Politics
Opinion: For voters, what Harris or Trump say may matter less than how they say it
Imagine someone needs to convince you of a surprising fact — say, that your partner is cheating on you. Your best friend might be direct: “They’re cheating on you!” They might even exaggerate a little to get you extra worked up: “It’s been going on for ages! They’re parading around all over town!” But a stranger would need to be more circumspect and subtle: “I’m surprised to hear you’re a couple, because I saw …”
There are essentially two different ways to communicate persuasively, and the differences have everything to do with the communicator’s social authority. We’re seeing it play out on the campaign trail: Donald Trump is regularly characterized as forward and bombastic, while Kamala Harris is often criticized for being too indirect or obtuse. Both styles can be effective, but it’s helpful to consider who uses these different approaches and why.
People we see as trustworthy — either because they are familiar to us or because they are members of a race, class or gender our society treats as authoritative — can use direct and unambiguous language to push others into their way of thinking. If you trust someone, they can convince you of something by speaking straightforwardly about it — and they can be even more effective by taking advantage of their authority and exaggerating the truth. This manner of speech has been historically linked to dictators and fascists, but it’s also something you might see in your day-to-day life from someone in a position of power over you — like your boss — or someone you’re in a close relationship with, like your significant other.
On the other hand, those who are not in positions of authority must be much more subtle and measured. If you are not already inclined to take someone’s word for something, that person doesn’t have the luxury of simply stating the facts as they see them. They have to be more circumspect and make their points implicitly.
One way to be implicitly persuasive is to presuppose something rather than state it outright. One of the differences between the English articles “a” and “the” is that “the” often presupposes uniqueness, i.e., that there is only one. So a politician could bill herself as “an honest politician,” or include a presupposition by claiming she is “the honest politician.” This second option packs a bigger semantic punch but is notably less direct than explicitly saying something like “I am an honest politician, and my rival is not.”
Striving for plausible deniability is another way to be implicitly persuasive. If the point you need to communicate is controversial and potentially socially dangerous and you aren’t in a position of power, it’s a good idea to speak as noncommittally as possible. This is achievable using distancing language or hedging, for example: “If pressed, I might feel that it’s appropriate to suppose your partner might be cheating on you.” Another way to gain plausible deniability is by using oblique language, such as so-called dog whistles, which signal meaning to one group without alerting others. These techniques rely on a distinction between lying outright and being misleading. Misleading styles are used extensively in persuasion, both by people who can’t afford to be direct and by those with ulterior motives, such as advertisers and public relations experts.
On a day-to-day basis, it’s better to think of indirect language as a natural reflex based on our fluid roles in society, not a sign of weakness to be stamped out. If we had a better understanding of these linguistic power dynamics, we might have, for instance, different legal precedents. One unfortunate court ruling held that saying, “I think I would like to talk to a lawyer” to a police officer does not legally qualify as a request for a lawyer. But stating, “I think I would like a salad” would uncontroversially be seen by a restaurant server as an order — in a context in which the power imbalance is flipped.
Understanding the real motivations for indirect communication also would help us work to avoid gender and racial bias: While Harris is almost always characterized as more indirect than Trump, conversation analysis has shown that Trump used more hedging and uncertain language in their presidential debate. This is consistent with findings that women are disproportionately criticized for using indirect language, when it is more or less equally used by all genders. This is true for tag questions (statements ending with an interrogative question, such as “You watched the debate, didn’t you?”) and vocal fry (a creakiness or raspiness in one’s voice that some assume is an affectation.) Both have been disproportionately associated with women and incorrectly characterized as signaling weakness in the speaker.
It’s important to remember that generally we do not have the luxury of choosing between these two approaches to persuasive communication. The fact that those with power can afford to speak directly, while those without it cannot, means that more than anything, our communication styles reflect the inequities already established in our society.
Jessica Rett is a professor of linguistics at UCLA. Her research investigates the meaning of words and how they contribute to the meanings of sentences, either in isolation or in broader contexts.
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Dallas, TX16 seconds agoCrews cover up AT&T branding as stadium becomes
-
Miami, FL3 minutes agoMiami leaders gather for FIFA World Cup Host Committee Gala
-
Boston, MA8 minutes agoPackage fire outside Boston’s Museum of African American History under investigation
-
Denver, CO15 minutes agoRockies beat reporter Patrick Saunders to leave Denver Post
-
Seattle, WA18 minutes agoSeattle granted NFL Franchise on this day 52 years ago
-
San Diego, CA23 minutes agoMater Dei Catholic rallies, beats Point Loma in rematch of last week’s final
-
Milwaukee, WI30 minutes agoMilwaukee health department monitors 3 people for low-risk Ebola after travel; ‘No public health concern’
-
Atlanta, GA33 minutes agoCaitlin Clark’s stats Thursday in Indiana Fever vs Atlanta game
