How Trumpspeak Plays Into Donald Trump's Attacks On The Media
Donald Trump, at war with the media, tossed out yet another howler. Via RTE:
"The White House is running so smoothly, so smoothly" he said."The dishonest media, which has published one false story after another, with no sources... they just don't want to report the truth," he said.
The WSJ columnist Bret Stephens writes in TIME that Trump is "trying to substitute news for propaganda, information for boosterism" -- and he's succeeding pretty damn well at it:
His objection to, say, the New York Times, isn't that there's a liberal bias in the paper that gets in the way of its objectivity, which I think would be a fair criticism. His objection is to objectivity itself. He's perfectly happy for the media to be disgusting and corrupt -- so long as it's on his side.But again, that's not all the president is doing.
Consider this recent exchange he had with Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly asks:
Is there any validity to the criticism of you that you say things that you can't back up factually, and as the President you say there are three million illegal aliens who voted and you don't have the data to back that up, some people are going to say that it's irresponsible for the President to say that.
To which the president replies:
Many people have come out and said I'm right.
Now many people also say Jim Morrison faked his own death. Many people say Barack Obama was born in Kenya. "Many people say" is what's known as an argumentum ad populum. If we were a nation of logicians, we would dismiss the argument as dumb.
We are not a nation of logicians.
I think it's important not to dismiss the president's reply simply as dumb. We ought to assume that it's darkly brilliant -- if not in intention than certainly in effect. The president is responding to a claim of fact not by denying the fact, but by denying the claim that facts are supposed to have on an argument.
He isn't telling O'Reilly that he's got his facts wrong. He's saying that, as far as he is concerned, facts, as most people understand the term, don't matter: That they are indistinguishable from, and interchangeable with, opinion; and that statements of fact needn't have any purchase against a man who is either sufficiently powerful to ignore them or sufficiently shameless to deny them -- or, in his case, both.
If some of you in this room are students of political philosophy, you know where this argument originates. This is a version of Thrasymachus's argument in Plato's Republic that justice is the advantage of the stronger and that injustice "if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice."
Substitute the words "truth" and "falsehood" for "justice" and "injustice," and there you have the Trumpian view of the world. If I had to sum it up in a single sentence, it would be this: Truth is what you can get away with.
What may explain Trumpspeak -- at least in part? Roy Cohn. Jon Wiener writes at LA Review of Books:
Trying to explain his behavior, pundits have said we were witnessing Trump's "inability to restrain his worse impulses," or that he "blindly follows his ego," or that he's "like a two-year-old" (here and here). And many have been saying he is simply crazy. In fact if you Google "Trump and crazy," you get 66 million results -- starting with President Obama, who said recently that Trump comes from "the swamp of crazy."There's a better explanation. Trump's statements are not infantile or impulsive or insane, but rather are part of a conscious, consistent, long-term strategy for dealing with criticism and opposition. It's all there in Art of the Deal, Chapter 5, "The Move to Manhattan," where Trump tells the story of how in 1973 he managed to join a private club -- of course it was "the hottest in the city and perhaps the most exclusive," and of course its members included "some of the most successful men and the most beautiful women in the world." It was the kind of place, he wrote, "where you were likely to see a wealthy seventy-five-year-old guy walk in with three blondes from Sweden." In other words, Trump's kind of place.
But it wasn't the blondes at that club that most interested him. It was a New York lawyer named Roy Cohn. For liberals and leftists in New York, Roy Cohn was the personification of evil, the reptilian right-hand man and snarling chief counsel for Joe McCarthy during the darkest days of the blacklist, and later a notorious legal attack dog and fixer for mobsters and corrupt politicians.Roy Cohn taught young Donald Trump two simple precepts: Always hit back. Never apologize. That's exactly what we've seen Trump doing throughout the campaign, and especially the last several weeks. So if a Venezuelan beauty queen says you treated her cruelly, you say she made a sex tape. If the father of a dead soldier criticizes you on TV, you say he didn't allow his wife to speak. And if the most powerful Republican in Washington says he won't defend you any more, you spend days calling him "weak and ineffective." Because you always hit back. And you never apologize. That's what Trump learned from the man who became his mentor.
Here Trump is not saying there's no such thing as truth, here's merely sidestepping the question asked entirely to state at least one thing ("Many people have come out and said I'm right") that is objectively true, even if it does not answer the question asked.
And "The White House is running so smoothly, so smoothly," I note that objectively Trump seems to have accomplished more in his first month than most Presidents. Maybe from Trump's viewpoint, that objectively outweighs all these unsourced anonymous reports of "chaos" in the Trump White House.
One hardly needs to invoke Roy Cohn to find innumerable prior examples of politicians ignoring uncomfortable questions, or sidestepping them with pre-canned answers to further their own agendas.
At a more abstract level, we've been hearing from postmodern philosophers for decades now that there's no such thing as absolute truth, that everything is opinion or institutional racism or white privilege or whatever. Should we be surprised that Trump uses such left-grounded subjective reasoning criteria to his advantage when it suits him?
Lawrence Person at February 19, 2017 12:52 AM
After the many lies Obama told about POLICY (If you like your plan, etc.) many are only fixated on TALK.
Why? Outright fiction used to sell a flawed unknown policy. No problem?
Reporters helped Clinton. How many investigations did not uncover Clinton's email server issues (it was used by State, Obama, and others, were the reporters clueless?).
It's easy 'cause these are actual actions of the past. Why were there no problems w/these actions then or now?
Simple. They were done by the "right" side. Nothing done/said now will be correct because it is by the "wrong" side.
Soon the dems, MSM, and others will be screaming at themselves. The rest of us are tuning them out because it is TALK ABOUT TALK, and WHAT WILL THE _______ THINK?.
Yada Yada Yada Let's talk about actions and repercussions and follow up actions. We've got problems let's fix them.
Bob in Texas at February 19, 2017 7:22 AM
A nit, maybe, but one that should be noticed by a stickler...
"The WSJ columnist Bret Stephens writes in TIME that Trump is "trying to substitute news for propaganda, information for boosterism" -- and he's succeeding pretty damn well at it:"
That actually says that news and information will replace propaganda and boosterism. Oops.
And God forbid a news agency actually have to look things up before it sells more fear. Only the trivial and personal may reach the headlines.
BTW, I have friends and family in the Melbourne, FL area, and there were way more than 9000 at his rally, as CNN said. We can and have put that many at a high school football game. Cars and people lined the road for a mile in all directions.
The point: selling fear leads to sloppy reporting, which is obvious now in ways it was not before.
Radwaste at February 19, 2017 7:58 AM
The "Haters," Raddy!
They HATE the man!
Personally!!!
I think it's kind of a sad commentary on today's compromised social mores...
Crid at February 19, 2017 8:22 AM
You're so cute when you're excited!
Radwaste at February 19, 2017 10:21 AM
I am electrically attractive in all contexts.
You've surrendered the purposes of your ego, already stretched tissue-thin in dozens of arguments across a decade, to the defense of a witless illiterate barroom bully working in some of the most delicate and consequential settings of Western Civ. You wanted this to happen, and it's happening. The inanities will stack, eventually tumbling into horror for good people... In that hour, don't tell us that this isn't what you had in mind.
Bring us anything but your tears. No one loves you enough to console you.
Crid at February 19, 2017 12:51 PM
I think Thrasymachus's argument nails it, but I think that Glaucon had better olives.
JD at February 19, 2017 1:08 PM
It's Bret Stephens Crid. He has been virulently anti-Trump from the very beginning. He still is. Saying he hates Trump gets followed by 'Well, duh!' He has written on his views quite a bit.
Ben at February 19, 2017 1:17 PM
"Donald Trump, at war with the media"
Er, the media hasn't quit its assault on the non-Hillary entities for a year and a half now.
Am I the only one who reads the hysterical headlines of fake news on the fake news sites like CBS and CNN?
Here's some examples (new ones coming every day if you don't like these):
World Leaders Just Not Sure Where Trump Stands
Roommate Wanted: No Trump Supporters
I Salute Cardboard Trump Every Day
Trump's Attacks on Press More Treacherous Than Nixon
McCain Says Dictators Get Started By Suppressing Free Press
Donald Trump and the Psychology of Blame
Wrestler Channels Anti-Trump Rage
Bob Woodward Takes On The Trump Administration: "Democracies Die in Darkness" (no mention of fatal hyperbole poisoning)
NBC News even has an entire page dedicated to Donald Trump. First order of business:
"The Biggest Anti-Trump Rallies Planned For President's Day Weekend"
Tell me again about the impartiality of the press.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 19, 2017 1:26 PM
Raddy, see February 19, 2017 1:27 PM. And cry your torpid little eyes out.
Crid at February 19, 2017 1:29 PM
> It's Bret Stephens Crid.
WHO'S "Bret Stephens"? What are you yammering about? What is the "it's" of that sentence? To be "virulently anti-Trump from the very beginning" is no less virtuous than being "virulently" anti-Hillary would have been in a (closely) parallel universe.
To detests politicians is the Lord's work, always.
Crid at February 19, 2017 1:35 PM
"His objection is to objectivity itself."
Oh, for f***ing Pete's sake!
The media has lost it over Trump. Totally lost it.
If the MSM had been objective from the get-go Trump wouldn't have won - neither would have Obama. And Hillary would have been hung out to dry a long time ago along with her perverted husband.
No, this is simply a cry that Trump is calling them out on their BS, and they know it is BS, so they have to claim that he is against "objectivity"?
I wouldn't even put that sh*t out on the fields for fertilizer.
charles at February 19, 2017 2:47 PM
"(Facts) That they are indistinguishable from, and interchangeable with, opinion"
And a day doesn't go by where I don't see a headline or news show that is effectively 'In X's opinion Trump is evil incarnate'
Be it Meryl Streep, McCain, Obama, Bernie Sanders, SNL.
Just looking at the WashingtonPost.
"Could reporters be hunted down if Trump goes after leakers?
Some lawyers and academics say..."
and another article about Trump:
"Although he did not explicitly say it, his remarks were widely perceived as suggesting...."
Facts? Nope these are opinions and speculations.
The news doesn't have to call him bad or say anything, they tell the "truth" that X thinks he's a Nazi. But is that news?
Joe J at February 19, 2017 4:36 PM
Crid,
You berate Rad about haters. Well the second person Amy quoted was Bret Stephens who fully fits that description. He's even more hysterical than you about Trump. He regularly writes opeds for the WSJ. He's made his views quite public.
Ben at February 19, 2017 8:46 PM
"Even more hysterical"...
Imagine.
Thing is, if you guys aren't in some blinding teenage sexcrush for the Orange Weasel, why do you care about the emotional responses of other people? If you were judging him rationally, would you care if others cannot? It seems like you care about it a great deal. You're taking names. I can't imagine what he could do to disappoint you, and doubt that you could speak of such an outcome (without mentioning Hillary).
We might therefore deduct that you're weirdly enchanted.
I imagine Raddy as a blue-haired schoolchild, belly-down in his bed, rapturously fondling Donny's photograph, heels flitting girlishly behind him....
Crid at February 19, 2017 9:41 PM
Meanwhile CBS gleefully conflates legal immigrants with illegal immigrants.
Photos of beautiful and/or famous immigrants under the title:
Did You Know These People Are Immigrants?
Comments disabled, of course. Wouldn't want the unwashed deplorables pointing out the obvious.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 19, 2017 10:21 PM
"if you guys aren't in some blinding teenage sexcrush for the Orange Weasel"
Yeah. Thats why you are called hysterical. And Bret is even loopier than that. As for taking names, yep. If you lose all sense of reason there is little point in reading your intellectual writings. At one point I enjoyed Bret. He was quite wise and insightful. But just as you can build a reputation you can also tear one down.
Out of curiosity Crid are you taking names like Ben Carson after claiming that the pyramids were used to store grain? The man may have been a brilliant doctor but that's plain moronic.
Ben at February 20, 2017 6:12 AM
So yeah, Trump apparently read Alinsky's book, and he's not letting the Left force him to play by civilized rules, since the Left itself doesn't. We've been through decades of seeing news reports that begin with "Critics say..." or "Sources indicate...", and when you see those phrases, you can be sure that the journalist is stating their own opinion as fact. In the face of that, there's no point in Trump (or anyone else not favored by the media) trying to be informative. Everything will be twisted, and the useful information won't be reported because it isn't polarizing and hot-button enough. Facts are boring. Raw emotion sells!
Cousin Dave at February 20, 2017 7:47 AM
"I imagine Raddy as a blue-haired schoolchild, belly-down in his bed, rapturously fondling Donny's photograph, heels flitting girlishly behind him...."
As you imagine many of the things you assert. I can't get you around to the point that media "coverage" and the gullibility of... people like you, apparently... is the subject, so go ahead and fantasize.
Not out loud. Those "chicks" who "dig" you, however disadvantaged they must be, might find that repellent.
Radwaste at February 20, 2017 8:35 AM
> Thats why you are called
> hysterical.
Only by you fanboys. Anyone who doesn't accept your Lord & Savior into their hearts as you command is "hysterical."
I think you goofy. I mean, I always have, but let's be clear: There's no human being on the surface of this planet to whom I'd afford the adoration, trust and rhetorical play-space which you've given to Donald Trump.
And you've given it to Donald Trump.
Crid at February 20, 2017 11:20 AM
"Lord & Savior", "blinding teenage sexcrush", and "adoration, trust and rhetorical play-space". As I said hysterical. I hope you get better Crid. Though it may take eight years.
Ben at February 21, 2017 11:40 AM
If you weren't in love with him, how would we know?
You worry that he's "hated," for Chrissake.
Crid at February 21, 2017 5:46 PM
Everyone is hated Crid. I'm pretty sure Artemis hates you. Big whoop. A man named Rudy hates me with a burning passion even though we haven't seen each other in close to a decade. Bret Stephens has been pretty clear he hates Trump. Even you have implied that Trump is better than Hillary. Small comfort that is I know. Bret clearly stated he preferred a Hillary presidency to a Trump one. He is not a Democrat in any way shape or form. So when you are ragging on Rad about 'haters' Bret is a pretty bad counter example. I don't know about Jon Wiener. I haven't noticed the man. But yes, Bret Stephens fits the definition of a 'hater'. And that was my only point. You then went off on your loopy sexcrush savior thing.
You ask how you would know if I wasn't in love with Trump, well, gee, maybe read what I've written about the man. I've been quite clear I only voted for him because I hate Hillary more than I disliked Trump (yes, I'm a Hillary hater). Not quite a sexcrush is it?
Ben at February 22, 2017 6:59 AM
Your response, apparently:
Well then.
Crid at February 22, 2017 1:45 PM
There's something feminine about this, and not in an alluring way. See comment to Lenona nearby (temporally: Not sure which comment stack but I'll post it in about half an hour.)
Crid at February 22, 2017 1:47 PM
You mind is as always a mystery to me.
Yes, there are many people who hate Trump. Your objection about haters is pretty silly. Now if you want to make fun of his hair or call him an orange sex weasel I'm good with that. I'm still waiting for a solid gold toilet to be installed at the White House. Or maybe his name in 20 ft tall letters on the front lawn. After 50 years of proven bad taste I don't think he is going to change.
Ben at February 22, 2017 4:04 PM
> You mind is as always a
> mystery to me.
Yours strikes me as tepid, but I've seen that kind before.
Crid at February 22, 2017 4:33 PM
Leave a comment