Deflecting deliberation through rhetorical nihilism: “Stop the Steal” as an unethical and intransigent rival public

Abstract

ABSTRACT In the weeks after the 2020 presidential race, Donald Trump and his supporters used Stop the Steal rhetoric to suggest that the election was stolen from the 45th president. I argue that Stop the Steal highlights the existence of a rival public, an alternative discourse community that deflected deliberation by refusing to engage in a debate with other publics and counterpublics. To constitute this rival public, Stop the Steal constituted itself through rhetorical nihilism, an argumentative style where any and all means are used to strategically discredit other publics and counterpublics for the purpose of gaining power in the public sphere. Leading up to the January 6, 2021 insurrection, the Stop the Steal rival public used rhetorical nihilism to stymie deliberation using three unethical argumentative means: (1) conspiratorial rhetoric, (2) arguments that spread mis/disinformation, and (3) paralipsis via rhetorical questions. The existence of this rival public highlights a modern public sphere where rhetors can deflect democratic deliberation by replacing logical debate based on facts with mis/disinformation. Although members of the Stop the Steal rival public professed to champion democracy, their use of rhetorical nihilism demonstrates a discourse community that sought to derail deliberation and undermine governing institutions for partisan goals.