Washington Post (Opinion)
By Michael Gerson
February 8, 2016
When
the Watergate tapes were released, some Americans were dismayed at the
many “expletives deleted” that Richard Nixon employed in private
conversation. But as historian
Stephen Ambrose pointed out, Nixon had insisted that even the milder
words “hell” and “damn” be deleted from the transcriptions, creating the
false impression that his language was saltier than it actually was.
“If my mother ever heard me use words like that,”
Nixon explained, “she would turn over in her grave.”
No
inner check constrained Donald Trump from using the F-word during a
presidential campaign rally in Portsmouth, N.H. “We’re gonna have
businesses that used to be in
New Hampshire, that are now in Mexico,” he told a crowd, “come back to
New Hampshire, and you can tell them to go [bleep] themselves!”
Many
people, particularly the ones unburdened by knowledge of economics,
will respond, “Hell yeah!” We are a culture conditioned by cable
television, which has made the
language of sailors, mobsters and New York real estate developers
available to any digitally literate 11-year-old. Even the cable channels
you don’t pay for have taken to constant, blindingly obvious bleeping,
in a wink and nod to their perception of modern
usage. This, after all, is the way “real life” sounds.
Let
us hope not. In real life, expletives are often used as a form of
aggression or cruelty. A co-worker who tells you to Trump yourself is
usually being unpleasant. A
co-worker who does this every day is often creating a hostile or
demeaning work environment. Language suitable for decent company is a
form of politeness, which is a species of respect, which is an
expression of morality. And if I am the last holdout on this
issue, so be it. I don’t really give a damn.
Win
or lose, Trump has brought the language and sensibilities of cable TV
to presidential politics. This is a relatively small transgression in a
campaign that has involved
groundbreaking appeals to ethnic and religious resentment. But there is
a rhetorical strategy at work here worth noting. In recent rallies,
Trump — in addition to telling people to go “F---” themselves — said he
would “beat the s---” out of anyone attacking
us and has now charmingly (and by “charmingly” I mean loathsomely)
called Ted Cruz a “p----.” Trump identifies crudity with populism, as if
using words of four letters were a protest against prim elites. Rough
language is intended to convey strength and authenticity.
On both counts, it amounts to deception.
Trump
employs tough-sounding language, along with the promise of war crimes
(proposing killing the families of terrorists), as cover for a
frighteningly feckless foreign
policy. On the main humanitarian and strategic disaster of our time —
the collapse of sovereignty in Syria and Iraq and the rise of the
Islamic State — Trump’s answer is to farm out influence to the Russians.
“Let Syria and ISIS fight. Why do we care?” Trump
has argued. “And let Russia, they’re in Syria already, let them fight
ISIS.”
Just
to summarize, Trump is proposing for the United States to encourage a
coalition of Russia, Iran and the remnants of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian
regime to fight the Islamic
State and the rest of the Sunni rebels. This would recognize Russian
strategic dominance over a region that still produces nearly 40 percent
of the world’s oil supplies. It would concur in Iran’s bid for regional
hegemony and probably frighten our abandoned
Sunni allies into desperate acts (such as going nuclear). And it would
reward Assad’s mass atrocities against Sunni civilians, which is a major
generator of recruits for the Islamic State.
In
this case, a foul mouth is meant to cover up for Trump’s ignorance and
weakness. No actual enemy of the United States would be impressed by his
trompe l’oeil toughness.
The
whole equation of profanity with authenticity is deeply confused. There
is an honesty, of sorts, in swearing when you hit your thumb with a
hammer. But in presidential
communication, authenticity is more than the id and tongue unleashed.
Abraham Lincoln and other great presidents were authentic communicators
because they treated serious things seriously, crafting policy and
speeches that often challenged immediate emotional
responses, expanded empathy and employed the cadences and spare
language of memorable rhetoric. In the world of adults, authenticity
involves thought and craft.
Trump’s
intentional push against boundaries of taste is really the search for a
darting spotlight, like a TV show that has gone on for a season too
long and tries to ramp
up controversy as a substitute for buzz. Even Trump’s authenticity, it
turns out, is a lie. And his message, even dressed in the language of
Sunday morning, would be an obscenity.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment