Let me resurrect an old philosophical trope for what I hope will be a brief comment on the "presidential" debate that occurred the other night -- the difference between "being" and "becoming." There is a difference between "being" president and the interminable process of "becoming" president. I suspect that Hillary Clinton will be good and who knows? perhaps even great at "being" president, actually governing the country. Like Thomas Friedman, "I am not enamored of Clinton’s stale, liberal, centralized view of politics, but she is sane and responsible; she’ll do her homework, can grow in the job, and might even work well with Republicans, as she did as a senator." Having said that, she is not particularly good at "becoming" president. Although there is a rough consensus that she "won" the overall debate, there is still a lingering sense of disappointment that she didn't deliver the final pin prick to pop the over-inflated Trump ego. One commenter to Friedman's article summed it up nicely, writing:
No question Trump is a disaster, but Hillary needs to be much more agile in the ring, and close out this everlasting election. There were several opportunities for her to take a swing and she did not. Something like... "Donald, your policy proposals are about as thin as the gold-plating on your Trump Tower marquee..." ...and defend the economy of the Clinton and Obama years where appropriate. They were a hell of lot better than the bubble and bust of the "W" tenure. And defend the necessity for appropriate regulations. Do we want to live in a world of lead poisoned kids, or a world without wild salmon spawning in streams. Don't put us to sleep with wonky proposals, but articulate how her policies have and will affect all of us with visceral examples.
By her own admission, however, she lacks the rhetorical campaign skills necessary to the task of "becoming" president, which, in the end, may scuttle her chances of "being" president.
In a world of identity politics, however, I wonder how much of what I'm saying can be attributed to my own hidden expectations around gender. A white male has quoted to men, Tom and Joe, as a comment on the sole woman in the rhetorical room. Which reminds me, I do have a tenancy to "man'splain" things, as Lora is quick to point out when I lapse into patronizing and condescending lectures on the obvious. Not unlike our attitudes on race, it can be a bit disconcerting when the normal hierarchical structures are up-ended, and perhaps Tom, Joe and I just can't help ourselves as we pontificate on "weaknesses" which may not be "weaknesses" at all. She didn't deliver the final prick (and neither did she "schlong him," "hose him," or ... you get the idea) but rather endured his bluster, his interruptions, his rants, his growing irritation until he had fully revealed himself for what he is and what he will be in the oval office. The Times summed it up nicely, "On Monday night, those women got to see Mrs. Clinton stand up to that common hazard of working while female: the sexist blowhard, the harasser. When Mr. Trump began by addressing Mrs. Clinton as 'Secretary Clinton,' saying, 'yes, is that O.K.?,'" he was playing a role that men have imposed on women, "chivalry" or "gallantry," all of which is predicated on the assumption that a woman's happiness needs the protection and rescue of a man who, after all, wants you "to be very happy." "Mrs. Clinton," however, "laughed off the condescension. But she wasn’t playing along — she was awaiting her moment. After nearly 90 minutes, it came." When asked what he meant when he meant by saying "she doesn't have a presidential look," Holt and then Trump gallantly held open the door for her by saying, what any knight errant would say, "she doesn't have the stamina." She walked through, and shut the door behind her, taking away the last word, with a sentence that summed it all up nicely, thank you very much: “Well, as soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina.” Not only did she up-end the gender stereotypes about a "man's work," but subtly turned her worst recurrent nightmare, the endless inquiry into the emails, into an asset, an emblem of her endurance and stamina.
She may be better at this nasty business of "becoming" president than Tom, Joe and I believe. She ticked up in my respect several notches at any rate. Of course, ultimately it may not matter. The Times may have this right as well, "Mr. Trump’s misogyny is unlikely to turn off his core supporters." There are various reasons why it might not matter, not least of which is the resentment born of up-ended status and the continuing erosion of privilege. "His bullying of Mrs. Clinton," after all, is nothing new, and we have watched her being bullied throughout her career, without, I might add, much sympathy -- much unrequited suspicion, but little sympathy. She's the wife of a philandering husband suspected, metaphorically speaking, of having her own affair, and we have spent what? close to 14 million dollars trying to prove it, without one conclusive "in flagrante delicto" shred of proof. Although Trump paraded his gallantry by mentioning that he did NOT mentioned the stain on Monica's dress for the sake of the children, thereby mentioning it, we seem determined to believe that she MUST be as guilty as her husband, that there must be a stain on her pant suit as well, and so the suspicions carry forward. My apologies for the "icky" metaphor, but this has been one "icky" election, so I won't mention that Trump, despite his small hands, is the hugest exemplar of marital fidelity, and we need only ask John Miller or John Barron, both very close associates of Trump, about Ivana, Marla, Carla, Melania, or perhaps any other woman whose name ends in "a" -- we need only ask John or John about his upright marital stamina, his hard presidential look, and I'm sure they'll be happy to tell us.
Beyond the ick, while there is some legitimacy to Trump's "critique of her reversal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his remarks on the effect of globalization on jobs," and his critique may legitimately "play well with white men reeling from technological change, job losses and addiction," ultimately I think it comes around to resentment over what is perceived (falsely) as a zero sum game, an "I-win-you-lose/you-win-I-lose" game -- that is to say, "amid this upheaval, some have come to believe that when minorities, immigrants and women make gains, it pushes them further behind." It isn't surprising, of course, that a politician -- a political hack, to use Trump's word -- would use resentment to capture votes. As Factcheck points out, however, Trump said that President Bill Clinton 'approved NAFTA, which is the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country.' Actually, the North American Free Trade Agreement was negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush. President Clinton signed the legislation to implement the agreement. Trump also said NAFTA 'was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry.' Actually, economic studies say NAFTA’s impact on U.S. jobs has been small." Which tells us two things -- that the push toward a more inclusive economy represented by NAFTA had then what is rare today, bi-partisan support -- that we have lost sight of the fact that we're talking about our neighbors immediately to the north and to the south ... oh, yes, to the south. Trump hammered home the point about Ford moving it's small car manufacturing to Mexico. What Trump failed to mention, however, is that the move to Mexico reveals something equally rare today, the effects of a negotiated union contract. As factcheck also point out, the Detroit Free Press reported that “the automaker made a commitment to invest $9 billion in U.S. plants and create or retain more than 8,500 jobs as part of a new four-year contract with the UAW. Of that, $4.8 billion goes to 11 facilities in Michigan.” Of course, this is all complication and nuance. Those with a zero sum mentality would ask why lose ANY jobs to Mexico without asking about the knock off effects of an improved Mexican economy on other hot button issues like, say, immigration. Trump's wall may not have any actual foundation in reality, but it does have symbolic foundation in resentment -- a resentment of the jobs flowing south and a resentment of the immigrants flowing north.
In the end, it may well be the resentment that matters, which brings me to the matter of style. As opposed to Clinton's periodic sentences spoken at a deliberate pace with measured pauses to allow comprehension, many have noted the odd incoherence of Trump's rambling "word salad." In a jibe at Trump, Slate even asked for help in diagramming one of his sentences. On the page, it was an incoherent ramble, but as Tara Golshan points out in a Vox article, his style is principally oral. "Their seeming incoherence stems from the big difference between written and spoken language," she writes. "Trump’s style of speaking has its roots in oral culture. He rallies people through impassioned, targeted conversation — even if it doesn’t always follow a clear arc." This helps us understand in part why Trump seemed so ineffectual at the debate when he has effortlessly rallied his crowds. At the debate, one should note that the crowd wasn't JUST a Trump crowd, and for the most part (with a couple of exceptions) they obeyed the rules and kept silent. At his rallies, it is purely a Trump crowd. Protestors and others who might distract from the mob mentality are famously escorted out, sometimes after violent expressions of disapproval, which in turn feeds the mob as Trump infamously has so often brought the "impassioned disapproval" to the attention of the crowd. As George Lakoff has suggested, his speech patterns may even stem from his New York City upbringing. "[The] thing about being a New Yorker it is polite if you finish their sentences for them. It’s a natural part of conversation." And as Golshan goes on to say, "that conversational style can be effective. It’s more intimate than a scripted speech. People walk away from Trump feeling as though he were casually talking to them, allowing them to finish his thoughts." Moreover, "when Trump’s audience finishes his sentences for him, the blanks are filled with sentiments that resonate: fears of joblessness, worries about the United States losing its status as a major world power, concerns about foreign terrorist organizations. Trump validates their insecurities and justifies their anger." Trump started the debate using familiar speaking strategies, and perhaps he seemed more effective at the beginning BECAUSE the patterns were familiar, but he could not sustain the energy without the feedback loop of the mob roaring their disapproval of the person now standing next to him on the stage, after Obama, the next bug-a-boo symbol of their accumulated resentments.
Can we move past a politics of resentment? Probably not. While one can certainly question Trump's religion, and for that matter the religion of those who seem to resent everyone but white christians, there is a religious edge to his resentment. As I've suggested before, Trump is the savior come to warn others of the impending apocalypse. As reported by Politico, “We’re gonna make America greater than ever before,” Trump told supporters during his rally in Council Bluffs, Iowa. “We can do that. But if we don’t win this election, it’ll never happen. I’ll tell you what, we’re never gonna have another shot. This is it. The tables will be turned. Then it’ll be too late.” The tables will be turned? Of course, we don't need to ask "by whom?" We can finish his thought, by religious minorities, by ethnic and racial minorities, by women, and, of course, by the politicians sensitive to their needs. At one level, of course, we recognize the rhetorical device here as a common sales technique -- it's the special offer that expires unless the buyer makes a decision right now -- it's the appeal to pick up that phone and call right now, because in minutes prices will never be so low again. One can see the clock ticking down of QVC. At another level, it is a sales technique borrowed by evangelical religion -- you think you'll live forever, but the end may come sooner than you think -- you should fall to your knees and accept Jesus right now, because who knows? you might be run over by a bus and then it'll be too late and you'll suffer the pains of hell forever. Evangelicals may feel that "that they have no genuine champion in the presidential race and that the country has turned its back on them," as the NY Times reports, but Trump has appropriated their language and, let's be completely honest, much of the fear, rage, and resentment that flows through their language, particularly their inability to tolerate those who do not share their culture and belief system. He has appropriated as well as their deeply felt sense of the always imminent apocalypse. While "Americans are anxious about the economy, jobs and terrorism," the Times reports, "conservative Christians say they fear for the nation’s very soul. Some worry that the nation has strayed so far that God’s punishment is imminent."
Indeed, despite the demonstrable fact that the economy is getting incrementally better, with new and better paying jobs on the increase, we nevertheless feel a sense of imminent financial collapse. Even including the lone actors who seize on radical agendas as a pretext, those of us who live in Mountain Home are much much more likely to be killed by a deer bounding in front of our pickup than an actual terrorist. So why the sense of imminent apocalypse? It seems to be in the air and, frankly, I feel it too, though I would not ascribe the source to gay marriage or transgender rights or the imagined enactment of sharia law, but to Trump and the resentment that he feeds and feeds upon. He will blow the trumpet and bring on the apocalypse. I am astonished, and continue to be astonished, that he has ANY support, much less the level of support that he does have. Astonished, and frightened.
No comments:
Post a Comment