The Rule of Three
The way Americans gather information has become both extremely complex and extremely simple. There are deep metadata processes beneath the surface of our screens tailoring our individual advertisement experiences, and the terabytes of information injected into our heads by the quantum foam of capitalism has left us increasingly numb to high-impact, fast-paced informational experiences. Advertisers must find a way through either hyperbole or originality to draw the attention of their prey. We should expect politics reflect that trend.
All political speech is—or at least one would hope—calculated and highly organized. Yet at first hearing the Trump speech sounds like a rambling jumble of inflammatory conservative codewords. Nothing could be further from the truth. It contains a very sophisticated undercurrent of mental threads that are to be stitched together into a tapestry by use of blunt rhetorical instruments, in the same way that a pornographer’s advertising software calculates where and when to plaster our preferred sex acts onto our screen.
One of the most simple and effective rhetorical devices is known as the Rule of Three. I am speaking of politics not porn, but that’s no reason to discount another overlap. Regardless, the Rule of Three in speech states that repetition or lists that come in threes are by far the most memorable. This likely to do with our limited attention span, highly imitative primate nature, and tendency to clap our hands and shout “Do it again! Do it again! Do it again!” after a particularly good magic trick.
Any speech great or otherwise probably has at least one example, and when used well the Rule of Three can elevate a great speech to an immortal one. In this excerpt from the Gettysburg Address, the Rule of Three is used as bookends for the meat of the text:
“But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground...
...It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Laying aside its other profound qualities, there is a deep stratification of the Rule of Three that is both subtle and powerful. The first sentence is the rule in its most obvious form:
“we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground.”
However, there’s more than meets the eye. “We can not” is three words, and if you look at the rhyme scheme, there is a cadential satisfaction of the Rule of Three as well.=
1 2 3
we can not de-di-cate
1 2 3
we can not con-se-crate
1 [ 2i ii iii ] 3
we can not [hal-low this] ground.
Also, the repetition (we can not) occurs at the beginning of each phrase in the same way the sentence is the beginning of the paragraph. Each repetition is successively longer, and while the first two rhyme, the third one has a syllabic triplet exactly where it breaks the rhyme scheme. Read it aloud andand snap your fingers. It’s very effective.
The ending is an architectural masterpiece built from this foundation. The construction of the aforementioned sentence is extrapolated into three full ideas in the closing. There is an ordered relationship between “dedicate”, “consecrate”, and “hallow[ed] ground”, and Lincoln successively extends each clause by the addition of a phrase rather than a few characters. The effect is a grand unfolding of the finale.
1. that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - (dedication)
2. that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - (consecration)
3. and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. - (hallowed ground)
The last contains the great observation of our fundamental national principle: “of the people, by the people, for the people”. It is a triplet of words like “we can not”, and the Rule of Three repetition is at the end of each phrase (of the people) rather than at the beginning (we can not dedicate) just as they are located in the paragraph itself. Finally, as the last part of the opening is lengthened by a triplet rhythm (hal-low this), the last of the end is lengthened by a triplet of phrases: “of the people, by the people, for the people”
This is what is known as “quality”, and we haven’t even begun to discuss the brilliance of the text itself or the speech as a whole; just the Rule of Three, and how effective this device can be when used well.
Now. Having covered what Abraham Lincoln was capable of penning on the back of an envelope during the train ride to Gettysburg, we will discuss how this technique is used by a gang of speechwriters working overtime to compile potential future president Donald Trump’s hour-long address on the Yorktown commemorating Pearl Harbor Day. For those of you beginning to object to a comparison between Lincoln and Trump, remember: just because cream and turds both float doesn’t make them of equal culinary value.
--------------------
When one explores the use of the Rule of Three in a Trump speech, one gets the awful, even cynical sense that the speechwriters have no faith whatsoever in the ability of Americans to listen critically or Trump’s ability to speak clearly.
At the very beginning (lns. 3-4) he mentions Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Centers, and says “we don’t want that” three times in a row. This literal repetition could be forgiven if it contained the summative strength of “education, education, education,” but in the case of Trump it sounds like a broken record player. Then he starts quoting his poll numbers, and again it lends the impression of doing verbal stretches so as to be limber for the evening’s marathon.
Trump on the economy: “[it’s] so important...very important...so important.” (lns. 24-25)
Trump on the: “budget...budget...budget” (lns. 28-39)
Trump on illegal immigration: “[I] took a lot of heat. I took a lot of heat...[I am] taking a lot of heat” (lns. 33-35) over plans to build a wall and deport millions of people.
A ham-fisted segue to veteran affairs prompts the declaration that “we’re going to make our military ‘so powerful’, ‘so strong’, ‘[and] so great’”, that “nobody’s every going to mess with us again. Nobody. They’re never going to mess with us.” (lns. 48-50)
In case you missed that, Trump reminds us of how laughably simple this task will be by contrasting it with the difficulty of forming a coherent sentence:
“We’re going to make it so great, so strong, that people—pssht—they’re not messing, they’re not messing.” (lns. 54-55)
He then returns to veterans, thrice stating that we need to “take care of our vets” (ln. 55-56), and thrice promises that our social abandonment of them is“not going to happen any longer” (lns. 58-59).
If read straight through (lns. 33-59), and you get an overall sense of what his speechwriters are dealing with. They’ve got a man who clearly can’t be trusted to stay on topic or even form complete sentences while he’s doing so. How do you get people to stay tuned in? Make sure the static on the Hustler Channel periodically displays a semi-recognizable breast every twenty to thirty seconds.
I’m going to skip over the next hundred lines and twelve examples because they will be discussed later, and pick it up at his description of the media. Like the Jefferson Bible where our forefather removes all reference to miraculous nonsense, I’ve cut the speech down to how it would read if it was reduced to the relevant content articulated by use of the Rule of Three. This begins about 230 lines in, and it typifies the speech. (If you want to skip it, go ahead. Scanning the bold text is enough to make the impression.)
-----------------
The media “are so dishonest...they’re so dishonest. They are so dishonest” (ln. 244). I always tell them to show all the great people at my rallies and “fan the crowd...fan it, I say, fan it”, but they “don’t show it...they never, ever fan it...they never fan it. And yet I “guarantee...guarantee...guarantee” they will show that [demonstrator] though. The media are “scum...Scum. Scum. ” (lns. 267-268)
Katie Couric said something nasty recently. “What a lie...what a lie...what a lie!” (lns. 273-278) Most reporters are “third-rate...third rate. Third rate” (lns. 273-283). Perhaps they should report on the Iran nuclear treaty just made by Kerry and Obama, who are “horrible negotiator[s]...horrible negotiator[s]...horrible negotiator[s]” (325-327). You see, when we’re checking Iran for nuclear weapons to back that treaty up, we have to wait “24 days. 24 days...24 days” (ln. 316) to start looking.
It's not my fault because when I backed “McCain, he lost...McCain for losing...McCain he lost.” (lns. 331-333) That’s why he decided to run, because “we’re not going to lose. We’re not going to lose. We’re not going to lose” (ln. 339).
Worse than that though, when they polled Muslims “51%...51%—51%” (lns. 236-239) want to be governed by Shariah. “25% of those polls...25%of those polls...25%” (lns. 233-236) said they thought violence against America was justified. Even “1%...1% would be unacceptable...1% is unacceptable” (lns. 354-355). They want to change our religion. Well, “I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I don’t think so” (ln. 359).
So before we can let Muslims in we “have to determine...we’re going to have to determine—we have to figure it out” (lns. 372-373) who the hell they are. The hatred is beyond comprehension and “it’s going to get worse and worse...it’s going to get worse and worse...it’s going to get worse and worse” (lns. 374-376) because they have no “respect for human life...they have no respect for human life...they have no respect for human life” (lns. 379-388).
We saw that in Paris where it was absolute slaughter. If the Parisians had guns“you wouldn’t have had the carnage....you wouldn’t have had that carnage...you wouldn’t have had that carnage”(393-394). It was the same in California—”No guns...we didn’t have guns...the bad guys had the guns” (lns. 401-402), and what does the press do? They call the guy “the mastermind...the mastermind...the mastermind” (lns. 405-407). He's shooting people “bing, bing, bing” (ln. 414), and now we have kids going over there joining ISIS.
The press isn’t responsible, we have to close the internet up in some way, and you can bet someone will say ‘oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ “These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We’ve got a lot of foolish people” (lns. 423-424). They go off and fight for ISIS and want to “come back...we take ‘em back...come on back, (lns. 428-439). But when they leave, “they can never come back...they never come back, they never can come back, they never come back...They can never, ever, ever come back...they can never come back. (lns. 430-432).
Remember that woman in Pakistan who came on an engagement deal and “radicalized...radicalized...radicalized” (lns. 434-437) her husband? Those days are over. “We have to be tough, we have to be smart, we have to be vigilant.” (lns. 439-440) That means “we have to look at mosques, we have to respect mosques, but yes, we have to look at mosques” (lns. 440-441). We have no choice because something is happening in there. When we see violations we have to report those violations. Don’t worry about profiling, I promise I will defend you from profiling. I promise.
So when I started this whole quest, you know, who knew it was going to turn into this. It’s been an amazing thing. We have tremendous crowds, like in “Dallas: 20,000 people in Dallas. 20,000 people. 25,000” (ln. 453) There’s just an “unbelievable love in these rooms...unbelievable love in these places...unbelievable love—unbelievable love. And there’s unbelievable love” (ln. 460-464). We want to see good things, we don’t want bad people. “We can’t let people kill us. They want to kill us. They want to destroy us” (ln. 467). “We can’t let people kill us...we can’t let it happen. We just can’t let it happen” (lns. 467-468).
-----------------
I’m ending this here out of respect for your time, but suffice to say that over the 658 lines—not sentences—of the speech, he uses the Rule of Three about sixty times. If I counted the number of times he only doubled phrases back-to-back we’d be at about 100. Once you know what to look for it’s like listening to a goddamn basketball bouncing up and down, but hey; we live in the Twitter generation. We like our messages short and sweet, and we don’t have time for people like Lincoln with their long-windedness. At 140 characters per tweet, Lincoln’s inefficiency would leave a modern Gettysburg Address as approximately“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition.”
Oddly enough, it becomes a perfect Trump tweet about capitalism and American values because it omits all that bullshit about all men being created equal.
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech Pt. I
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech Pt. II, Rule of Three
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech pt. III - "Remember This..."
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech pt. IV - Gross Anatomy
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech pt. V - The Skeleton
Politics, Current Events: Anatomy of a Trump Speech pt. VI—The Organs
Politics, Current Events: Transcription of Trump's Yorktown Speech