ZOE ROGERS / OPINION EDITOR

The views expressed in the editorial and op-ed sections are not necessarily those of  The USD Vista staff, the University of San Diego, or its student body.

Words have power. They can motivate and inspire, but can also incite actions and have an unintentional impact. Today, there are so many ways people can broadcast their opinions and use language to persuade their audience. Professors lecture to their students, our favorite artists deliver speeches at the VMAs, influencers use social media and politicians engage in debates. The specific words these individuals choose to use can have a profound impact on the emotions and actions of their audience.

Speakers need to be aware of their relationship with their audience and the potential impact of their words. Audience members can be driven by emotion. Hearing messages delivered by someone they view as an icon or  authoritative figure can have a problematic outcome. In some instances, if the audience members respect the speaker, they can blindly accept their statements as true and even take action to spread the ideas without validating them. 

Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted a study beginning in 1961 on the dynamic between obedience and authority. Milgram’s experiment unveild that people are likely to obey individuals they view as commanding figures. Milgram concluded that people are more prone to acting based on the words of an individual they view to obtain power or authority. That being said,  speakers,  such as politicians, must be aware of the words they produce, as their audience is more prone to acting on it. 

In the recent presidential debate, audiences witnessed a prime  example  of   how   a speaker’s words can tangibly  impact groups of people in a negative way. In the debate, former President Trump perpetuated a baseless claim regarding Haitian immigrants legally located in Springfield, Ohio.  

“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” Trump said.

 Immediately after, David Muir, one of the moderators for the presidential debate, announced a report from Springfeild’s city manager. 

“I just want to clarify here you bring up Springfield, Ohio, and ABC News did reach out to the city manager there,” Muir stated. “He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured, or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”

Additionally, the mayor, the police chief, and the governor were quick  to  say  there was no evidence or police reports to support any of the inflammatory comments.

However, despite Trump’s claim being proven incorrect, his words had already created a negative impact on the Haitian immigrant community of Springfield, Ohio. 

The accusations toward Haitian immigrants initiated incidents of violence across the city. Safety concerns for all residents surfaced as a result. Bomb and mass shooting threats were called into rallies, schools and city hall. This led to evacuations across the city.

Springfield has been impacted because of the surge of Haitians who have come to the small city. Buisness owners say the influx  of immigrants has helped with keeping their buisnesses afloat thanks to their labor. However, resoruces are running low and Springfield is in need for more assets to address the increased population. The Haitian community pleaded early on that they need help, not hate.  

The Columbus Dispatch, a newspaper based in Columbus, Ohio, primarily reports on local and national news. The newspaper provided insight into the effects of the rhetoric on the people of Springfield, Ohio. 

“Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said that there have been at least 33 separate bomb threats targeting the Springfield City School District, which were determined to be hoaxes,” Columbus Dispatch stated. “In an effort to increase security, the Governor’s office stated that 36 troopers will be stationed throughout the schools and will conduct sweeps every morning. Bomb detection dogs will also be stationed in Springfield each day.” 

While Trump may not have consciously delivered this narrative to spark violence and safety concerns for the residents of Springfield, the result of his words is evidence that rhetoric has the power to negatively impact people’s lives. Speech has the power to manipulate audiences even when its claims are not supported by facts.

Some say that each of us as individuals must be accountable for  our   own  actions, and the words of another person, especially a political leader, cannot be blamed for individual choices. 

According to this viewpoint, politicians don’t actually have direct control over the actions of their supporters. Rather, the listener has to be responsible for critically listening and determining  if something  makes sense  in  light  of factual evidence. While this idea of personal accountability may be true, politicians are skilled at evoking emotion through their rhetoric.

Politicians can initiate an emotional fire within their audience and, in some aspects, control the feelings within their audience members, causing them to act. Audience members tend  to view politicians as seemingly more educated and informed people, ultimately leading to the audience trusting their words. If the audience members maintain values similar to those of the speaker, they will sensibly look up to them as authoritative figures. Speakers, whether in the classroom, on the stage or in politics need to recognize their emotional power and, instead of inflicting harm, use it for good.

It’s time to recognize the influential effects of rhetoric. Individuals with any platform or audience need to be aware of their effect on others, and instead of harnessing its ability to negatively impact others, use it as a vessel of good.