This is kind of in the same spirit that many liberal pundits back in January began to speak of Taking Bernie Seriously.
This was a very crucial and important demand as before that everyone would sort of just sit back and say Wow! Isn't it great that he's making all these promises to do all this?!
What many rightly started doing was asking not 'What will you do'? but 'How will you do it?
This was something Bernie was never able to adequately answer-and seemed very uninterested in answering.
Now the corollary with Donald Trump is a little different. Taking Bernie seriously meant demanding that he explain how is going to produce the puppies and rainbows on every porch he boasted of.
With Trump it's a question of holding him accountable. If Trump is one of the two remaining nominees to be President, if he 'really might be President' then it's time to hold him accountable.
What this means is pointedly rejecting the Scott Adams defense.
Greg left this comment regarding Scott Adams yesterday.
"Someone pointing out Trumps MO isn't a propagandist and honestly other than the feeling of being able to say "I told you so" I don't think Adams wants Trump as president. He would be against many of the policies a candidate Trump seems to support but again, candidate Trump has supported many different things."
"Trumps effectiveness is more a comment on us than him. People have to want to be hypnotized. If you think hypnosis is bullshit you won't be hypnotized."
"But even if you aren't hypnotized everyone can be influenced in ways they are unaware of by someone who uses different techniques, which are well described in many books and courses.
Trump doesn't need to make everyone like/trust him, he just needs to make a majority like/trust him more than Hillary. If he's a 4 on a likability/trust scale and Hillary is 3.95 he can get the nod."
"Scott is just telling us why he's effective and how he's doing it."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/scott-adams-has-became-trumps-chief.html?showComment=1464693160032#c5272759827443695560
I'm skeptical. I think a lot of times merely describing something is justifying it. I think that there's such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The media decided that it's more important to harp on Gore allegedly saying he invented the Internet than the lies in W's tax and budget plan.
If they hadn't decided to do this, I suspect perceptions would have been different.
When an echo chamber forms, many of the independents simply assume it's true.
I still think Trump's GOP win is more about the ignorant bigotry of the Republican party than any such Master Persuasion.
As we can see in his Trump U case, his attacks on the judge, his slurring him as a Mexican did not persuade the judge. To the contrary it actually hurt Trump as the judge has now unsealed the case.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/trump-master-persuader-and-trump-u.html
Why do so many racists and anti Semites support Trump? Is it because he's a Master Persuader or they take him at his word?
My argument is that if you are in any way a thinking voter you have to hold Trump accountable. The only way to do this is to take him at his word on everything.
Allow him no plausible deniability. Again, if he doesn't want to be called a white nationalist, then he shouldn't propose such policies and he shouldn't play footsie with David Duke.
Hillary Clinton never gets the benefit of the doubt on anything she says. Neither can Trump be allowed to.
This was a very crucial and important demand as before that everyone would sort of just sit back and say Wow! Isn't it great that he's making all these promises to do all this?!
What many rightly started doing was asking not 'What will you do'? but 'How will you do it?
This was something Bernie was never able to adequately answer-and seemed very uninterested in answering.
Now the corollary with Donald Trump is a little different. Taking Bernie seriously meant demanding that he explain how is going to produce the puppies and rainbows on every porch he boasted of.
With Trump it's a question of holding him accountable. If Trump is one of the two remaining nominees to be President, if he 'really might be President' then it's time to hold him accountable.
What this means is pointedly rejecting the Scott Adams defense.
Greg left this comment regarding Scott Adams yesterday.
"Someone pointing out Trumps MO isn't a propagandist and honestly other than the feeling of being able to say "I told you so" I don't think Adams wants Trump as president. He would be against many of the policies a candidate Trump seems to support but again, candidate Trump has supported many different things."
"Trumps effectiveness is more a comment on us than him. People have to want to be hypnotized. If you think hypnosis is bullshit you won't be hypnotized."
"But even if you aren't hypnotized everyone can be influenced in ways they are unaware of by someone who uses different techniques, which are well described in many books and courses.
Trump doesn't need to make everyone like/trust him, he just needs to make a majority like/trust him more than Hillary. If he's a 4 on a likability/trust scale and Hillary is 3.95 he can get the nod."
"Scott is just telling us why he's effective and how he's doing it."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/scott-adams-has-became-trumps-chief.html?showComment=1464693160032#c5272759827443695560
I'm skeptical. I think a lot of times merely describing something is justifying it. I think that there's such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Clearly Adams is pretty sanguine with the idea of a President Trump. The Dreamers who want to take advantage of Obama's executive actions but who are afraid as it takes them out of the shadows don't have the luxury of 'explaining Trump' in such technical, agnostic terms.
In 2000, the media kept saying Al Gore wasn't likeable and then gloated when polls showed voters would rather have a beer with W than Gore. But weren't they being too modest in not taking credit for this?
In 2000, the media kept saying Al Gore wasn't likeable and then gloated when polls showed voters would rather have a beer with W than Gore. But weren't they being too modest in not taking credit for this?
The media decided that it's more important to harp on Gore allegedly saying he invented the Internet than the lies in W's tax and budget plan.
If they hadn't decided to do this, I suspect perceptions would have been different.
When an echo chamber forms, many of the independents simply assume it's true.
I still think Trump's GOP win is more about the ignorant bigotry of the Republican party than any such Master Persuasion.
As we can see in his Trump U case, his attacks on the judge, his slurring him as a Mexican did not persuade the judge. To the contrary it actually hurt Trump as the judge has now unsealed the case.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/trump-master-persuader-and-trump-u.html
Why do so many racists and anti Semites support Trump? Is it because he's a Master Persuader or they take him at his word?
My argument is that if you are in any way a thinking voter you have to hold Trump accountable. The only way to do this is to take him at his word on everything.
Allow him no plausible deniability. Again, if he doesn't want to be called a white nationalist, then he shouldn't propose such policies and he shouldn't play footsie with David Duke.
Hillary Clinton never gets the benefit of the doubt on anything she says. Neither can Trump be allowed to.
Taking Trump seriously, means holding him accountable and holding him accountable means taking him at his word, of assuming he does mean what he says rather than he doesn't or might not.
"The only way to do this is to take him at his word on everything."
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that is his words change from tweet to tweet. People that like him are convinced he's their savior.
Trump's words tell us how unstable he is. They tell us about the range of possibilities (most all bad) that would come from him should he win.
There are some more constant themes. Like he says wages are too high. then later he said he wants to do away with the minimum wage.
ReplyDeleteHe's pretty consistent in his disrespect for women and minorities. He says that Hillary is only where she is because she's a woman and promises that he himself will have no woman or minority on his ticket.
He consistently attacks the media as he did again over the lies he's told about veteran donations.
He is consistent in his admiration for dictators the world over.
He consistently refuses to observe even the most basic levels of transparency in not releasing his tax returns.
Beyond this, if there is a real contradiction-and usually there's no contradiction just that he fools people like the idea that he doesn't really want to cut wages-assume the worst.
ReplyDeleteCredit him with the worst position.
If he offers three contradictory positions assume his real position is the worst one.
Otherwise there is no way to hold him accountable.
Then we are constrained to sit back in wonderment at his amazing persuasive abilities.
As for those who think he's their savior there's nothing that shows that this is not a minority of Americans.
ReplyDelete