From my observation, Trump is the only candidate who approximates spontaneity in Town Halls and in media appearances.
Trump obviously enjoys being the center of attention and he plays off the people and events taking place in front of him. In the three Town Halls I have seen he uses different words to say the same ideas. His words are genuinely extemporaneous.
He is unique in this. Other, more disciplined candidates, observe the pitfalls of original spontaneous speech and say things that are practiced and carefully vetted. Same jokes, same witty observation, same apparent off the cuff aside. It looks extemporaneous, but isn't.
Trump is. He leans on his podium and riffs, and part of his appeal is that he is so unfiltered and unguarded.,
Trump had a protester at a recent Town Hall, and a college classmate (Constance Hilliard, a History Ph.D from Harvard--who has a blog to complement her academic work, http://soul-wisdom.blogspot.com) wrote that his behavior was that of Hitler in the years prior to becoming Chancellor--the early Hitler, campaign Hitler.
I have resisted making Nazi references because it seems to me a political cheap-shot, too easy, too inflammatory, done too often. And misplaced. People who know nothing whatever of politics or history use the Nazi reference to stigmata anything they disagree with. Black Lives Matter? Nazi! Obamacare? Nazi! New traffic signal turning a yield sign into a stop sign? Nazi!
Something happened at the town Hall three days ago which has deepened the legitimacy of the early-Hitler analogy. Trump's words at the event, "throw him out", then the later media interview affirming that indeed he "should have been roughed up", encouraging then justifying non-governmental direct force, all ring a historical bell for me. Brown shirts at Nazi rallies.
Trump had every right to have a protestor who was disruptive removed from his event. I am a free speech supporter. Political speech is fragile and crowds can kill people if they are spooked and stampeded. Trump and his audience have a right to meet safely and not be disrupted by hecklers. One or two disrupters can stop a thousand people from exercising a right of free speech and assembly, so I support the rally, regardless of the content of their message. I certainly would respect a Black Lives Matter gathering removing a White Supremicist heckler who was making a commotion and interrupting their rally. And assemblies of unpopular ideas--abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights activists, Muslims, Mormons, nudists, socialists, labor organizers, you name it--have more to fear from a disruptive agent than do happy crowds of majorities. So I support the rally, not the heckler.
The key to me was not Trump's removal of the disturber, it was that he didn't call for uniformed Security or the police and that he didn't call for an orderly exit. The disruption happened in real time, and Trump's call to "throw him out" was in the moment. Was that a carefully considered response? Well, the next day he doubled down when asked about it, saying the heckler was loud and disruptive and "maybe he should have been roughed up."
Trump had every opportunity, then, to appear to be an advocate of careful justice, but did not. He could have said, "We have 10,000 people here, exercising our rights as Americans. Security, police, please escort that man outside. We have America's work to do here. Walk him to the door. He can spew his nonsense outside with the other people trying to make America weak. Doors are good, right folks? Keep bad people who ruin things for law abiders out. Be careful, Security, he might be dangerous, that's right walk him to the door. OK, let's get back to making America great."
He did not do that.
In the media interview the next day, with time to think, he could have said something like, "Well, I wanted security to walk him to the door so we could get back to business, I was afraid the crowd would do something unnecessary. . . ."
He did not do that.
I think the protestor should have expected to be removed, by force if he resisted, and that this forcible removal--when done properly--reinforces the centerpiece civic ideal in America: freedom of speech and assembly to discuss political ideas. But Trump encouraged disorder and vigilantism. This is the ISIS modality now, and it was Hitler's in the early 1930's.
Long campaigns are tiresome but they have a purpose. They expose character, slowly but surely. Trump is better revealed today than he was earlier in the campaign. The question for Republicans is whether they like what is being revealed. Many do.
Trump obviously enjoys being the center of attention and he plays off the people and events taking place in front of him. In the three Town Halls I have seen he uses different words to say the same ideas. His words are genuinely extemporaneous.
He is unique in this. Other, more disciplined candidates, observe the pitfalls of original spontaneous speech and say things that are practiced and carefully vetted. Same jokes, same witty observation, same apparent off the cuff aside. It looks extemporaneous, but isn't.
Trump is. He leans on his podium and riffs, and part of his appeal is that he is so unfiltered and unguarded.,
Trump had a protester at a recent Town Hall, and a college classmate (Constance Hilliard, a History Ph.D from Harvard--who has a blog to complement her academic work, http://soul-wisdom.blogspot.com) wrote that his behavior was that of Hitler in the years prior to becoming Chancellor--the early Hitler, campaign Hitler.
I have resisted making Nazi references because it seems to me a political cheap-shot, too easy, too inflammatory, done too often. And misplaced. People who know nothing whatever of politics or history use the Nazi reference to stigmata anything they disagree with. Black Lives Matter? Nazi! Obamacare? Nazi! New traffic signal turning a yield sign into a stop sign? Nazi!
Something happened at the town Hall three days ago which has deepened the legitimacy of the early-Hitler analogy. Trump's words at the event, "throw him out", then the later media interview affirming that indeed he "should have been roughed up", encouraging then justifying non-governmental direct force, all ring a historical bell for me. Brown shirts at Nazi rallies.
Trump had every right to have a protestor who was disruptive removed from his event. I am a free speech supporter. Political speech is fragile and crowds can kill people if they are spooked and stampeded. Trump and his audience have a right to meet safely and not be disrupted by hecklers. One or two disrupters can stop a thousand people from exercising a right of free speech and assembly, so I support the rally, regardless of the content of their message. I certainly would respect a Black Lives Matter gathering removing a White Supremicist heckler who was making a commotion and interrupting their rally. And assemblies of unpopular ideas--abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights activists, Muslims, Mormons, nudists, socialists, labor organizers, you name it--have more to fear from a disruptive agent than do happy crowds of majorities. So I support the rally, not the heckler.
The key to me was not Trump's removal of the disturber, it was that he didn't call for uniformed Security or the police and that he didn't call for an orderly exit. The disruption happened in real time, and Trump's call to "throw him out" was in the moment. Was that a carefully considered response? Well, the next day he doubled down when asked about it, saying the heckler was loud and disruptive and "maybe he should have been roughed up."
Trump had every opportunity, then, to appear to be an advocate of careful justice, but did not. He could have said, "We have 10,000 people here, exercising our rights as Americans. Security, police, please escort that man outside. We have America's work to do here. Walk him to the door. He can spew his nonsense outside with the other people trying to make America weak. Doors are good, right folks? Keep bad people who ruin things for law abiders out. Be careful, Security, he might be dangerous, that's right walk him to the door. OK, let's get back to making America great."
He did not do that.
In the media interview the next day, with time to think, he could have said something like, "Well, I wanted security to walk him to the door so we could get back to business, I was afraid the crowd would do something unnecessary. . . ."
He did not do that.
I think the protestor should have expected to be removed, by force if he resisted, and that this forcible removal--when done properly--reinforces the centerpiece civic ideal in America: freedom of speech and assembly to discuss political ideas. But Trump encouraged disorder and vigilantism. This is the ISIS modality now, and it was Hitler's in the early 1930's.
Long campaigns are tiresome but they have a purpose. They expose character, slowly but surely. Trump is better revealed today than he was earlier in the campaign. The question for Republicans is whether they like what is being revealed. Many do.
 |
| Excited crowd at a Trump event in New Hampshire |
1 comment:
I guess it was only a matter of time before the left joined the right in jumping on the Hitler Holocaust-trivializing bandwagon. See, “Nazis” and “Hitler” — the Right’s Casual, Trivializing Political Insults, Salon (2007) (http://www.salon.com/2007/10/01/nazi_insult/). Trump was too politically savvy, when prompted by a journalist, to atone for the rough treatment of a protester who came to insult the candidate and his supporters. Although mainstream media will not report it, oddly the protester, Mercutio Southall, had something big in common with Trump supporters-- love for the 2nd Amendment, as Southall is a leader who advocates that Black Lives Matters (BLM) supporters take up arms, Southall himself sporting a shotgun at public rallies. (See http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/10/armed_activists_walked_through.html). Trump's savvy was to not make the political mistake that Michal Dukakis did when asked by Bernard Shaw: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis' lack of passion and failing to give the answer that most Americans expected-- I want death for whomever kills my wife-- resulted in his poll numbers dropping overnight from 49% to 42% (See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dukakis).
In fact, it was a win-win night at the Trump rally: Southall, who co-founded the Birmingham BLM chapter with a former Nation of Islam leader, Avee-Ashanti Shabazz, got exactly the video footage he wanted, a persecuted black protester being roughed up by whites to add to his large video archive of being arrested and tazed by police. (Getting this media coverage was especially important to Southall after a high profile battle for leadership against other BLM members splintered the organization last month, see http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2015/09/black_lives_matter_group_split.html). And Trump got what he wanted, media coverage of a tough guy who would not hesitate to throw people out of a rally-- or out of a country. It was a night for successful branding by the two public figures in a choreographed media event. It represented anything but a Hitler analogy.
Post a Comment