I watched a man in the Trump Administration speak on tv the other day. He, like many of the people surrounding President Trump, has taken on the role of apologist for his boss. The isn't so uncommon; most people wouldn't be part of an administration if they didn't basically believe in the policies and philosophy of that administration. Part of their jobs - even of those who are not named spokespeople - is to be cheerleaders for the President. That's why and how they are where they are.
This man, however, was not sitting well in his mold. He was strident, insistent, and seemed like someone who was trying to convince himself. His reaction to a reporter asking him if the new travel order was a bad idea was so rehearsed, so angry, that I swear to you, I couldn't tell if he really believed what he was saying. All he had to do was follow the script. I don't mean a verbatim response that's been memorized. I mean this script:
- repeat it over and over. They'll eventually believe you.
-appeal to the base. Call the base "the majority." Someone may believe that, especially the base, but as a whole, we are getting smarter.
- don't answer factual questions with facts. Answer with opinions, references to the election (because having won, we must be right), and accusations toward a) the previous administration and b) anyone who disagrees. Use the words "sore losers" and "bad policy" and many people will agree with you. Not because they agree with you. But because it is a reflexive reaction to those terms. Sore losers and bad policy are indeed terrible things. We have gut reactions to the labels even before we know if they've been meritoriously applied.
The fundamental rule: don't engage. Deflect. And no one will notice, so accustomed have we become to deflection as a form of discourse.
In this new era, deflection has taken on a new polish, a novel blinding sheen. The poor people who have been roped into the inner circle, whether because they have aspirations of their own or because they really believe the things the President and his cronies proclaim, now have in Ms. Conway a stellar example of How To Do It. Truly. Watch a video of an airplane and call it a pick up truck. If you do it with enough conviction, enough invective, and enough times, you will probably accrue some believers. My hope is that the Emperor will soon start to appear to be naked (ew) to those of us who aren't already grimacing.
I don't mean to say some of these tactics are original to the new administration. But I think any thinking person can agree new heights are being reached.
Forever, politicians have attempted to answer questions without answering them. They have rare records of assuming blame, of apologizing, or disagreeing diplomatically. I am not going to argue that left and right, Dem and GOP, statesman or spokesman, we have become used to it; we expect it. OK. But my argument here is not about politicians. They are just a handy example because they do things like go on tv.
No. My argument...premise...is that we all do it. In fact, disagreeing, arguing, and poking holes is common conversation. It's as if we fear that if we do not assert some points we will lose points. Think about it. Unless you are speaking with someone whose every word you find resonance with, while they are speaking, do you not find yourself noting all the points with which you disagree? And if you can't put together, on the fly, a cogent dispute, do you find yourself thinking things like "well, no surprise, she is conservative," or "huh, he clearly isn't well-educated," or "hm, he sure thinks he knows a lot when he doesn't." Maybe you say something out loud, I don't know. I usually try to satisfy myself with a barely-concealed all-knowing smirk. I'm just that non-confrontational, wink.
It seems as if you can say "no it isn't" or "no he didn't" or "I never said that" or tell someone they are whining, overreacting, or delusional, then your work is done. But how ugly. Why do we want this to be how we talk to each other?
How about if, from now on, Democrats admit they were not always transparent. That sometimes they were wrong (we've seen a little bit of this - this is why we lost, etc. - but we still witness finger-pointing). That they made mistakes. That they misjudged. That they twisted the rules sometimes. How about it? And then, how about they make these things habits. Then they can argue their own cases from a stronger foundation. Dems, SAY you are standing in the way of a confirmation because it's what the Republicans did. You will get blowback. You will be accused of being foolish. Then you can point to what they did and ask how it's different. They will come up with reasons that aren't reasons. Here's how it will go:
R: You are being obstructionist. Because you don't like having lost. The President has a constitutional right to nominate a justice and have him confirmed.
D: Yep, we are being obstructionist. Just like you were when you blocked everything Obama wanted to do and just like when you blocked Garland's nomination.
R: (ignoring the comment about Obama) That's totally different. The people deserved a chance to choose a justice through their president.
D: How is it different? Did you not block every effort of Obama? Did you not claim your main goal was that he be a one-term president? Was that accepting the result? And yes, the people deserve that. They voted for Obama, so they voted for his choosing a justice. He had a year left in office. A full quarter of his term.
R: The people deserved to be represented.
D: What about the majority of the public that did not vote for him? Do they deserve it?
R: The people deserve to be represented.
D: They weren't, were they, when Obama's choice was blocked?
R: The people deserve to be represented.
Truly. If you repeat it enough times, you will sound strong. Sure. And right. And then what have you accomplished? Guess what? You have not achieved a more peaceful dialogue. You have not converted thoughtful opponents. You have not elevated discourse in any way. You may be convincing people enough to keep your job. You might not totally lose face. But you have not done anything meaningful other than get through that interview.
But I said this wasn't supposed to be about politicians. We accept their way of talking, though. Which is to say, we accept that they don't really talk. And because they are right in front of us all the time, we have adopted this manner of not talking to some extent.
What would happen if your friend said," I think I'd like to put the sofa over there." And you said,"Great, that has a nice view of the whole room," instead of,"Won't that block the light from the window?"
What if your friend said," I love guacamole!" and you said,"you do? You can have mine" instead of "Ew, I don't know how you can eat it. Disgusting." Even with a funny laugh, it's not funny.
What if your FB acquaintance said,"Like what I'm seeing so far. He's doing everything he said he would do." I know. You want to say," What? You mean promote racism, religious discrimination, and proclaim executive orders that are illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional?" I know you want to say that. Or you want to say,"He sure is. Exactly what I was afraid of."
Either of these responses will get you an argument. Great, if that's what you want (if you do, let's think about that...). But what about this:
"It always feels good to get what you want, huh." Or, if you can't say it without a sneer, just "That must feel good."
Or say nothing. That is one thing FB has given us: an opportunity to learn when to say nothing.
I wonder if, while reading this, you have thought to yourself: "I don't do that. I don't contradict people when they talk. I don't redirect. I don't do that."
Hm.
We say we want to get along better. That we want to understand each other. That we want to be United States, not Divided States. But we are in the habit of dividing ourselves from each other - even from people we like. Let's try not to do that anymore. Let's give the politicians some lessons about how to talk. Just be respectful and listen. Reflect back to people their strongly held views. Then say what you think, whether you are agreeing or not.
