This week’s acceptance speech at the Republican Convention raises interesting questions about the relationship between the impact of content and the impact of overall tone.
My many years experience working with leaders strongly suggests that the tone of the speaker will either reinforce the content or will itself become the primacy message.
While talking with pundits on television campaign staffers and supporters tried to explain the candidate’s speech as simply and accurately describing the situation. They totally rejected any idea that the dramatically angry tone of the speaker might incite some to act out their anger and others to respond with disgust.
Such speeches only appeal to those who share the speaker’s anger and therefore are blind to the potential violent consequences of the angry tone. At minimum, they just don’t see or care that such a tone is severely divisive and will further polarize the audience, eliminating any hope of reconciliation and cooperation. Many others, however, become frightened and believe they are listening to a future authoritarian, or even worse.
In the final analysis, the major issues confronting the nation were listed in this speech. But the angry and vicious tone of the speaker frightened many and raised serious questions about his ultimate objectives, and the future methodology he might be willing to employ in order to achieve them.
Larry D. Lauer 
Good comments about importance of tone in communications. Trump’s “tones” are interesting to study. Compare his scripted tones to his non-scripted “tones”. Different tones with the same result. Actually Hilter was a more effective speaker but commimication tones of both Hitler and Trump were and have been designed to create fear in people unordered to achieve a political goal of centralized power.