Trump takes on Kkhizr Khan. It is risky but it isn't crazy. Trump understands his brand.
It's not the economy, stupid. Its white fear and resentment, stupid.
Mr. Khan went in front of the Democratic Convention and reported on his son, Humayun's heroism. His son, a Muslim, told his unit to stay back and hunker down while he stepped forward to challenge an incoming vehicle. The vehicle exploded. Captain Khan was killed. He was awarded a bronze star and purple heart, posthumously.
The parents said that Muslim patriots like their son would be banned from America by Trump, that the entire family were patriotic Americans, and they have sacrificed for America. Then the appeal for religious tolerance: go to Arlington cemetery, Khan said, and see that there are patriots and heroes there from every race, religion, and ethnicity.
This is a strong case for tolerance, which is why the Clinton campaign put him on stage shortly before her.
 |
| Trump takes on this?? Yes. |
Supposedly the smart move would be for Trump gracefully to honor Mr. Khan and to accept and embrace the patriotism of Khan, thus parrying the debate blow. It would be disastrous to take on the father of a self-sacrificing soldier and hit back. Right??? You don't criticize, you embrace. Right???
Not for Trump. Trump's response was to speculate that Mrs. Khan was present but silent because she--as a Muslim wife--was forbidden to talk. Then he criticized Khan for attacking him, saying Khan hadn't met him. Then he posited that he had done the equivalent of sacrifice by having contributed by making jobs and creating great structures.
Disastrous, right? Not for Trump.
Trump raised questions about the Muslim faith without actually asserting it. "You tell me," he said, having questioned if this isn't an example of the oppression and stifling of women. This, too, is Trump brand. He makes charges based on "well I've read in places" and "lots of people have told me" and in this case, simply wondering out loud. It is the equivalent of floating like a butterfly before stinging like a bee since the accusation is posited but its refutation doesn't entirely hurt Trump. He was just wondering.
Trump reframed the criticism by Mr. Khan, making this about Khan's otherness rather than their patriotism: Muslims--maybe, you tell me--have weird customs. And Muslims do dangerous, unfair, unprovoked attacks, right? Like right now. See how he criticized me without actually even knowing me personally, an attack out of nowhere, right?
Trump has an issue and a brand: Immigrants are different and have weird, bad customs. We aren't comfortable with them and don't want them. America was great without them. Sure, there might be some good ones in there, but even the good ones have weird, bad customs, the woman dressed in a scarf, saying nothing. Weird, right?
The core brand is not illegal versus legal. The Khans were here legally. The core brand is not patriotic versus unpatriotic. The Khans are unquestionably patriotic. Trump may have acted spontaneously and carelessly but Trump understands in his gut his core brand. Trump's brand is to reject otherness.
This weekend Trump dominates the news again. Wasn't Trump outrageous? Wasn't this self-destructive? Yes, and it was therefore newsworthy. But there was one other question that is place out there, one that Trump is satisfied to linger: Wasn't this an example of dislike and distrust of Muslims, even good ones??
Yes. That's the point. That's the brand.
In 1992 it was: It's the economy, stupid. In 2016 it is: It's white fear and resentment, stupid.
1 comment:
“Khizr Khan vs. Donald Trump: Is the Legacy Media Being Warped by Trump”
The New York Times and virtually all mainstream or “legacy” media have represented Trump as a cruel tormentor of Khizr Khan, the Muslim who told the story at the DNC convention of the death of his son in Iraq—the ultimate sacrifice. I view this frenzied media criticism of Trump to be preposterous. Had Mr. Khan just told of his son’s bravery as a Muslim American, and the heartbreak of his death, any attack on him by Trump would have been outrageous. The highly choreographed DNC convention and the Clinton campaign knew that Trump would almost certainly not stand idly by while Mr. Khan, functioning as a Clinton surrogate, insulted Trump as not having read the constitution, and having “sacrificed nothing” in his life. That insult was planned, vetted, and utterly gratuitous to the father’s memorial to his son. In attracting Trump’s ire, Mr. Khan, the DNC, and Clinton campaign got just what they wanted—headlines bashing Trump. And everyone knows it.
The result is a further eroding of the legacy media’s credibility, the NYT in particular. In a controversial opinion piece, NYT’s new public editor, Elizabeth Spayd, called out her own newspaper’s obvious pro-Clinton bias with a variety of specifics. She says the perception of the NYT’s bias cannot be allowed to continue at the newspaper, because it is already driving away subscribers even on the left, and will undermine “the force of its journalism “. (See, “Why Readers See The Times as Liberal”, NYT July 23, 2016, http://goo.gl/f5Uyzm). Perhaps most significant, Ms. Spayd suggests that this anti-Trump bias may have already caused the NYT’s reporting to “miss ... the groundswell of isolation that propelled a candidate like Donald Trump to his party’s nomination” in the first place. Moreover, she says it’s not just the NYT with its core readers in their “giant liberal echo chamber”, but “part of a fracturing media” generally.
NPR commentators were not happy about Ms. Spayd’s wake up call. On its Sunday All Things Considered broadcast, The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim, and Politico's Susan Glasser strongly rejected Spayd’s criticism that it is the job of voters, not newsrooms, to “lean into” Trump. Glasser and Grim argued “readers know the difference between opinion and news,” and that readers cannot be warned too often that Trump is a “demagogue” who does not “follow the rules”, and that his candidacy must not be “normalized” by the media. (See NPR, July 31, 2016 “Evaluating The Media's Role This Political Season”, http://n.pr/2aqhgvn). As to readers knowing the difference between and opinion and news, Spayd was blunt: “I’m not so sure all do, especially when our website makes neighbors of the two, and social platforms make them nearly impossible to tease apart”.
Post a Comment