’s denials) and the qualifier “largely” suggests there was some truth in these accusations. His remarks appeared impulsive; his style here was antagonistic and demeaning.
The addition of a statement by Melania Trump invokes third-party image repair (Benoit, 2015a). It is possible that several messages from different sources could work together to improve the chances of successful image repair. However, her statement in this case was brief and, for the most part, echoed arguments made by Trump, so it was not likely to provide a big lift to the defense. Her acceptance of his apology and her plea for others to accept it were helpful to the defense, particularly because she can be considered a victim of Mr. Trump’s offensive act.
Another contextual factor in the success of this image repair effort was revelations from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). An FBI investigation of Anthony Weiner discovered that his laptop contained e-mail that Weiner’s estranged wife, Huma Abedin (a top Clinton aide) received from Hillary Clinton. On Friday, October 28 (11 days before election day), FBI Director James Comey announced that “Investigators had found new emails related to the bureau’s previously closed inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information, restarting a long-simmering debate over the Democratic nominee’s conduct as secretary of State” (Allen & Johnson, 2016, para. 1). Days later, Bret Baier of Fox News reported that “two sources in the FBI” told Baier that “an indictment is ‘likely’ in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation” (Hains, 2016, para. 7). On Sunday, November 6 (two days before election day), Comey said there was no evidence that the newly discovered e-mails merited criminal charges against Clinton (Apuzzo, Schmidt, & Goldman, 2016). Although Comey eventually said that Hillary was unlikely to be indicted, his initial revelation and Baier’s report that sources at the FBI leaked the news of a pending indictment reinforced Trump’s use of attack accuser. The second statement came after the damage to Clinton’s reputation had already occurred and may have served primarily to remind voters of Clinton’s alleged e-mail problems.
Many factors (including Comey’s and Baier’s revelations) played a role in this image repair effort and the election outcome. Because of the highly divisive atmosphere, this image repair effort could only be persuasive for part of his audience. Danner (2016, para. 2) reported an ABC News/Washington Post poll, which revealed that about “seven in ten respondents believe that Trump probably has made unwanted sexual advances on women and only 38% believed his apologies over the Access Hollywood tape were sincere” (para. 2). However, “just one-third of respondents made them less likely to support Trump (the same voters already profiled as unlikely Trump supporters in the first place).” So, many people were not susceptible to this image repair effort.
Trump won the Electoral College vote and thereby won the Oval Office. However, the Electoral College is an anachronistic process: It need not reflect the popular vote. In this case Secretary Clinton won the votes of 2.9 million more people than Mr. Trump (Krieg, 2016). A citizen’s vote choice can be influenced by many factors. Trump’s image repair effort may have worked with his base but it did not persuade most voters.
Some observers may be surprised that Mr. Trump won as many votes as he did. Many reasons can be posited for his ability to attract nearly 63 million voters. Both candidates were unpopular; clearly millions disliked Clinton even more than they disliked Trump. Furthermore, opinions are notoriously difficult to change this late in the campaign. For example, CNN exit polls in 2016 found that only 13% of voters made up their mind about how to vote in the last week of the campaign (2016). Trump appealed to many because he was, and styled himself as, an outsider, in sharp contrast to his opponent. He also appealed to some voters by eschewing political correctness, so these allegations may not have seemed equally offensive to everyone.
Implications and Conclusion
Mr. Trump’s remarks are deplorable; if he committed the kinds of acts of which he boasted in the video, that behavior is repugnant. It is important to call out reprehensible behavior, whether in words or deeds. Words as well as actions matter.
An election—particularly a presidential election—is comprised of a multitude of messages from a myriad of sources: candidates, surrogate supporters, news media, and other pundits. The advent of social media such as Twitter and Facebook enabled citizens to participate in the campaign in unprecedented ways using Facebook posts and likes, as well as tweets and retweets on Twitter. The November election is the culmination of messages and occurred over months. In this particular case, people had formed impressions and attitudes about Clinton and Trump for decades (although beliefs about Trump’s policy positions could be formed only after he announced his candidacy for president). This case highlights the use of attack accuser to deflect attention away from accusations of wrongdoing. It also underlines the idea that messages from others besides the accuser and the target can be important factors in the success or failure of an image repair effort. It also illustrates the idea that the nature of the threat to reputation can change, as was the case when additional accusers emerged; defenses can shift accordingly (see, e.g., Benoit, 1982; Benoit et al., 1991). This article also underscores the potential importance of image repair in politics.