E.J. Dionne's latest column bemoans
once again that Trump's habitual violations of truth are his way of
life. E.J.'s introduction to his column on Twitter:
For #Trump,
a lie is as good as the truth, as long as a majority of his base
believes it. He buries old falsehoods under new ones. And when it
comes to creating new and unhinged narratives to displace those
rooted in fact, Trump has no equal. My column:
Agreeing with him, I answered his tweet
with my own 140 characters: “Good. But need to look at real game
he's playing. It's show-biz. How do I look? Aggressive? In charge?
Determined? Declare 'this is for you' and there's the image. People
buy image more than logic. The challenge: Can Dems counter? Need
better image, not better facts.”
OK, that's the gist of it. But,
because the subject is so pressing, let me lay it out in 1,380 words
rather than 140 characters.
First, there is a conflict between what
Trump does and what the commentariat wants him to do because there
are two different games being played. The commentariat – and
people like me – admire politicians who make governing for the good
of the country their number one goal. Running for office is their
necessary prerequisite for governing. Communicating with the
electorate and the commentariat needs to be more or less truthful,
because that is part of good governance. We flatter ourselves that
good communication and discussion leads to better policies supported
by the country.
But it's obvious that Trump's game is
much different. I doubt that he has any conception of the common
good or the good of the country. His primary goal in life is “to
win” and be seen as a winner. Winning an election is great, but
making money is the true measure of winning, and scoring with women
another indication of a winner. (That's the only mention of sex
here; I felt I had to mention it to be complete, but we'll let it lie
there.)
Everyone has a mix of motives in trying
to be President, but few have Trump's particular balance. Few also
have the tools that Trump brings to the task. He has long experience
with the slime world of tabloids, he is a clever schoolyard bully, he
channels the Borsht Belt as an entertainer, and he knows reality TV
really well. With these tools, he can craft an image.
That's what Trump really does, that's his major number one concern –
what kind of image is he crafting. He wants to be seen as being in
charge, of being a hero, of being bold, of fighting against enemies,
and destroying what seems artificial and elite.
So that's his game – he wants to
create that image. Everything else is secondary (except making
money; even if the image fails at some point, if he's made a lot of
money that he can keep, he's still a winner.)
(As an aside, this image probably also
has psychic resonance to him, since as a pediatrician I think he
probably suffered and continues to suffer from the childhood
condition of oppositional-defiant disorder
[https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/oppositional-defiant-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20375831].
[Others say it's tertiary syphilis, and it could be, given his prior
medical care, but I'll pass over that for now.] There are probably
many other complexes developed in childhood that continue to manifest
themselves in him, that lead to his wanting to destroy, but that's
not necessary for this analysis.)
So, if that's your goal, why tell the
truth? That is so secondary. Keep the image going the way you would
on a TV show, keep it moving, go side to side, keep everyone
occupied. If the country as a whole understood the issues, followed
the issues well, and judged by logic, he'd be a dead man. But not
everyone does. Most people go by images. That's what they vote for,
images. Probably includes you and me, as much as we might think
otherwise. I think you get the picture.
The next question is, what to do about
it if you are a politician opposing him, and if you are part of the
media? First the media and commentariat: I'd stop saying
“this is not normal.” The best disinfectant is sunlight, so
apply sunlight. If I ran MSNBC, for instance, I'd divide my
commentary into sections. I would fully and continually expose what
Trump is doing – he is creating an image. I'd run 10 minute
segments regularly as “Image Time,” as opposed to the
slightly longer segment on policy, and the very much longer segment
on horserace time. On “Image Time,” I would have real pros as
the commentariat. Who's that? Perhaps reality TV producers; perhaps
some political consultants who specialize in image. Perhaps some
fiction writers. Scriptwriters. Not psychologists, not policy
analysts. Limn how he's crafting his image, what he's doing, what
he's aiming for – and how others are either aiding him or aping him
or reacting to him otherwise. How is he controlling the show. There
would be no need to judge whether or not what he's doing is a good
thing, just report it straight.
It would also be interesting on Image
Time to look how others are doing with their images – Pelosi,
Schumer, all the old and the young. Especially the newly-emergent
Dems, and especially the new younger women as they emerge. Just
show-biz image coverage, not whether or not their plans make sense or
whether or not they are telling the truth. Do they convey images
that would lead voters to lay their trust in them, or are they
turnoffs? Real, professional opinions, maybe backed by surveys and
such. Wouldn't that be fascinating?
While all the professionals know that
this is element is there, I have a feeling they currently don't know
quite how to deal with it. They may think that if they get too far
into it, they will be devaluing the serious policy and politics
issues it is their job to elucidate. So, I put it to you
commentariat – face it head on, establish a separate section where
you are looking just at image, and then you can leave your serious
discussions of policy and politics unsullied by the show-biz element.
Then for the politicians. You,
too, have to look at the image issue squarely, both as it is used by
Trump and how you use it. It's very helpful for you, too, to set
image as an issue to be discussed. You can say, here's Trump's
image, unfettered, strong, decisive, innovative, unafraid, etc. You
can imitate the jut of his jaw if you like. Doing this is making a
meta-communication, reflecting on the current process. This
is what Chris Christy did so effectively in destroying Rubio on stage
– he just repeats his memorized bits, said Christy, and as a gift
to him that startled him and us, Rubio delivered just such a bit.
Over and out for Rubio; it will be replayed for years, I'd guess, at
least if opponents are smart. That's the power of a
meta-communication.
And then, having dealt with that, you
can say, that's what he says and how he poses, but is that really
what he does? I personally would then use Mitt Romney's statement
about Trump: He's a phony, a fraud. Mitt gets a lot of things wrong,
I'd say, but this one he nailed. Having done that, the door is then
open for the facts. Facts themselves cannot win the day, but when
mixed with a meta-communication, they have a better chance. It
should make for great short ads.
And then comes the hard part for the
Dems – fixing yourself. Given the fact that image presentation and
communication is such an important part of the job, it's amazing how
amateurish so many professional pols are. Could they maybe take some
acting lessons? I did that years ago and I never learned so much
about others and myself. Just learn what an acting “action” is,
what effect are you trying to have on the others, and you would go
far. Don't think that just because Trump is hateful he doesn't have
something to teach, because he does.
OK, that's pretty much it. I could go
on – I have loads of paragraphs on the cutting room floor, and that
would solidify my image of prolixity – but I won't.
What do you think? Makes sense to me.
Budd Shenkin
No comments:
Post a Comment