As a scholar of classical antiquity and history of political thought, I believe I am well positioned to situate the current debacle in America with the eventual unraveling of the Roman Republic which was once the greatest democracy on Mother Earth before the Visigoths intruded upon the realm.

Once, the greatest boast on earth was “Civis Romanus I” – I am a Roman Citizen. Such was the dignity and reverence of Roman citizenship.

There is even an anecdotal exemplary about a Roman Ambassador who confronted a recalcitrant Barbarian monarch by drawing a circle around the ancient monarch insisting he should bow to the demands  of the Roman Republic without which he could not leave the drawn circle. Trembling before the Roman might, the subdued suzerain naturally gave way to the Roman authority.

Such then was the pacific Roman dominance wielded with the balance of the sword and democratic pulchritude, magnified by the Augustan beauty that the great Johnson once spoke of “that it would have been better that Augustus was never born or Rome never existed.” In this very contradictory statement inheres the very decline of the American democracy.

Johnson spoke of a great Augustan era that spurred the parade of enlightenment, the recrudescence of commerce, the elevation of literature, the spurring of the Arts, the acclaim  of wisdom and then the vitiating of the Republic through venomous populism, the antiquated divisionism, the baiting for blood and the rise of the authoritarian order. And then the eventual fall of Rome.

All human institutions are subjected to a rise and fall, to an effulgence and a withering of the clime, to a brightness and a dawn.

Christopher Columbus “discovered” America through a navigational fault that eventually decimated the indigenous population, invariably transplanting a foreign composition.

The new conquistadors implanted their truths, their verities, their mores and imported norms. With brute force they wiped out the indigenous entities, enforcing a new order, from murder, slavery, liberative gradualism and the revered Lincolnian emancipatory democracy.

From FDR to Kennedy, America grew in enlightened might and democratic values, enshrining the rights of man in her compositional order.

It eventually grew into that beacon on the hill, the shining North Star upon which the world swoon and embrace with amazement and alluring attraction.

No more. America the beautiful now is adorned in ugly bewildering spectacle. It is now a frightening sight woven in racist divisionism emblematic of a fascist called Trump. The giant of old is thus diminished, crumbling into nothingness, dissolving into the dust, wasting into the vastness of a grim desert.

The world needs the core values of America which enshrine hope for the lost, justice for the deprived, and the reclaiming latitude for those who have lost the redeeming path.

How then to handle the Trumpian sickness. Alas, he represents a dark and unfathomable side of America. Trump and his MAGA crazies are now emblematic of an American demise, a dissolution of all that is righteous and fair, an avulsion and darkling of the brightness of old.

• Prince Uthman Shodipe –Dosunmu, the Oloriekun of Olowogbowo and Apesinola of Okolaba Ẹkun wrote in from the U.S.

Six weeks after the death of his wife, Gov. Umo Eno was conferred with a doctorate degree in Political Science by the University of Uyo this afternoon, making him the first sitting governor in the country to attain such qualification while in office. Congratulations to the governor. It must be a moment of mixed emotions for him and his family as this is coming exactly two weeks to his wife’s funeral events. It should also be an inspiring occasion for Akwa Ibom youths and I urge them to learn a few lessons here, chief among which is that no matter your situation in life, you can achieve whatever you set your mind to. I know this for a fact and it is what I tell my children every day.

 The second lesson is that education is a very important tool that helps you fulfill your potentials in life. Dr. Umo Eno said this much in his speech at the convocation ceremony in Uyo this afternoon. In recognition of the importance of education, the governor said, he is sustaining the compulsory free education which his predecessors have implemented since 1999. In addition, he’s improved on the value of scholarship and bursary awards to various categories of students and is revamping primary schools to enhance learning environment. But despite these, a lot of our children are still hawking in the streets during school hours, instead of being in school. Last month, I talked with a young boy of about 10 years old, who was hawking groundnut around. He said he dropped from school because his guardian did not buy him exercise books. His father is dead, his mother sent him to live with a guardian who has now turned him into a hawker; and so, his teacher asked him to withdraw till he gets his exercise books. There are so many cases family situations stopping our children from going to school. The government should address the nagging problem of school dropouts.  

I understand that our primary schools, especially those that are located in the villages, require more teachers. The government should set in motion a rigorous recruitment process to bring in brilliant, qualified and dedicated teachers into our primary and secondary schools. The last recruitment exercise happened over five years ago. We should also emphasize vocational training and rehabilitate the dilapidated vocational schools in the state. In terms of WAEC performance, our state has been around the 17th position consistently for many years. I am sure we can improve on that if our teachers are more dedicated and motivated. Alumni associations should launch motivational programs to encourage our students. The governor should also pay attention to the needs of the state-owned university, AKSU.

Indeed, education is a very important tool and we need to make the necessary investments to make it work for everybody.

As Americans head to the polls to elect their next president, the world is reminded of the far-reaching implications of this election outcome. From the Russo-Ukraine war to conflicts in the Middle East and the geopolitics of Africa and Asia, the election outcome will shape events far beyond the shores of the US.

With most polls suggesting razor-thin margins between Trump and Harris, this election is turning out to be one of the most closely contested elections in American history. Undecided or hesitant voters have become critical in breaking the tie between closely matched support bases on both sides come 5th November 2024. The race to the White House is driven by an intense war of words, where rhetorical framing is the key weapon being deployed by both sides to shape opinions and influence voting decisions. Here are my thoughts on how Trump and Harris employ rhetorical framing to tip the scale in this neck-to-neck race for the White House.  

Issue salience and selection

Both candidates assign prominence to issues they believe resonate with their audiences. Kamala Harris emphasises the significance of economic support for the middle class and working families, framing her vision for reform as an “opportunity economy” that serves ordinary Americans. She also focuses on themes of unity and inclusivity, pledging "to be a president for all Americans,” and stating that regardless of differences, Americans “all have the same dreams and aspirations.” Additionally, Harris’ campaign rhetoric always essentialises her commitment to protecting reproductive rights, and the need to “chart a course for the future and not go backward to the past.”

On the other hand, Trump prioritises illegal immigration, crime, and economic decline, rhetorically framing the situation as one of severe crises. He often employs emotive rhetoric to project fear of “criminal immigrants” stressing that "millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums” are taking jobs meant for Americans. By framing immigration and crime as national crises, Trump aims to rile up his base and discontented voters against the political establishment.  

Identity and Personal Framing

Both Trump and Harris rely heavily on identity framing to connect with voters.  Kamala Harris often frames herself as an advocate for middle-class and working families. Referencing her childhood during her live debate with Trump, she said, “I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America.”

Throughout her campaign, Harris consistently amplifies her experience as a prosecutor and her capacity to unify America in contrast to Trump’s leadership. She said: “Americans see in each other a neighbour…they don't want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other.”

On the other hand, Donald Trump positions himself as a strong leader fighting against the political establishment to protect American borders and restore its greatness on the global stage. During his debate against Harris, he touted his strong relationship with world leaders to underscore his influence on the global stage. Trump boasted, “He (Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban) said the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump. We had no problems when Trump was president… China was afraid of him. North Korea was afraid of him.” Trump often refers to his political opponents as ‘weak.’ By framing himself as a strong leader, Trump seeks to amplify the contrast between his image and the characterisation of weak leadership he ascribed to Harris on fundamental issues like immigration, crime, and the economy.

Oppositional Framing

Trump and Harris regularly employ oppositional framing to diminish the credibility of the opponent. Harris frames Trump as a failed, divisive, and self-serving leader unfit to lead America. For example, she stressed that ”Trump will not talk about people’s needs, dreams, and desires” and that America deserves a leader who “puts them first” positioning herself as such a leader. She also consistently frames Trump as dangerous to American democracy, referencing the January 6^th Capitol riots as Trump’s attempt to upend the will of the American people. Furthermore, she refers to Trump as a liar, warning their debate audience from the start of the debate to expect “a bunch of lies” from Trump, in a pre-emptive tactic to undermine his credibility. In the last few weeks leading to the election, Harris’ campaign has ramped up rhetoric that frames Trump both as a fascist and mentally unstable.  

Trump’s framing of Harris is equally pejorative, often using rhetoric that positions her as weak and incompetent on the economy, crime, immigration, and foreign policy. He also characterises Harris as unintelligent, mentally unfit, a radical leftist, and a Marxist, who would confiscate guns, stop fracking, and allow “transgender operations on illegal aliens.” By framing Harris this way, Trump reinforces the portrayal of Harris as a radical leftist who has lost touch with American values.  

Rhetorical Appeals

Both Trump and Harris often employ a range of emotional, logical, and credibility-based appeals. Harris uses vivid imagery to emphasise concerns about women impacted by restrictions on reproductive rights. She rhetorically painted an image of "pregnant women...bleeding out in a car in the parking lot” to connect with the emotions and struggles of American women and underscore her commitment to their plights. She also uses fear rhetoric to describe a potential Trump presidency for the second time.

Trump, on the other hand, employs fear and a sense of urgency to drive emotional appeal. He frequently uses hyperbole and repetition to amplify issues and frame them as major crises. For example,  he often claims that “millions of criminals, and terrorists are pouring into America and destroying the country." By invoking fear and a sense of urgency, he seeks to play on people’s anxieties about national security.   

In terms of logical appeal, Harris’ rhetoric regularly seeks to drive persuasion by presenting logical arguments. She cited Goldman Sachs’ endorsement of her economic plan to suggest that her policies are supported by independent expert evaluation. She also employed logical appeal to discredit Trump’s economic plan, arguing that reputable entities like Goldman Sachs’,  Wharton School, and 16 Nobel Laureates all declared that Trump’s plan would worsen the US economy.

Trump, in contrast, appeals to logic whenever he declares that he “created one of the greatest economies in the history of America” and that he would do it even better again if given a second chance.

Applying credibility-based appeal, Harris often emphasises her credentials as a prosecutor to demonstrate her capacity to fight crime and maintain the rule of law. Similarly, Trump appeals to credibility by consistently highlighting his achievements as a strong leader on the global stage, touting his ability to negotiate and stop what he alleged to be a rip-off from China, Europe, and NATO.  

Conclusion

Overall, this US election looks set to be decided by swing or undecided voters, the majority of whom will not conduct granular scrutiny of each candidate’s policies. Instead, they will respond to key soundbites and rhetorical framing that collectively shape their view of both candidates and consequently, their voting decision. While some argue that campaign rhetoric has limited influence on core voter bases, the rhetorical framing of arguments and counter-arguments that resonate with swing voters will ultimately tilt the scales towards Democrats or Republicans.

Dr Toju Ogbe is a Strategic Communications consultant and an academic whose research focuses on rhetorical leadership.  

Hon. Dabiri, Your Cultural Point is Well Taken, But Hon. Kemi’s Global Criticism of Nigeria Reflects the Nation’s Persistent Corruption, Human Rights Violations, Police Brutality, and Leadership Impunity — Not a Rejection of Culture and Heritage

In a recent statement, Hon. Abike Dabiri-Erewa, Chair of the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM), extended a diplomatic gesture toward Kemi Badenoch, the newly appointed Leader of the UK Conservative Party, hoping to bridge cultural ties by emphasizing her Nigerian heritage. Dabiri-Erewa’s outreach, which sought to congratulate Badenoch on her ascent to this prominent role, was undeniably rooted in a desire to maintain connections with Nigerians in the diaspora. Yet, it is important to understand that Kemi’s silence in response to this outreach does not signify a rejection of her heritage, but rather speaks to a much deeper frustration with the state of her homeland, Nigeria—a frustration that cannot be ignored by any well-meaning Nigerian, whether in the diaspora or at home.

Kemi Badenoch’s relationship with Nigeria is complex, rooted in both pride and disillusionment. Born in Wimbledon, London, to Nigerian parents, Badenoch spent significant portions of her formative years in Nigeria, the United States, and the UK. Her youth in Nigeria was marred by the harsh realities of political instability, economic mismanagement, and the slow decay of basic services that the nation’s citizens continue to suffer from today. These experiences forged her political beliefs and a deep-seated desire to see her home country achieve the prosperity and justice that should accompany its vast resources. But despite Nigeria’s bountiful natural wealth and the billions of dollars funneled in from international donors, the country has remained stagnated by pervasive corruption, human rights violations, police brutality, and a justice system that is more a tool of the powerful than an institution for fairness.

It is this disillusionment with Nigeria’s political and social systems, not a rejection of Nigerian culture, that likely informs Kemi’s decision to remain silent. As an influential British politician, Kemi Badenoch’s voice carries weight, not only within the UK but also internationally. Her career in British politics, spanning high-profile roles in the Conservative Party, highlights her ability to navigate complex political landscapes, from her technical background in IT to her rise through ministerial positions. Despite her ascent in British politics, it is Nigeria’s failure to realize its potential, largely due to the misconduct of its leaders, that draws her harshest criticism.

Badenoch’s silence in response to Dabiri-Erewa’s outreach should be viewed not as a personal affront to her Nigerian identity, but as a symbolic protest—a muted cry in response to the disheartening and increasingly inescapable reality that Nigeria’s leaders remain mired in corruption and impunity. While Dabiri-Erewa’s outreach is rooted in cultural pride, the reality is that Kemi, much like many Nigerians in the diaspora, has watched as Nigeria’s government continues to betray its people. The frustration and pain caused by these ongoing failures are not abstract—they are visceral and real.

Nigeria’s leaders, who are blessed with unimaginable wealth, both from the country’s vast oil reserves and foreign aid contributions, continue to perpetuate the suffering of the Nigerian people. The immense sums of money that pour into Nigeria from international partners, including Britain, are regularly siphoned off by corrupt officials, leaving Nigeria’s infrastructure in a state of disrepair. Basic human rights, like access to healthcare, clean water, and electricity, remain largely inaccessible to the majority of the population. Even more troubling, Nigerian leaders, such as former President Buhari and current President Tinubu, routinely travel to the UK for extended stays, often receiving healthcare treatment unavailable in their own country, while Nigerians at home die due to the absence of basic medical services. This hypocrisy—the wealth of the leaders against the suffering of the citizens—is what pains Kemi. She sees how her country is being drained by a system of governance that protects the rich and powerful, leaving the vulnerable to suffer.

This is why, despite her Nigerian roots, Kemi Badenoch has voiced her concerns about the state of her country and its leadership with blunt honesty. In her recent statements, Badenoch emphasized that while colonialism had a significant and lasting impact on Nigeria’s development, the time for using that as an excuse has passed. She agrees that the colonial legacy left a deep imprint on the Nigerian political system, but she firmly believes that contemporary Nigerian leaders must take responsibility for addressing the systemic issues that continue to plague the nation. In Badenoch’s eyes, it is not enough to simply point to the past—it is essential that Nigeria’s current leadership stop exploiting these historical grievances as a shield to justify their own failures. The responsibility for reform and development now lies squarely with the country’s leaders.

It is vital to note that Kemi’s silence in response to Dabiri-Erewa’s outreach is not an expression of hatred toward Nigeria or her Nigerian heritage. Instead, it can be interpreted as a deep and emotional response to the relentless corruption and impunity within Nigeria’s political structures. Kemi understands that the power of her voice can make a difference, and while she remains silent in this instance, her position on Nigeria’s political leadership has been crystal clear. She speaks out because she believes that the Nigerian people deserve better than the perpetual cycle of corruption, police brutality, and political impunity that continues to characterize the nation.

What should be understood from this interaction is that while NiDCOM’s efforts to connect Nigerians in the diaspora with their heritage are admirable, they should not overshadow the larger issues at play. Dabiri-Erewa’s approach, while well-meaning, is only part of the equation. The reality is that for many Nigerians abroad, including Kemi, the struggle goes beyond cultural identity—it is about Nigeria’s leadership and its failure to deliver on its promises to the people. A cultural connection, while important, cannot supersede the urgent need for governance that respects the rule of law, protects human rights, and prioritizes the needs of the people.

Moreover, it is crucial to acknowledge that while Kemi’s silence might be interpreted as cold or unresponsive, it speaks volumes. It reflects not only her sorrow over Nigeria’s continued degradation but also her frustration with the global complacency toward these issues. As a Nigerian-British leader, she carries the weight of both worlds—the cultural pride of her heritage and the moral responsibility of witnessing Nigeria’s ongoing struggle. In choosing to remain silent, she may be crying inside—tears shed for the countless Nigerians suffering at the hands of their own leaders, while their elected representatives live lives of luxury abroad.

While the outreach from NiDCOM should be appreciated, we must also recognize the deeper truths behind Kemi’s silence. She knows that no amount of cultural celebration can erase the systemic failures that continue to afflict Nigeria. Dabiri-Erewa’s efforts to congratulate Kemi on her political rise are laudable, but they must be tempered with an understanding of the larger political context—one that is shaped by deep-seated corruption, human rights abuses, and the suffering of Nigeria’s most vulnerable.

In the future, we hope that Kemi Badenoch will feel moved to acknowledge the congratulatory messages from NiDCOM, not only as a gesture of gratitude but also as a recognition of the potential for future collaboration and constructive dialogue. Her response, however, should never be seen as an obligation, but rather as a reflection of her own journey—a journey that is simultaneously one of pride in her Nigerian heritage and frustration with Nigeria’s ongoing failure to meet the needs of its people.

Let us hope that in time, Nigeria’s leaders will heed the calls for reform and accountability, embracing the responsibility to create a society where the basic needs of every citizen are met. And let us also hope that, in the future, Kemi Badenoch will see her silence give way to a more constructive dialogue—one that acknowledges the cultural ties that bind us, while also demanding the ethical leadership required to move Nigeria forward. She is a leader who has shown that change is possible, but that it requires honesty, accountability, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about the past, the present, and the future.

Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is an American-based police and prison scientist, forensic psychologist, public policy psychologist, and legal psychologist. He’s a government advisor on forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and the founder of the Dr. John Egbeazien Oshodi Foundation for Psychological Health. With a significant role in introducing forensic psychology to Nigeria through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, he’s also a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association. He’s taught at esteemed institutions like Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Nova Southeastern University, and more, and is currently an online faculty member at ISCOM University,  Weldios University and Walden University.