A Comparative Analysis of Frank Underwood and Donald Trump as Presidential Candidates

Introduction

The hypothetical scenario of a political collision between Frank Underwood and Donald Trump presents a fascinating exploration of contrasting leadership styles and moral compasses. If these two individuals were to run against each other, their approach to governance and public speaking would significantly influence their strengths and weaknesses. This analysis delves into how each candidate would perform in such a contest, rooted in their historical actions and rhetoric.

The Rhetorical Duel Between Frank Underwood and Donald Trump

Frank Underwood, the cunning and manipulative President from the TV series House of Cards, would likely emerge victorious in a debate against Donald Trump. The contrast in their methods of communication and influence is stark. Underwood wields the sharp, strategic weapon of the rapier, while Trump’s approach is blunt and often clumsy, akin to a bludgeon.

Underwood's rhetorical arsenal is formidable. He often utters memorable quotes that encapsulate the essence of political manipulation and the dark underbelly of power. Examples include:

There's no better way to overpower a trickle of doubt than with a flood of naked truth.

Friends make the worst enemies.

I love that woman. I love her more than sharks love blood.

Proximity to power deludes some into thinking they wield it.

The road to power is paved with hypocrisy and casualties.

Notably, Trump lacks a similar repertoire of memorable quotes, suggesting that Underwood is more adept at crafting powerful, resonant messages. Even with Trump having a team of writers who are well-paid, Underwood remains the more influential figure.

Ethical and Moral Considerations in Leadership

Frank Underwood’s character is a master of deception and manipulation, having committed murders and supported assassination attempts. However, his actions are often cloaked in a veneer of heroism and high moral purpose. In contrast, Trump's tenure has been marked by numerous ethical oversights and questionable business practices. The ethical ramifications of their leadership styles are profound.

Underwood's tactics, though morally reprehensible, have often left him portrayed as the underdog hero in the narrative of the show. Trump, despite employing considerably less sophisticated methods, has often been caught engaging in behavior that is both unethical and damaging to the nation's image.

A Scenario in the Presidential Debate

A hypothetical scenario illustrates how Underwood might outmaneuver Trump in a live debate. Consider the following exchange:

[Trump on CNN broadcast]: Do you remember that rally we held back in February? It was great, right? By the way, for any of you who have roughed up protesters, I will still pay your legal bills. It's absolutely disgraceful that these thugs should be allowed to come in and assault any of you. Their actions don't keep with this country's laws and actually are a disgrace to the universe. Miss Universe, by the way. It's always been great. Univison tried to take me down by the way. They said 'he's a racist. He's awful to watch on TV.' Univison's being sued now. Oh, you all really wouldn't know.

[Underwood turns to camera]: During my time at the Citadel, I never really learned much about military history. Strange, especially given that it was a military institute. You'd think I would have paid attention, but it just never caught my interest. However, the few times I occasionally listened, I learned a bit. And one quote I absorbed was from Napoleon, yes that Napoleon. Napoleon was really not a good politician. He was undiplomatic and arrogant, actually very similar to that oaf talking right now. But Napoleon left us with one quote. 'Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.' And I think...

[Underwood holds up a piece of paper with notes and picks up the phone]: ...I now know how to put a spike in his wheel.

Underwood's response is both calculated and calculatedly not aggro. He points out Trump's ignorance about military history without directly insulting him. The reference to Napoleon and Trump's shortcomings serves to undermine Trump's credibility and expose his lack of historical knowledge and political acumen.

Moreover, Underwood's side would likely have a better grasp of public relations and media manipulation. Trump's inexperience in these areas would be further highlighted, making him appear opportunistic and ill-prepared.

Conclusion

While Underwood's leadership style is morally questionable, it is intellectually and strategically superior to Trump's. Their differences in rhetoric, ethical conduct, and public relations make Underwood a likely victor in a hypothetical election. Nevertheless, Underwood's victory might be a Pyrrhic win, as America might appear better off under either leader, but cleaner and more ethical under Trump.

Key Takeaways

Underwood's strategic and cunning approach to politics is superior to Trump's blunt and often clumsy methods. Underwood's quotes and rhetoric are more memorable and impactful, highlighting the stark difference in leadership styles. Underwood's ethical conduct, although morally reprehensible, is often portrayed as heroic, while Trump's ethical oversights are highly damaging.

References

[1] Executive Producer and Showrunner of House of Cards, David Fincher. (2013-2018).

[2] Presidency of Donald Trump. (2017-2021).

[3] Rhetorical Analysis of Political Figures. (2023).