Donald Trump, White House photo |
In his two-hour speech at the 2019
Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), President Donald Trump refuted
the charge that he and the Russian government had colluded to get him elected
in 2016 by ridicule, and nothing
else. Ignoring the issues, he made fun of the Democrats because they had the
nerve to quote him accurately about Russian collusion. Trump had said, "Russia, if you're listening, I
hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." Later, when he was criticized, he said, "Of course I’m being
sarcastic.” He doubled down at CPAC: "These people are sick." But he hadn't been sarcastic the first time, and at CPAC he used ridicule instead of argument.
One reason for speakers to ridicule their
opponents is that their opponents say things that are, well, ridiculous. People who say
ridiculous things have, for the most part, immunized themselves to
reasoned argument. However,
ridicule does not persuade them, either, for people who are unwilling to reason are also
unwilling to be humiliated.
Another reason for speakers to ridicule the
other side is that the speakers themselves have nothing
else to say. This was the case with Trump at CPAC. He could neither deny nor defend his indefensible comments. What could he do?
So, let’s start with a seemingly indisputable
fact: during his 2016 election campaign, future president Donald Trump clearly
and explicitly (with a straight face) asked the Russian government to steal
Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Here is what Trump said:
"Russia, if you're listening, I
hope you're able to find the 30,000 [Clinton] emails that are missing. I think
you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens.
That'll be nice." That certainly sounded like an invitation to
commit a felony. It turns out that this foolish comment got the president into political trouble,
and the Democrats, of course, continue to make it political. Worse,
the Mueller investigation alleges that Russia did, indeed, hack
the Democratic National Committee’s emails within a few hours after Trump's request. Oops. If his request had been private, instead of public, it would have been an obvious criminal conspiracy. Is really it OK if it's public?
What could we expect President Trump to do about
it? He could not deny what he said, since his comment was recorded and broadcast
around the world. When he was criticized, his response at the time was that he
was being sarcastic.
He did not sound sarcastic: he didn’t wink, didn’t sneer, and, worse, promised
the Russians that the American media would reward them if they committed this
crime. A joke? No.
The obvious way for Trump to deal with the continuing
controversy would be to apologize, assure Americans that he never intended to
commit a crime, and deny any interest in receiving stolen emails. Instead, in his
CPAC speech, almost denying the
obvious, he made fun of Democrats for bringing the point up at all. At CPAC he did bring out his humorous, sarcastic
voice and gestures to full measure.
So, years later, at CPAC, while the
controversy still burned, Trump said that: “And
then that fake CNN and others say, ‘He asked Russia to go get the emails.
Horrible.’ (Laughter.) I mean, I thought — like, two weeks ago, I’m watching
and they’re talking about one of the points. ‘He asked Russia for the emails.’
These people are sick. (Laughter.) And I’m telling you, they know the game.
They know the game, and they play it dirty dirtier than anybody has ever
played the game. Dirtier than it’s ever been played.” This was ridicule: “fake
CNN.” "These people are sick." "Dirtier than it’s ever been played.” If you can refute, then refute. If you
can’t, just insult your critics. Trump gave no information; his denial offered no
content.
Trump continued: “if you tell a joke, if you’re sarcastic, if you’re having fun with the
audience, if you’re on live television with millions of people and 25,000
people in an arena, and if you say something like, ‘Russia, please, if you can,
get us Hillary Clinton’s emails. Please, Russia, please.’ (Applause.) ‘Please
get us the emails. Please!’” He sneered quite effectively (to the audience’s
evident delight) as he spoke. (What a shame that he did not sneer in 2016. We
might have believed that it really was a joke.)
So: Trump did ask Russia to hack
Clinton’s emails. They hacked the DNC the same day. Trump later said it was a
joke. He blamed the press for having the temerity to report something that he and
the audience knew to be true. His claim that his request was “sarcastic” is
implausible. So, having no facts to offer, he ridiculed the press and insulted
his opponents for saying something true.
Democrats ridicule Republicans for thinking that Obama faked his birth certificate. Doesn’t it just seem fair that Republicans
should also be able to ridicule what the Democrats say? Even if the Democrats happen
to say something true? Or is that just a case of two wrongs not making a right?
Should we just admit that all appeals to ridicule are
fallacious? Or, worse, does being ridiculed just force people to harden their (silly)
beliefs?
No comments:
Post a Comment