 |
| Donald Trump Speaking in Illinois, October 27, 2018 |
Here’s the
heart of his statement:
“As President,
it’s a level of terribleness and horror that you can’t even believe. It’s
hard to believe. It’s just — you stand as President and you do what
people say is a good job. What I say — you just do the absolute
best. You say something like this and you see something like this, and
you say, ‘How can it happen?’
“As President,
as bad as you felt before, you feel worse. And I just — I just find it
hard to believe. You know what’s going on; it’s at least 11 people are
dead. Police officers were very badly wounded. Three and probably
four very, very badly wounded. But sounds like they’ll be okay.
“They were
unbelievable. The law enforcement was unbelievable. And we’ll be
getting a full report in about an hour from now.
“So we’re in
Illinois, and we will make the best of it. Thank you all very much.”
That was all
fine, of course. Mr. Trump certainly did not express the level of deep sympathy
that, Barack Obama did in Charleston after the awful church massacre there.
But how could he? Mr. Obama’s thesis was to unify the nation, end
divisions, and establish modest gun-control measures. President Trump couldn’t
say any of that, not really, because his political and rhetorical approaches
have taken him in different directions for years. After the Charlottesville rally, which pitted neo-Nazis against peace demonstrators, he said that there were "very fine people on both sides." He criticized a Hispanic judge: "Now this judge is of Mexican heritage, I'm building a wall." It's a little late for Mr. Trump to speak in a unifying style.
It was also obvious that even the armed response that conservatives often advocate would not have been quite enough, since the shooter took down four armed officers before he was disabled.
It was also obvious that even the armed response that conservatives often advocate would not have been quite enough, since the shooter took down four armed officers before he was disabled.
First, what did
Mr. Trump do right? First, he expressed horror about the event. I’m sure that
he was sincere. Anyone who wasn’t a hateful murderer would be horrified. He
praised the police officers, who showed great bravery in the face of the
killer’s superior firepower. They deserved his praise.
Second, what
did he not say? He didn’t call for gun control; he has long since backed off
from his 2017 advocacy of modest gun controls. His conservative base would
never tolerate such a move. He didn’t
condemn anti-Semitism in dramatic, explicit terms. That was awkward. His
beloved daughter Ivanka is a faithful Jew. There is some objective evidence that America’s
right-wing voters continue to harbor anti-Semitic impulses. Those groups, unfortunately, continue to offer Mr. Trump considerable support, which he will need if Republicans are to flourish in next week's Congressional elections. Politically,
did Mr. Trump feel that he was walking a tightrope between his own feelings, on
the one hand, and the need to placate his base, on the other? It’s hard to say.
So, Mr. Trump’s
brief statement was fine but weak. He said nothing morally wrong or inappropriate. (He
did make a factual error in his introduction when he implied that the New York
Stock Exchange reopened the day after the 9/11 attacks; it did not.)
But Mr. Trump’s
brief statement didn’t really accomplish much, either. He needed to say more. I
think he knew that he needed to say more, but maybe he wasn’t sure what to say.
At best, all he could hope for was to avoid digging himself into a deeper hole than
he was already in. He did come to Pittsburgh on October 30, where he made a
solemn but rather awkward appearance.
Shortly after his
Illinois speech, Mr. Trump created a brilliant distraction by threatening to
end birthright citizenship by executive order. That was ridiculous, but he
partially changed the national dialogue, distracting us from thinking about the
hate crimes. That wasn’t admirable, but it seemed to alter the week’s news
stories, as various knowledgeable people occupied much TV news time and
newspaper column inches pointing out how silly it was to try to change the 14th
Amendment by executive order. Oddly, even one of his advisor’s spouses wrote an article pointing out how wrong Trump was. Embarrassing though that was, it took
people’s minds away from the hate crimes.
Could another
speaker in that situation have done better? Probably not. It’s better not to
get yourself in situations like that to begin with. Mr. Trump's rhetoric is sometimes, shall we say, very aggressive. Did his previous rhetoric contribute to the attack? That is still being debated. Some Republicans falsely blamed Jewish billionaire George Soros for financing a refugee caravan heading through Mexico, and anti-Semitism motivated the attacker. So, it is possible.
Mr. Trump's previous rhetoric put him into a hole. If Mr. Trump finds a way to back down from his more inflammatory speech, he might be better able to heal the nation during times of horror and crisis. Is it too late? Or can he still do that?
Mr. Trump's previous rhetoric put him into a hole. If Mr. Trump finds a way to back down from his more inflammatory speech, he might be better able to heal the nation during times of horror and crisis. Is it too late? Or can he still do that?
If you are digging yourself into a hole, stop digging. If you are already in a hole, dig yourself out. If you can't dig yourself out, call for someone to rescue you. If no one can rescue you, you are in trouble.
Rhetorical scholars have all read Lloyd Bitzer's famous article The Rhetorical Situation, which explains how speakers adapt to the needs (he calls them "exigences") that a given situation creates. Mr. Trump found himself in an awkward rhetorical situation. He wandered around the key issue, and then he dropped back
10 and punted. Some days go like that.
Image: White House YouTube channel
No comments:
Post a Comment