I saw Donald Trump up close on Thursday, in Sparks, Nevada.
It helped me notice something. But in order to understand this I need to explain two different approaches of attack in politics. Opponent as Knave vs. opponent as Fool.
Knave. When attacking a political opponent one direction is to condemn the morality, values, intentions of the opponent, saying they are dangerous because their intentions are bad. In this analysis it is best to claim they are powerful and competent, which heightens their danger. This is the opponent as knave paradigm.
Fool. The other approach is to condemn the opponent for being foolish, feckless, easily taken advantage of, maker of bad deals, stupid. They need not be evil, only illegitimate and incompetent.
All the Republican candidates agree that America is not doing well, that the economy is terrible, that our foreign policy is terrible, and that America is in a disaster and facing a worse one. I think this is way too pessimistic, and would have been a better description of the state of the country when Obama was inaugurated rather than now, but the Republican opposition is steadfast in acting as if it were January 2009 and Obama had been in office for 7 years, not 7 days.
All 15 of Trump's opponents are ganging up in the knave side. Trump differs. Trump calls them out as fools.
I should note that I did not invent this Knave/Fool paradigm or insight. Canadian political scientist Sandford Borins at the University of Toronto articulated the Knave/Fool paradigm when describing the attack ads in the recent Canadian national election. I like his entire website, www.sandfordborins.com And especially this article:
http://www.sandfordborins.com/2015/10/02/heroes-fools-and-knaves-tracking-federal-election-ads/
Trump's Republican opponents provide a litany of knavish sins, seeing malevolence and religious sin. In this paradigm it makes sense to call Obama a dictator, a tyrant, with over-reaching executive power, intent on taking away guns, shoving health care onto an unwilling public, confiscating incomes, corrupting the Supreme Court, stabbing Israel in the back, hating police officers, giving special favor to black militants. Obama is evil.
Trump upset the Republican establishment because his analysis was entirely different. From the beginning he didn't condemn Obama's evil intent. He questioned his legitimacy and competence.
**he questioned whether Obama was an American
**he questioned whether Obama wasn't a Muslim, maybe
**he questioned Obama's intelligence suggesting he was an affirmative action beneficiary
**he criticizes the multiple bad deals: bad deal with Iran, bad deal with prisoner exchange, bad deal with trade with Mexico, Japan, and China, bad deal with Mexico on immigrants, bad deal with Ford and Nabisco bringing factories to Mexico, bad deal with a strong currency hurting exports.
Trump's analysis is disruptive to the Republican message because the Obama/Hillary as knave paradigm needs to heighten their competence because a competent tyrant is more dangerous than a foolish one. But Trump is going in the opposite direction, citing himself as the "really, really smart" guy who is "really rich" and who is "really good at this" in comparison with a foolish Obama who has been snookered. And Trump is disruptive because he casts his net of fools widely, including weak Jeb!, money-challenged Rubio, sleepy Carson, ugly and menstrual women among political opponents and foolish bankers and businessmen within the Republican donor base.
Trump does make an argument of knave, but he directs that not against Obama but against all politicians, all K street lobbyists, and the entire donor class hoping to buy influence. The audience loves this, and it reinforces Trump's appeal as an un-bought truth teller. But it may be the item which keeps Trump from becoming the establishment and donor class candidate, because he is communicating that he cannot be controlled, either by other people's money or by written, clear policy positions.
Prediction: Trump will emerge as one of the two Republicans left standing at the end of March. Trump will turn out to be the non-establishment candidate because he will appear to be uncontrollable and Rubio will be the establishment candidate, because he is so skillful and personally attractive. Whoever prevails will be damaged by the end-duel. Rubio will have been revealed as the hostage of his donors; Trump will be revealed as unpredictable and undisciplined. Trump will manage to define those as positives more successfully than Rubio will be able to define his association with K Street as a positive. Trump will be the nominee.
It helped me notice something. But in order to understand this I need to explain two different approaches of attack in politics. Opponent as Knave vs. opponent as Fool.
Knave. When attacking a political opponent one direction is to condemn the morality, values, intentions of the opponent, saying they are dangerous because their intentions are bad. In this analysis it is best to claim they are powerful and competent, which heightens their danger. This is the opponent as knave paradigm.
Fool. The other approach is to condemn the opponent for being foolish, feckless, easily taken advantage of, maker of bad deals, stupid. They need not be evil, only illegitimate and incompetent.
All 15 of Trump's opponents are ganging up in the knave side. Trump differs. Trump calls them out as fools.
I should note that I did not invent this Knave/Fool paradigm or insight. Canadian political scientist Sandford Borins at the University of Toronto articulated the Knave/Fool paradigm when describing the attack ads in the recent Canadian national election. I like his entire website, www.sandfordborins.com And especially this article:
http://www.sandfordborins.com/2015/10/02/heroes-fools-and-knaves-tracking-federal-election-ads/
Trump's Republican opponents provide a litany of knavish sins, seeing malevolence and religious sin. In this paradigm it makes sense to call Obama a dictator, a tyrant, with over-reaching executive power, intent on taking away guns, shoving health care onto an unwilling public, confiscating incomes, corrupting the Supreme Court, stabbing Israel in the back, hating police officers, giving special favor to black militants. Obama is evil.
Trump upset the Republican establishment because his analysis was entirely different. From the beginning he didn't condemn Obama's evil intent. He questioned his legitimacy and competence.
**he questioned whether Obama was an American
**he questioned whether Obama wasn't a Muslim, maybe
**he questioned Obama's intelligence suggesting he was an affirmative action beneficiary
**he criticizes the multiple bad deals: bad deal with Iran, bad deal with prisoner exchange, bad deal with trade with Mexico, Japan, and China, bad deal with Mexico on immigrants, bad deal with Ford and Nabisco bringing factories to Mexico, bad deal with a strong currency hurting exports.
Trump's analysis is disruptive to the Republican message because the Obama/Hillary as knave paradigm needs to heighten their competence because a competent tyrant is more dangerous than a foolish one. But Trump is going in the opposite direction, citing himself as the "really, really smart" guy who is "really rich" and who is "really good at this" in comparison with a foolish Obama who has been snookered. And Trump is disruptive because he casts his net of fools widely, including weak Jeb!, money-challenged Rubio, sleepy Carson, ugly and menstrual women among political opponents and foolish bankers and businessmen within the Republican donor base.
Trump does make an argument of knave, but he directs that not against Obama but against all politicians, all K street lobbyists, and the entire donor class hoping to buy influence. The audience loves this, and it reinforces Trump's appeal as an un-bought truth teller. But it may be the item which keeps Trump from becoming the establishment and donor class candidate, because he is communicating that he cannot be controlled, either by other people's money or by written, clear policy positions.
Prediction: Trump will emerge as one of the two Republicans left standing at the end of March. Trump will turn out to be the non-establishment candidate because he will appear to be uncontrollable and Rubio will be the establishment candidate, because he is so skillful and personally attractive. Whoever prevails will be damaged by the end-duel. Rubio will have been revealed as the hostage of his donors; Trump will be revealed as unpredictable and undisciplined. Trump will manage to define those as positives more successfully than Rubio will be able to define his association with K Street as a positive. Trump will be the nominee.
 |
| Selfie at Trump event in Sparks, Nevada October 29. I was one of maybe 5000 standees. |
No comments:
Post a Comment