1) From time to time in this and other Bulwark pieces, the obvious fact of asymmetry in almost all things political in the U.S. today is pointed out and lamented. Here’s just another one.
What if Trump had been asked the question that Haley was asked? It turns out he was.
In 2017, Trump was interviewed while visiting the gr…
1) From time to time in this and other Bulwark pieces, the obvious fact of asymmetry in almost all things political in the U.S. today is pointed out and lamented. Here’s just another one.
What if Trump had been asked the question that Haley was asked? It turns out he was.
In 2017, Trump was interviewed while visiting the grave of Andrew Jackson and commented on Jackson’s legacy and the causes of the Civil War. Here is his answer: “I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn’t have had the civil war. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the civil war. ‘There’s no reason for this.’ People don’t realize, you know, the civil war – if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there a civil war? Why could that one not have been worked out?”
Besides the historical absurdity that somehow Jackson could have prevented the Civil War (or even foreseen it coming) and the even more absurd idea that “no one knows” what caused the Civil War (or, apparently, even bothers to ask the question), nowhere in his 84-word answer was the word “slavery”. And all the people are (justifiably) piling on Haley and not Trump. Why? For the Trumplicants, the reason is that it’s a cult and no one is allowed to criticize the cult leader. Full stop. And for we anti-Trumpers, surely one of the reasons is that “we all know” that Trump doesn’t have a clue about the history of the United States (among lots of other things that he doesn’t have a clue about) and can’t be expected to come up with an intelligent answer. It’s the curse of low expectations. The other big reason, I think, is that we all only have a limited reservoir of outrage that we can call upon. And with Trump we have to save that outrage for truly outrageous things. Compared with instigating a coup, not knowing what the cause of the Civil War was seems not that important.
2) One of the facts of political life nowadays that took me a long time to grasp (and I’m not sure how many people have grasped it yet) is that, to a large portion of the electorate, it literally doesn’t matter in the slightest what Trump says. He can say “green” one day and “blue” the next and his supporters don’t bat an eye. Or he can say truly bizarre and historically incorrect things like the one highlighted above, and it’s Monday. Or, as CS has pointed out, he can criticize the service to this country of a former POW and his polls numbers don’t tank. I assume it’s worse for members of the press who have spent their professional lives dissecting the words of politicians to try to divine their hidden meaning. Now, not only is there no hidden meaning; there’s often no coherent meaning at all. That’s what a word salad is after all.
At least now, everyone has stopped asking the question if this “thing” is the “thing” that will separate Trump from his base. For we know now that there is no such “thing”.
Reasonable logic, saving outrage for truly outrageous things. But Trump throughout his presidency simply overwhelmed the media and public with outrage after outrage, exhausting all of us. Why not return the same treatment, and hold his feet to the fire on every single idiotic and despotic utterance, countering his barrage of outrage with a spirited and consistent defense?
There’s a phrase for what Trump does – flood the zone with shit!
I have often thought about how to counter Trump’s rantings. And one way is to clearly vigorously fight back with point-by-point rebuttals with the same level of vitriol that Trump employs. The problems with this approach (especially for MSM types) is threefold: (1) you would spend almost all day doing that, and (2) it could appear to the casual observer that you are “picking on” Trump, thereby either creating a sympathetic backlash or allowing the possibly persuadables to “tune you out”.
But the third aspect of this is the worst. I just don’t think that most of the anti-Trump crowd would be very good at it (and when I say “good”, I really mean “nasty” and “juvenile”). A sober, logical rebuttal of Trump (the kind you read in The Bulwark, for example) just doesn’t carry the same emotional gut punch that Trump’s rantings do. They sound squishy, by comparison.
It’s simply very hard to counter someone who is often disconnected from reality and has exactly zero sense of shame.
My go-to example here is Trump’s treatment of Clinton during their second debate when he stalked her around the stage. My wife wanted Clinton to turn around and say “back off Buster”. While that would have been very emotionally satisfying, it wouldn’t have worked. Trump would have immediately feigned offense and played the victim card. Clinton would have ended up the loser. The truth is that you just can’t get in the gutter with Trump. It’s like the old joke about wrestling with a pig – you get dirty and the pig likes it.
Perhaps I should rethink my position on this given the fact that it has become clear over the past several years that there are large portions of Trump supporters that are unreachable. They are a lost cause. There’s no reason to worry about how they will react to something. So the messaging has to be focused on the persuadables. And perhaps a logical, specific rebuttal would be effective with those folks. All I know is that an emotional appeal won’t work. Trump has the emotional vote all locked up.
"Perhaps I should rethink my position on this given the fact that it has become clear over the past several years that there are large portions of Trump supporters that are unreachable. They are a lost cause. There’s no reason to worry about how they will react to something. So the messaging has to be focused on the persuadables. And perhaps a logical, specific rebuttal would be effective with those folks. "
It sucks. But the uninformed populace would be the ones which enable an electoral vote win possibility. If the courts do their sworn duty, we won't have to chance that.
Try watching some of the 'man on the street' interviews on youtube with Trump supporters at their own gatherings as well as outside his rallies. It would be amusing were it not so dispiriting and depressing to see such blatant, rampant ignorance and outright stupidity. The vast majority literally have no grasp or knowledge about their own country, its history, political or economic system.
How can it be that the wealthiest nation in human history has literally 10s of millions of citizens who lack the most basic education, most of whom are functionally illiterate and are unable to articulate even a modicum of a cogent sentence? They speak gobbledygook and can't even regurgitate what they hear on Fox News.
I know this little missive is largely rhetorical, but it's a damning indictment of the education system in America, as well as its economic and class systems, and speaks volumes about why the country is in the situation it is today.
A few comments….
1) From time to time in this and other Bulwark pieces, the obvious fact of asymmetry in almost all things political in the U.S. today is pointed out and lamented. Here’s just another one.
What if Trump had been asked the question that Haley was asked? It turns out he was.
In 2017, Trump was interviewed while visiting the grave of Andrew Jackson and commented on Jackson’s legacy and the causes of the Civil War. Here is his answer: “I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn’t have had the civil war. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the civil war. ‘There’s no reason for this.’ People don’t realize, you know, the civil war – if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there a civil war? Why could that one not have been worked out?”
Besides the historical absurdity that somehow Jackson could have prevented the Civil War (or even foreseen it coming) and the even more absurd idea that “no one knows” what caused the Civil War (or, apparently, even bothers to ask the question), nowhere in his 84-word answer was the word “slavery”. And all the people are (justifiably) piling on Haley and not Trump. Why? For the Trumplicants, the reason is that it’s a cult and no one is allowed to criticize the cult leader. Full stop. And for we anti-Trumpers, surely one of the reasons is that “we all know” that Trump doesn’t have a clue about the history of the United States (among lots of other things that he doesn’t have a clue about) and can’t be expected to come up with an intelligent answer. It’s the curse of low expectations. The other big reason, I think, is that we all only have a limited reservoir of outrage that we can call upon. And with Trump we have to save that outrage for truly outrageous things. Compared with instigating a coup, not knowing what the cause of the Civil War was seems not that important.
2) One of the facts of political life nowadays that took me a long time to grasp (and I’m not sure how many people have grasped it yet) is that, to a large portion of the electorate, it literally doesn’t matter in the slightest what Trump says. He can say “green” one day and “blue” the next and his supporters don’t bat an eye. Or he can say truly bizarre and historically incorrect things like the one highlighted above, and it’s Monday. Or, as CS has pointed out, he can criticize the service to this country of a former POW and his polls numbers don’t tank. I assume it’s worse for members of the press who have spent their professional lives dissecting the words of politicians to try to divine their hidden meaning. Now, not only is there no hidden meaning; there’s often no coherent meaning at all. That’s what a word salad is after all.
At least now, everyone has stopped asking the question if this “thing” is the “thing” that will separate Trump from his base. For we know now that there is no such “thing”.
Reasonable logic, saving outrage for truly outrageous things. But Trump throughout his presidency simply overwhelmed the media and public with outrage after outrage, exhausting all of us. Why not return the same treatment, and hold his feet to the fire on every single idiotic and despotic utterance, countering his barrage of outrage with a spirited and consistent defense?
There’s a phrase for what Trump does – flood the zone with shit!
I have often thought about how to counter Trump’s rantings. And one way is to clearly vigorously fight back with point-by-point rebuttals with the same level of vitriol that Trump employs. The problems with this approach (especially for MSM types) is threefold: (1) you would spend almost all day doing that, and (2) it could appear to the casual observer that you are “picking on” Trump, thereby either creating a sympathetic backlash or allowing the possibly persuadables to “tune you out”.
But the third aspect of this is the worst. I just don’t think that most of the anti-Trump crowd would be very good at it (and when I say “good”, I really mean “nasty” and “juvenile”). A sober, logical rebuttal of Trump (the kind you read in The Bulwark, for example) just doesn’t carry the same emotional gut punch that Trump’s rantings do. They sound squishy, by comparison.
It’s simply very hard to counter someone who is often disconnected from reality and has exactly zero sense of shame.
My go-to example here is Trump’s treatment of Clinton during their second debate when he stalked her around the stage. My wife wanted Clinton to turn around and say “back off Buster”. While that would have been very emotionally satisfying, it wouldn’t have worked. Trump would have immediately feigned offense and played the victim card. Clinton would have ended up the loser. The truth is that you just can’t get in the gutter with Trump. It’s like the old joke about wrestling with a pig – you get dirty and the pig likes it.
Perhaps I should rethink my position on this given the fact that it has become clear over the past several years that there are large portions of Trump supporters that are unreachable. They are a lost cause. There’s no reason to worry about how they will react to something. So the messaging has to be focused on the persuadables. And perhaps a logical, specific rebuttal would be effective with those folks. All I know is that an emotional appeal won’t work. Trump has the emotional vote all locked up.
"Perhaps I should rethink my position on this given the fact that it has become clear over the past several years that there are large portions of Trump supporters that are unreachable. They are a lost cause. There’s no reason to worry about how they will react to something. So the messaging has to be focused on the persuadables. And perhaps a logical, specific rebuttal would be effective with those folks. "
It sucks. But the uninformed populace would be the ones which enable an electoral vote win possibility. If the courts do their sworn duty, we won't have to chance that.
Try watching some of the 'man on the street' interviews on youtube with Trump supporters at their own gatherings as well as outside his rallies. It would be amusing were it not so dispiriting and depressing to see such blatant, rampant ignorance and outright stupidity. The vast majority literally have no grasp or knowledge about their own country, its history, political or economic system.
How can it be that the wealthiest nation in human history has literally 10s of millions of citizens who lack the most basic education, most of whom are functionally illiterate and are unable to articulate even a modicum of a cogent sentence? They speak gobbledygook and can't even regurgitate what they hear on Fox News.
I know this little missive is largely rhetorical, but it's a damning indictment of the education system in America, as well as its economic and class systems, and speaks volumes about why the country is in the situation it is today.