A REVIEW OF THE EDITOR’S SATIRE ON TRUMP’S FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE
In this contemporary satire about Donald Trump’s potential first year as President of the United States, Milt Hankins illustrates the ridiculousness and devastation that could result from him becoming the President. It starts with him staying in his New York City residence until he finishes renovating the White House to his liking, then talks about the wall and the immigration problem, followed by the issue of nepotism and Trump appointing all his family members to government positions. It also addresses his tendency to dismiss questions or other people as stupid or foolish instead of addressing the issue at hand. The article discusses Trump using executive orders to abolish government programs and pay off the debt to the Chinese, while giving jobs to people as well. Hankins pokes fun at his tendency to discuss his personal relationships with leaders and how they all “love him” and his confidence in his negotiating abilities in terms of stopping ISIS. The central argument made here is that Trump would not be a good President because of his bold assumptions and questionable attitudes towards certain groups or issues.
One key device that shapes the impact of the message is the use of dialogue and quotations. Hankins says that the president said he would not be appointing any women, but when a reporter reminds him that he appointed his daughter to Secretary of State already, Hankins inputs a quote for Trump: “That’s different!” Hankins then proceeds to say that Trump called the reporter stupid and rude. This is to mock his unfiltered attack on other people and suggest that it is bad for a president of our country to conduct himself in such a way. In the next paragraph, Trump is quoted and says, “Women reporters with blood coming out of their eyes or wherever will no longer have access to the press room.” He also says, “The press room is in my Trump Tower lobby, and I have the authority… a mandate to do as I please!” Hankins is using dialogue here to comment on his ignorance and what some would call obnoxious sense of wealth.
Hankins produced this work in order to scare people away from voting for Trump as President. Today, Trump is leading in the polls for the Republican nomination, so it has not yet fulfilled its purpose, but the rhetorical argument is sound nonetheless and he effectively uses dialogue to produce feelings of doubt or fear about Trump in this satirical article.