Post-presumption argumentation and the post-truth world: on the conspiracy rhetoric of Donald Trump

Abstract

Building on the notion of post-truth, this essay suggests that Donald Trump—both as a candidate and president—has crafted a notion of post-presumption argumentation. While there are many theories of how presumption functions in argumentation, scholars agree that it is largely a procedural device meant to promote deliberation. The essay suggests that post-presumption argumentation has become a new model—rising partly from a cultural shift triggered by rampant conspiracy theorizing by political and social elites—that undercuts the presumption of veracity, undermines faith in institutions that give presumptions force, and rejects deliberation as a communal goal.

Keywords:

• Donald Trump
• presumption
• burden of proof
• conspiracy theory
• post-truth

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ryan Neville-Shepard

Ryan Neville-Shepard is an Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of Arkansas. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Kansas.