What do you do when our own CIA notes that the Russians tried to help you win an election??
You make lemonade out of lemons.
Americans are free to believe what they want, and doubt what they want.
They believe Trump, and doubt those who challenge Trump.
They believe Trump, and doubt those who challenge Trump.
Donald Trump is facing news that would be devastating to any other politician. America's intelligence services have just reported that Russians intentionally intervened to help a politician win a close election, which potentially tipped to that person in a close vote.
Russia helped Trump win, or at least tried to. Imagine the outcry if some Democrat has been assisted by a Russia, the Evil Empire of Ronald Reagan, now re-emerged under Vladimir Putin.
Russia helped Trump win, or at least tried to. Imagine the outcry if some Democrat has been assisted by a Russia, the Evil Empire of Ronald Reagan, now re-emerged under Vladimir Putin.
Is this devastating to Trump? Not at all.
Trump is thriving because he is managing the news and giving his loyalists what they need to live in a zone of defiant denial.
First, Trump. He does not say the CIA is wrong, and cite facts. He says he does not believe them. And then he cites the information on Iraq having weapons of mass destruction (although in fact the CIA's information was correct and it was intentionally mis-characterized by the policy makers, especially Richard Cheney) which shows that skepticism is sometimes warranted.
Trump has brilliantly switched the issue from one of information and fact to one of faith. No amount of logic will convince a Red Sox fan to support the Yankees, nor will an astronomer's comment change a matter of faith on what would happen to the earth if "the sun stood still and the earth stopped" as described in Joshua 10: 13. Some people prefer chocolate to vanilla. It is a matter of opinion and taste, impervious to persuasion, and Trump has moved the issue to that zone, both for himself and his supporters.
Trump says things that people believe are deeply and fundamentally true and that the surface noise of contrary thoughts are unheard and unabsorbed.
Trump has brilliantly switched the issue from one of information and fact to one of faith. No amount of logic will convince a Red Sox fan to support the Yankees, nor will an astronomer's comment change a matter of faith on what would happen to the earth if "the sun stood still and the earth stopped" as described in Joshua 10: 13. Some people prefer chocolate to vanilla. It is a matter of opinion and taste, impervious to persuasion, and Trump has moved the issue to that zone, both for himself and his supporters.
Trump says things that people believe are deeply and fundamentally true and that the surface noise of contrary thoughts are unheard and unabsorbed.
 |
| Reince Priebus and Chris Wallace |
Reince Priebus, the Trump Chief of Staff, shows the steps of how it is done:
Chris Wallace lays out the facts. He tells Reince Priebus and the audience in a matter of fact way that the CIA has reported that they are quite certain the Russians meddled in the election and did so with the intent to help Donald Trump win, quoting the CIA director: "There is strong consensus on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference."
Here is what Priebus does, in a clear, forthright, unapologetic manner:
Doubt: He says the truth is uncertain. The FBI claims they agree with the CIA but there is room for question and doubt on that. If they don't completely agree then there is room for doubt. Maybe everyone is wrong about this.
Pivot to accuse: "Let's put that aside. The real question is why. . ." Democrats and others are trying to de-legitimize Donald Trump and change the outcome of the election. They want recounts and are questioning who won.
Wallace asked again: Does Donald Trump deny that Russians manipulated the election?
Doubt: Well, if the real truth were known, maybe, but there is room for doubt. The intelligence agencies haven't been clear enough to suit me.
Pivot to irrelevancy: "That all being said, there is no evidence the outcome was changed." The hacking is irrelevant, so why bother with this?
Wallace, once again, insisting: Isn't it important that Russia tried and succeeded in manipulating our election. Doesn't Trump trust our people more than he trusts Putin?
Doubt: There is still questions about what really happened.
Pivot to accuse Democrats: It is more important is to look at the motives of the people looking into this, and they are bad. They want to change the outcome of the election. That is what is really wrong, the Democrats, not the Russians.
Pivot to accuse the CIA: The intelligence people are leaking documents, which isn't fair, let's focus on them, not the Russians.
Doubt: "All these intelligence agencies have not made 100% clear what is happening." If it is not 100% certain then it is a matter of faith and belief, not a matter of truth or fiction. I just don't believe it.
Wallace said that the White House charged that the Trump campaign knew about the hacking. Was there any contact whatsoever?
Pivot to accusation: Ignore the question. Then accuse: "Democrats should look at the mirror and face the reality that they lost the election." What is important is not whether or not this is a Russian attack on our country and whether or not Donald Trump aided and encouraged the Russians to manipulate our democracy. Who cares? What is important is that this is being questioned by Democrats to change the election result and cast doubt on Trump. The Russians aren't the bad guys here. The Democrats are, for raising the question brought up by the CIA and FBI.
 |
| Trump says things that just seem right |
Does this approach work? Yes.
No one can make a person believe if they do not want to believe. It is a matter of faith and leadership. Trump is a leader who inspires belief among a significant segment of the electorate and that faith is largely impervious to interference from contrary information, even when it comes from the trusted source of Fox News and Chris Matthews. The words of a Trump supporting reader helps illustrate the power of the Trump/Preibus approach. If they have doubts then their supporters have permission to doubt, and then to pivot to accusation.
This is from an email exchange last night:
Doubt: "good report on fox news. 7:30 now, but just as i said nobody has come up with positive proof." And: "I just heard a reporter say today there is no evidence that they circulate anything that had an influence on the election. [There is no] direct evidence pertinent to supporting Trump or adverse against Clinton."
Pivot to accusation: "guess who got the most votes, Trump. On the other hand if you think Shultz is an innocent young lady I think you got something on backwards."
The author of these emails has accepted the Trump method of data management when the information is uncomfortable: Doubt. Pivot. Accuse. Believe.
Democrats are slowly coming aware of the juggernaut that they face. They are not in a battle of ideas. They are in a battle of belief.
2 comments:
"Battle of belief."
Exactly right. The antipathy toward Hillary Clinton and the current ruling order is profound. Trump is a sea change. A large faction of the country wants a sea change and they are much less inclined to question how they got it than to seize it.
Also, the constant CACOPHONY of noise makes people deaf. Don't most of us believe what we want to? Trump supporters BELIEVE they have an electoral college win and they are going to keep it.
Very clever dissection of the Doubt and Pivot. The spectacle is apparently well orchestrated.
“Now That the Hamilton Electors Hoax is Over ...”
Another media hoax down-- “Hamilton Electors”. Media, left, center and right is filled with highlights that Democrats lost—once again—and that Trump actually widened his margin victory over Clinton in the Electoral College. So Trump—again—wins the best of both worlds: a new electoral victory over Democrats, and the green light we gave him to deploy his own Democratic-style “Hamilton Electors” gambit in 2020 if need be. A Wall Street Journal editorial say Republicans are the true “Hamilton Electors” because they faced-down harassing emails, letters and phone calls, after weighing Russian tampering, FBI interference, Trump conflict with China over Taiwan, his daughter and son-in-law as first lady and presidential advisor, and business conflicts of interest. (See, “WSJ, Hamilton’s Electors Vote Trump”, Dec 19, 2016, https://goo.gl/PlaT26.)
As Breitbart rejoiced: “It’s hard to keep track of how many times Clinton has lost the 2016 election now.” (See, Brietbart, “Democrats Inflate Electoral College Vote into Another Burst Bubble for Clinton”, Dec 19, 2016, https://goo.gl/uhrKBG).
With the Hamilton Electors coup hoax now finished, Russiagate will also likely fade away. Its urgent media impetus was that Hamilton Electors needed to act on the Federalist Papers’ admonition that a candidate installed by a foreign potentate must be stopped. Done and done. The hyperbolic claims that Russiagate is as bad as 9-11 and thus needs an “independent commission” have fallen on bipartisan deaf ears. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) agrees with Mitch McConnell on no outside commission, that the investigation will stay in-house-- in Congress. Schumer wants it to be a “select committee”, McConnell says it will go to a “standing committee”. Timed to the 2018 midterms, after a televised spectacle and amidst teeth gnashing over what the CIA, FBI and NSA are willing to declassify for public consumption, Republican committee members will vote one way, Democrats the other.
The only sunlight is this: Schmuer and Obama are determined to bring some leadership to the Democratic party. Obama pledged this week to work for our salvation by helping promote coherent policies appealing to demonized rust belt voters. Schumer will work on saving the endangered Democratic senators in 10 Trump states up for reelection in 2018. Schumer says to do that-- and deny Trump a filibuster-proof 60 votes-- lock step opposition to Trump legislation is out of the question. However, the NY Times, Washington Post and CNN will remain in charge until we get a new DNC chair to replace disgraced acting chair Donna Brazile (debate question leaker), who replaced disgraced chair Debbie Schultz Wasserman (Sanders primary rigger). (See, ABC News, “Acting Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Accused of Leaking Debate Material to Clinton”, Oct 31, 2016, https://goo.gl/YH9WxL). That battle of succession looms large as Obama Secretary of Labor Tom Perez fights to save us from Rep. Keith Ellison, the DNC chair front runner. (See, CNN, “Ellison faces renewed scrutiny over past ties to Nation of Islam, defense of anti-Semitic figures”, Dec 1, 2016, https://goo.gl/Y65GkD).
Obama and Schumer have their work cut out for them in getting us back on track. At least that will now not include the distractions of Russiagate and Hamilton Electors.
Post a Comment