“Thoughts on Trump’s Tweets and What We Ignore at Our Peril” Sydney Williams
http://swtotd.blogspot.com/
Those of us of a certain age were brought up in a time when spiteful words were common, unpleasant to endure, but not “harmful.” In those long-past days, if we came home in tears we were told to ignore what words may have hurt our pride or our sensibilities. Today, “harmful” words create victims, especially if directed at women, people of color, gays or those of the Muslim faith, and are deemed “harmful;” perpetrators must be punished. This attitude is prevalent in educational institutions, the media, the entertainment industry and among progressive politicians. The prohibition of uncomfortable remarks and dissenting opinions is reminiscent of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. It brings to mind a letter from E.B. White written to the New York Herald Tribune in 1947. The Tribune had defended the movie industry for requiring its employees to state their political beliefs: “…I can only assume that your editorial writer, in a hurry to get home for Thanksgiving, tripped over the First Amendment and thought it was the office cat.” We are at the same point today, only now it is the Left doing the blacklisting, not the Right.
This is not to suggest that words cannot have effect. They can and they do. We find solace in words from the Bible, beauty in poetry from Keats and Shelley, and meaning in writings from Shakespeare to Hemingway. “The pen is mightier than the sword” is a metonymic adage coined by the English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839. In speeches, Thomas Paine rallied Americans for independence. Adolph Hitler used the power of his voice to incite hatred of Jews, while Churchill’s speeches held a nation together as it fought alone against the tyranny of Nazism for over a year. Saul Alinsky was a master wordsmith. In his 1971 Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, a book that influenced Barack Obama as a community organizer in the early 1990s and later as a politician, Alinsky emphasized that ridicule was man’s most effective weapon. Political rallies are used to gin up enthusiasm. But just as we should ignore the words used in political rallies for those we support, we should not take seriously those used in rallies for those we oppose.
President Trump is condemned for his Tweets, not just by those who oppose him but by many who support him. While supporting most of his policies, I find myself wincing when he takes to Social Media or stages a rally. For also, like those of us of a certain age, I was brought up to respect the opinions of others, that ridicule was wrong, and that gentility was expected. But, as has been said many times, politics is a blood sport. To be successful, a politician needs the hide of a rhinoceros, the fearlessness of a honey badger, the deviousness of a black heron and the roar of a lion. Mr. Trump has those qualities.
The media has never been shy about applying appellations to describe those in power: Reagan was termed “simple-minded,” in spite of having master-minded the collapse of the Soviet Union. George H.W. Bush was called a “wimp,” despite his heroic war record. Bill Clinton was a “horn-dog,” which was hard to deny given the number of women who alleged sexual harassment. George W. Bush was seen as “stupid,” no matter that his grades at Yale were higher than those of the pompous John Kerry. Barack Obama, probably because of his being African-American, was spared such indignities, though he was criticized. But now we have a man as President who is a master at providing disparaging nick names to his opponents: “Low-energy Jeb” Bush, “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz, “Little Marco” Rubio, “Crazy Bernie” Sanders, “Crooked Hillary” Clinton and “Sleepy Joe” Biden. Wikipedia lists about a hundred of these creations. The nick-names stick because most of us understand why the pejorative adjective was applied. But they have created powerful enemies.
My point in all this is that one should not take too seriously Trump’s language. It is his actions, not his words, that bear watching. Deregulation has led to a surge in economic growth – necessary if one wants to see the environment improved and the poor and the elderly receive care. The tax cut, widely ridiculed by the Left as favoring the rich, has done the opposite in high-taxed states like California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Connecticut – all Democratically-run states. Despite the cuts, federal revenues are estimated to increase three percent in fiscal 2019 and six percent in fiscal 2020, the largest increases since fiscal 2015. He has forced our allies to face up to the fact that defense is not free, and that Obama’s Iran deal was neither good for the Middle East nor for counter-terrorism. He has alerted China that they cannot run rampant in the South China Sea, has increased sanctions on Putin’s Russia and has ended North Korea’s nuclear testing.
But my biggest concern is that the Left’s fixation on Trump’s coarseness is a red herring to much bigger problems our nation faces – out-of-control federal spending, especially in the “mandated” category; a growth in globalism, which has had negative consequences for positive aspects of nationalism, including a misunderstanding of what it means to be a country; and most significant, a decline in liberalism and distrust of capitalism, a concern not just in the U.S., but throughout the West.
The fiscal budget for 2020, released by the President in March, calls for the spending of $4.746 trillion and estimated revenues of $3.645 trillion, creating a deficit of $1.1 trillion. Of that spending, $2.841 trillion is “mandated” spending and $0.479 trillion is interest expense, which explains the pressure to keep interest expense down. Together, those items constitute 70% of the federal budget. Of the $2.841 in mandated spending, $2.199 trillion is for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which should make you wonder what those who would propose Medicare for all are thinking. Discretionary spending, which includes defense, is $1.426 trillion, meaning that little can be done to address the $1.1 trillion deficit without touching mandatory spending. It is the third rail of politics that no politician has yet dared touch. In 1962, when President John Kennedy promised to get a man to the moon by the end of the decade, mandatory spending was 25% of the federal budget. By the end of the decade, following the “guns and butter” programs of Lyndon Johnson, mandatory spending was 35% of the budget. It has risen inexorably since, now at 65%.
Patriotism, it was claimed by Ambrose Bierce, was the first resort of a scoundrel, not the last as Samuel Johnson had earlier declared. Certainly, there are those who wrap themselves in the flag, claiming benevolence as they fleece their fellow man, but nevertheless, nationhood is imperative to the concept of a country and borders are what define it. The United States is unique among nations in that it has the largest economy, most powerful military, the oldest democracy and is comprised of people from every nation, race and religion. It has been a beacon for the poor and the down-trodden since its inception. But it cannot operate with open borders, for immigrants would overwhelm our systems and everyone, immigrants as well, would suffer. The United States is not perfect, but it comes closer to that ideal than any other nation, which is why so many wish to live here. Does anyone think that any of the Congresswomen in the so-called “squad” could have achieved the success they have in any other country, especially the countries from which they or their forebearers emigrated? In their impetuosity to denigrate America, they risk destroying the culture that attracted them and their families to this country.
The Indian movie director Saeed Akhter Mirza has said we are living in “an age of amnesia” – that we have discarded or boarded over our past. Because past leaders did not have the sensitivities of what is acceptable today, we must block them from our collective memories. Nike stopped selling Betsy Ross sneakers because of one man’s rant. We paint over “offensive” murals and topple statues erected in the memory of those we no longer regard as worthy, forgetting that those dishonored today were honored in their time as among the most enlightened. Our universities, once founts of liberalism, inquiry and debate have become bastions to conformity. Conservatives are not welcome. Our media rejects ideas and politicians that cannot be reconciled to preconceived Leftist notions. It is as though a new dark age has descended on what was once an open, tolerant and curious nation. Those in our academies and newsrooms utilize identity politics and ideas that are “politically correct,” which conform with today’s views on race, gender and class. They seek out victims of “harmful” speech. They ignore the fact that history has not ended, that it is a continuum. We who are older were once the future. Now, it is the turn of our children and grandchildren. But, in time, they, too, will become the past. It is this never-stopping conveyor belt of human existence that is the reason why we should ensure our youth learn concepts of liberty, freedom and free-market capitalism, ideas that have withstood attack, ideas which have given us the success we all enjoy today, including our standard of living, the value of our citizenship and the right to dissent. It is not enough to teach only what is “au courant.”
No serious conservative was happy when Mr. Trump used the words: “Send her home.” But all presidents and leaders have used words that hurt, and/or they have lied. Were rural Pennsylvanians happy when they were summarily and smugly dismissed by Mr. Obama as clinging to guns and religion? Were the families of those whose fathers, husbands and sons had been killed in Benghazi happy when Mrs. Clinton lied about the cause of the attack? Watch what politicians do, not what they say is another adage. It applies to both Parties, as they explain or confound what had been promised in campaigns. Politicians are masters of saying what their followers want to hear. Political rallies are partisan; they are used to build enthusiasm, to get their followers excited and motivated. It is, in my opinion, an argument against early voting. What politician would not want to send his or her followers directly to the polls when fired up emotionally? Most politicians would prefer their followers not consider the relative merits of the candidates and their positions.
President Trump knows what hot buttons to push – those which fire up his base and inflame his opponents. But it is the policies that he and his opponents propose that should catch our attention. Words can be unkind and may raise our rancor, but it is the laws that get written, the regulations that are enforced, conformity that is imposed that affect us. Those are the “sticks and stones that can break our bones.” But beware that the discourse to which we are all subject, especially in an election year, does not distract from those far larger problems that threaten to alter the nation we love and that the world envies.
Comments are closed.
