• Home
  • About Lisa
  • Blog
  • The Dolly La Ma
  • Reading Room
Lisa HoustonWriter

Debate Prep: Trump in Translation (Post 2 of 2)

9/26/2016

2 Comments

 
Going into tonight’s debate we all could use a playbook. A list of words and aphorisms each candidate overuses. Of course candidates need some kind of shorthand. The issues being discussed are complex, and cannot be thoroughly treated in most of the campaign venues. But sometimes these quips are used not to simplify or even to make the truth palatable or manageable. Sometimes they’re used to obfuscate, distract, and confuse the truth to the point where the subject at hand vanishes before our very ears. Let’s take an old favorite, Trump’s reliable standby: “It’s a mess.”
 
When Donald Trump uses this phrase, it means that he doesn’t know. He doesn’t have any details about what is being discussed in his mind, nor any solutions to propose. If he were to discuss it, his ignorance would be revealed instantly, so instead he evokes his contempt for the whole subject by going on the attack. “It’s a mess!” he declares. And then he is applauded, by some, for his courage to “tell it like it is.”
 
Answering, “it’s a mess” when asked about a war zone, or healthcare, or just about any of the hot button issues of the campaign, is not exactly playing darts blindfolded. You’re bound to hit something. If the subject weren’t some kind of mess, it would hardly be a topic of concern. But when Trump says, “It’s a mess,” he is not speaking the truth. He doesn’t actually know what’s a mess and what isn’t. Or what’s a fixable mess, or isn’t, or who’s responsible for what mess. He can’t even differentiate between kinds of mess, occasionally misfiring his contempt, as when he attacked the bereaved parents of a fallen soldier. Oops, wrong kind of mess. Or when he belittled Brussels as a “horrible city” a mere day after it was attacked. (Apparently nothing irritates Trump more than the bereaved.) But events like the Brussels attack must be particularly troublesome to someone as uninformed as Trump. You just can’t plan ahead for something like that. All of a sudden, everybody’s asking him about Brussels. It must be terribly irritating. His answer? “Brussels,” he declared, “is a total mess.” Later in his comments, as he got his groove back, he upgraded it to a “horror show.” These are similar to the kind of sweeping dismissals he uses to paint all immigrants with a criminal brush. Entire swaths of humanity, a whole city, a whole country, a whole region, a whole people, “a mess.”
 
But this tactless cruelty functions in its purpose to keep our eye off the ball. After he’s finished, we’re left in a fog of anger (his, ours, who can tell anymore?) And by the time the dust settles, we’ve been led far astray. The truth? What is that anyway? It’s all such a mess.
 
Trump is not the only one to invoke this technique. Recently third party candidate Gary Johnson was asked what he would do about Aleppo if elected. He answered with the question, “What is Aleppo?” He quickly regained his composure. “It’s a mess,” Johnson declared of this ancient and war-torn metropolis with newly christened authority. But while we’re busy laughing at the frankness of Johnson’s question, we might stop to ask ourselves why hasn’t Trump put his foot in it quite so blatantly? Because of this technique. Because of “It’s a mess.” Trump would never ask, “What is Aleppo?” He’d never ask anyone a question. He knows it all. He’s Trump. And if he doesn’t know about it, it’s not important. (Webster’s Dictionary defines narcissism as…)
 
Hillary has her own ways of dodging questions when she really has no simple, clear-cut path forward, most often diving into long recitations of her deep knowledge about the subject, before eventually, sort of, coming to a kind of answer. If asked about Aleppo, Hillary would probably ask, “which neighborhood?” But the sad truth of Donald Trump’s ascendancy is that he knows little of world events, or economics, or history. He’s not a thoughtful person. And he’s not an educated person on most topics affecting global and national politics. But more importantly, he’s not a caring person. He cannot be bothered. Here’s another possible translation for “It’s a mess.”
 
“I don’t care.”
 
Occasionally, Trump comes close to getting caught, as when he was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, and he declared – with his usual baseless certainty – that Putin would “never go into Ukraine.” But even that time, after a brief, but vastly awkward pause when Stephanopoulos pointed out that, in fact, uh, Putin already had gone into Ukraine, Trump just parachuted out of the plane altogether, using his ever-handy technique: “It’s a mess,” he declared, before anyone could split any hairs about whether or not Crimea counts as Ukraine, or just what exactly Trump thinks should be done about Russian aggression in eastern Europe. In other words, before the interview could find its way back to the subject, Trump repeated himself. “It’s a mess,” he said, “it’s a mess!” This emphasizing and repeating, by the way, is part of his deflection. “The whole thing is a mess,” he’s said grandiosely and dismissively when speaking of the entire Middle East. Or he’ll tack on a “frankly” or a “really” or he’ll make it “a big mess.”
           
Afghanistan is a mess.
 
The state of our union is a mess, frankly.  
 
Or, if you can afford the deluxe version, you’ll get: “It’s a mess, frankly. Really, the whole thing is a mess.”
 
So, would our country survive a Trump presidency?
 
Probably. We are a strong, resilient nation built on sound principles. The English language on the other hand — at least as it is practiced by Trump on the campaign trail — frankly, that whole thing is a mess.

2 Comments

Debate Prep: Hillary and Feelings (Post 1 of 2)

9/26/2016

1 Comment

 
In advance of tonight’s first presidential debate, I'd like to suggest that we all take a moment to reflect on the deep-rooted, culturally accepted idea that it is unhealthy for a woman to express the full range of their emotions, especially anger. Some may balk at that statement, finding it hard to believe that such a constraint exists in this day and age, but nothing reflects the truth of it more vividly than the disproportionate rate at which psychiatric medications are administered to women. (See link below to Times article.)
 
As we watch the debates (and those reviewing them after) we should be on the lookout for critiques of Hillary’s emotional range and demeanor. As much as looking for external attacks from pundits or Trump that she is “strident” or “aggressive” or alternately, “not warm”, or “not feeling enough”, we should watch our own, internal appropriate meters. We should notice if we cringe when she’s very assertive, if we worry that she’ll come off too harsh. We should notice if we wring our hands when she doesn’t show as much emotion as we would like. (Can we blame her? Note the title of Senator Barbara Boxer’s new memoir: “The Art of Tough.”) Or do we worry when she gives that big wide grin, that it's just a little bit, you know, too much? It would be nice to think there is a sweet spot, a fluid and appealing emotional zone where she would be assertive, but not hysterical (a word whose root comes from the Latin word for womb, to have a womb is to be hysterical.) But my guess is that there will be no sweet spot for Hillary. She will continue to be found wanting. Not on the issues, which is another topic, but for not expressing or handling her emotions in that elusively perfect way that society demands, and women medicate themselves to attain.
 
These issues of double standards for emotions in our conversations are not only present in the political sphere. We all grow up with a different set of rules about who can be emotional and who can’t, and how much. And when we’re at odds with loved ones, at our own, in-home debates, sometimes we’re not really arguing about what we think we’re arguing about. We’re actually arguing about who has the right to be upset, and just how upset are they allowed to be. Think of all the arguments that would evaporate if everybody bought the premises that people have a right to their feelings, and that those feelings matter. All people. All feelings.
 
Something to wish for.
 
This opinion piece in the Times offers a good take on the medication issue, and a nice opportunity for some pre-debate reflection. 
​         http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/opinion/sunday/medicating-womens-feelings.html?_r=0
 
(Coming up next, my second pre-debate post: “Trump in Translation.”)
Picture
1 Comment
    Picture

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    June 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    July 2016
    February 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014

    Categories

    All

    Blog

    Stuff that's on my mind about books, writing, music, TV, movies, etc.