Did Donald Trump Just Do the Unexpected Once Again?

Donald Trump, WH portrait

President Donald Trump's foremost strategy is to keep his opponents off-balance. His brief White House speech yesterday afternoon supporting historically black colleges and universities (HBCU) was a case in point. So, let us look at the unexpected praise that Mr. Trump offered to HBCUs.

Perhaps surprising to Mr. Trump's liberal critics, yesterday's brief remarks, delivered in a quiet, dignified style, were full of support and praise for HBCUs:

"Since I signed the executive order establishing this initiative in my administration, we have made great strides in strengthening HBCUs, a cherished and vital institution in our country.  Very important."

Mr. Trump followed up with financial help. He explained that his budget request included "more than half a billion dollars for HBCU-focused programs." He called for loan forgiveness in connection with the HBCU Hurricane Supplement Loan program. He announced continued Pell Grants eligibility and funding increases. This would, he said, "greatly help the many students attending our wonderful HBCUs." He introduced his new Chairman of the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Johnny Taylor, Jr., who he called a "great guy." All in all, this sounded very liberal, very conciliatory, very supportive: not at all consistent with Mr. Trump's overall image. During the event, Mr. Trump sought to greet personally all of the participants, most of whom were African-American education leaders.

Graphic retweeted by Trump

This minority outreach was just a bit unexpected. Let's recall the racial and ethnic animus that propelled Mr. Trump's successful 2016 election campaign. He retweeted a racist graphic falsely claiming that 81% of murdered Whites were killed by Blacks. He has appointed very few minority individuals to public office. His campaign theme, which was to reject political correctness and stir racial animosity, was pointed and successful. Hillary Clinton held an advantage of about 80 points over Trump in the 2016 voting, which means that Mr. Trump owed little to African American voters. Furthermore, conservatives often oppose preferential treatment or funding for minority educational institutions. In fact, some months ago, Mr. Trump questioned whether such treatment is even constitutional. The HBCU initiative had been in the works for some time, and was no secret, but it was distinctly not racist, not aggressive, and not hostile.

No one can expect either this initiative or this brief speech to change race relations in the United States, nor does it undo Mr. Trump's long history of racially-tinged rhetoric. Nor is it reasonable to think that he is proposing anywhere near the amount of funding that these colleges and universities really need. The entire project could be largely symbolic. Still, even symbolic gestures mean something. Sometimes they mean a lot.

The question again comes up: are there two Donald Trumps, one who is outrageous and one who is presidential? The answer is no. The outrageous Donald Trump who offends people left and right, and the conciliatory Donald Trump who reaches out with compassion and understanding, are one and the same person. Mr. Trump is acutely aware that he needs to appeal to different audiences, and even more acutely aware that he wants to define his own image and won't let others define his image for him. On the coattails of his aggressive CPAC speech, yesterday's brief talk created a contrast by being calm, presidential, and helpful. This was not a speech for his conservative true believers.

Once again, Mr. Trump's public speaking has taken an unexpected twist. This brief event got little press attention, as the President's even more unprecedented comments about gun control took precedence. I'll write about that issue in an upcoming post.

President Trump Speaking at 2018 CPAC: Part 2, Did He "Tell It Like It Is? Not So Much!

Donald Trump, official WH photo

Donald Trump's supporters love him because he "tells it like it is." Not really. To tell it like it is, you must speak the truth. He often does not.

PolitiFact had already parsed out the exaggerations and falsehoods that Mr. Trump dished out during his recent CPAC speech. For example:

1. Mr. Trump claimed, as he repeatedly has, that the recent Republican tax cut is the largest ever. It is a big tax cut, especially for the wealthy, but not anything close to the largest ever. The 2012 tax cut was bigger.

2. Mr. Trump claimed that "This guy came in through chain migration. And a part of the lottery system. They say 22 people came in with him. In other words, an aunt, an uncle, a grandfather, a mother, a father, whoever came in. A lot of people came in. That’s chain migration." It turns out that the driver did come in through the diversity program, so, fine, Mr. Trump had a point there. But there is no evidence that "22 people came in with him." Note that "They say" is not a source. As President, Mr. Trump has access to vast amounts of information about the federal government. There is no excuse for him to cite "they say" as a source.

3. He claimed that "I want people that are going to help and people that are going to go to work for Chrysler, who is now moving from Mexico into Michigan." Actually, the Mexican plant is still open and expects to continue employing the same number of workers. More workers are being hired in Michigan, which makes Mr. Trump's claim only partially true, and quite misleading.

And so forth.

Why do politicians exaggerate? The obvious answer is that it works. When Mr. Trump repeats, over and over, that he signed the biggest tax cut in history, he gains political points - at least among his supporters. There is power in repetition.

Note that too many people claim that PolitiFact is biased. Not true, and also not the point. Everything you say should be true and accurate. If you speak accurately, you don't need to worry about fact checkers.

My earlier post about this speech is here. 

P.S.: The most reliable fact checkers are the Washington Post's Fact Checker, PolitiFact, and the original FactCheck.org. Some of the others are OK, but some are not systematic or fair enough.

Did Mona Charen Commit Heresy at CPAC When She Condemned White House Sexual Predators?

Rhetoric involves an audience, whom the speaker wants to persuade, and how that audience responds is always important.

Former White House speechwriter and thoroughgoing conservative Mona Charen was booed and heckled when she appeared on a panel at the 2018 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), “Left Out by the Left,” yesterday. The topic was how the left wing mistreats, ignores, or abuses woman. In a brief, extemporaneous speech during the panel discussion, Charen turned the topic around and said:

Mona Charen in 1986

“I am disappointed in people on our side for being hypocrites about sexual harassers and abusers of women who are in our party, who are sitting in the White House, who brag about their extramarital affairs, who brag about mistreating women, and because he happens to have an R after his name, we look the other way; we don’t complain.”

Charen complained further that the Republican Party who supported Roy Moore for the United States Senate even though there were credible accusations that he was a predator.  Charen said: “we cannot claim that we stand for women and put up with that."

Audience members booed and heckled loudly: “Prove it!” “Witch hunt!” That is, they angrily denied that Charen was right.

So, before we go further, let’s put to rest any thought that Charen was wrong. After being accused of dating underage girls, Roy Moore told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he never dated “any girl without the permission of her mother.” Enough said.

Donald Trump’s famous Access Hollywood recording disproved any defense of Trump’s marital or sexual morals.  

Since what Charen said was obviously true, why did the audience boo? To understand that, we must revisit the ancient concept of heresy. In religion, heresy is a belief contrary to official teachings.

Keep these points in mind:

1.       Heresy is not ordinary error. If I say that the Texas sky is never blue, this isn’t heresy. It’s just wrong. If I were to deny that God created the world, this is, in Christianity, a heresy.

2.       A society, group, religion, or social movement can encourage people to believe many things that cannot be proven, or that are just wrong. These beliefs can become dogmas, and to disbelieve them turns into heresy.

3.       Accusations of heresy are used to enforce social conformity. When a church calls someone a heretic, this is to enforce the person’s conformation to standard beliefs.

4.       The usual punishment for heresy is to expel the heretic. A heretical Catholic can be excommunicated, which means to be denied access to the sacraments: “Faithful to the Apostolic teaching and example, the Church, from the very earliest ages, was wont to excommunicate heretics and contumacious persons.”  Expelled heretics might seem less dangerous than heretics who remain in the group.

5.       Different groups, different heresies. Martin Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone is a heresy to Catholics, but standard belief in many Protestant churches.

So, first, Charen was right. Second, she said things that were heretical. She was disloyal to the conservative cause as certain audience members understood that cause. Third, she is not likely to receive a CPAC invitation next year. That, I suppose, is something like excommunication. In fact, she needed a security escort to leave the building safely. 

Reinforcing her heresy, Charen later wrote about "this brainless, sinister, clownish thing called Trumpism, by those of us who refuse to overlook the fools, frauds, and fascists attempting to glide along in his slipstream into respectability." That, I guess, should complete her expulsion from the conservative movement. 

 

But Charen was right, and there lies the problem. Her beliefs, although true, caused her audience to feel uncomfortable—in psychological terms, she probably created cognitive dissonance in them.  One way for the audience to reduce their cognitive dissonance would be to change their wrong beliefs. But they decided that it was much more straightforward to shout down someone who pointed out their wrong beliefs.

A good way to convince people to conform to standard beliefs is to give them good reasons to do so. Another, less-good way to convince people to conform is to exclude them if they do not. Charen was not wrong, but she was heretical, and heretics are unwelcome. 

However, conservatism is not a religion, and excommunicating people who speak the truth can only lead true believers to falsehood. 

Also see my earlier post about Donald Trump's CPAC speech. Was Charen's main problem that she didn't appeal to true believers? More coming! 

P.S.: Everyone at CPAC knew about Trump's escapades and Moore's personal issues, not to mention Rob Porter's alleged history of spousal abuse, so scheduling a panel about how the left wing treats women was probably a badly timed idea. Ah, hindsight is truly 20-20.

Photo: official White House photo, via Wikimedia Commons.

How Did David Hogg Turn the Tables on President Trump to Advocate Gun Control?

In the wake of the shooting at a Parkland, Florida High School, students have been speaking out to advocate gun control and better school security. School shooting after school shooting, people complain about the problem but gun control remains the third rail of American politics. Congress quickly kills even the most modest gun control legislation. Parkland survivor David Hogg, seventeen years old, has become one of the most prominent advocates of gun control.

Hogg made one of his most dramatic statements on Meet the Press. In one of his infamous tweets, President Donald Trump had complained that Democrats had been unable to pass gun control when they controlled the House, Senate, and White House. Mr. Trump's implication was that the Democrats didn't want to pass gun control legislation. This further implied that the failure of gun control was the Democrats' fault, not his. Nothing new there; politicians rarely take responsibility for anything.  But Hogg turned the tables on him.

Hogg's direct response, which occupied less than a minute, said:

"How dare you? You are in that exact position right now and you want to look back on our history and blame the Democrats? That's disgusting. You're the president. You're supposed to bring this nation together not divide it. How dare you. Children are dying and their blood is on your hands because of that. Please, take action. Stop going on vacation at Mar-a-Lago. Take action, work with Congress; your party controls both the House and Senate. Take some action, get some bills passed..."

In the debate tactic of turning the tables, a speaker turns the opponent's argument to support the opposite point. Mr. Trump's position was that gun control failure was the Democrats' fault. Hogg pointed out, quite sharply, that the President's party now controlls the government and should be able to pass whatever legislation they want. Responsibility shifts back to the accuser. This argument gains power because it uses the accuser's own reasoning and evidence. Mr. Trump cannot reasonably complain that Hogg's point is invalid, as it was the same as his own point.

Conservatives' response to Hogg's advocacy has not been at all rational; instead, he has been widely accused of being a crisis actor while various other absurd and revolting conspiracy theories have been raised against him.

Was Hogg's forceful language a bit heated? Well, yes, but give him a break! His school was shot up and his classmates were murdered. He has far more cause to be emotional than any of the politicians or media pundits who complain about him. Maybe only forceful talk can lift the gun control debate out of its current morass of conspiracy theories and fake Founding Fathers quotes and back to solid ground.

P.S.: Sometimes very short speeches are the best. Make your point and stop. 

P.P.S.: An earlier post noted a student who was disgruntled because TV wouldn't give him time for a long speech. Hogg didn't need much time. He made his point and, bam! he was done. 

Also, for more thoughts about conspiracy theories, see this post.

President Trump Speaking at 2018 CPAC: Part 1, to the True Believers

Donald Trump speaking at 2018 CPAC

President Donald Trump spoke yesterday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He tossed away any prepared script that he might have had, calling it "boring," and delivered an hour-plus, rambling speech that the crowd received with enthusiastic cheers and applause. The rambling may have bothered some neutral observers, but the crowd was fine with it: for Mr. Trump hit his usual talking points, established credibility with the audience, and criticized his enemies. That is what the audience wanted. His speech was utterly polarizing. He expressed no wish to compromise. He offered no appeals to unify the nation. He attacked.

A polarizing speech does not gain consensus. It does, however, strengthen support among the true believers. True believers never want compromise; they want victory. When liberals dismiss true believers as a fringe, they commit a terrible error: Mr. Trump's election proves beyond refutation that the true believers are many, that they are motivated, and that they are powerful.

So, in no particular order, here are some polarizing moments:

1. The crowd started to chant, "Lock Her Up," referring to Hillary Clinton's email scandal. With the Mueller investigation producing indictments one after the other, this chant sounds more and more like an attempt to distract public attention from the White House's growing legal problems. The point of locking Clinton up was that she was irresponsible and careless with highly classified material (which she was - my apologies to her Democratic supporters). It turns out, however,  that many of Trump's staff can't get permanent security clearances, which Trump did not mention in the speech. If you live in a glass house, maybe throwing stones is a way to deter criticism. Attack is the best defense?

2. Mr. Trump listed plenty of conservative talking points: he praised the tax cuts, said that "We've ended the war on American energy," touted the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, mentioned the end of the defense spending sequester, recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and so forth. These are accomplishments that the CPAC audience valued, and their cheers showed that they were happy to hear Mr. Trump review them.

3. He talked at length about ways to stop school shootings like the recent tragedy in Parkland, Florida, without restricting the Second Amendment. He advocated mental health care to deter school shootings and advocated arming  teachers. There is a sharp liberal-conservative divide on this question.

4. Mr. Trump repeatedly attacked Democrats:

• "We have to fight Nancy Pelosi. They want to give your money away . . . They want to end your tax cuts. They want to do things that you wouldn't even believe, including taking your Second Amendment rights away. They will do that." The audience booed at this.
• "And I can't get the Democrats - and nobody has been able to for years - to approve common-sense measures that, when we catch these animal-killers, we can lock them up and throw away the keys." The audience applauded. 
• "The Democrats are being totally unresponsive. They don't want to do anything about DACA, I'm telling you." 

5. As he had during his campaign, he quoted Oscar Brown, Jr.'s song "The Snake," which was about a woman who sheltered a criminal, but turned it into an attack on immigrants. In Mr. Trump's vision, immigrants became snakes. This was polarizing. Mr. Trump re-interpreted this song into "our kind of people" versus "immigrants." Only a step from white nationalism?

In this speech, Mr. Trump sought to motivate people who already agreed with him. Since Mr. Trump got many of his facts wrong, as I will write about soon, his speech was unlikely to persuade neutral observers.

Question for thought: a candidate can gain election with polarizing speeches. Mr. Trump has proved that. But can you lead a Western democracy with a polarizing style? That remains to be seen.

The Scripted Question at CNN's Parkland Town Hall? Or Was It the Speech That Might Have Been?

CNN held a town hall meeting with survivors of the terrible Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting in Parkland, Florida. The students expressed various opinions about gun control and school safety. Many of the students supported some form of gun control, mental health care, and improved security.

Student Colton Haab, however, claimed that CNN told him to ask scripted questions; his father withdrew him from the event as a consequence. Did CNN provide Haab with scripted questions? Or did they deny him a chance to give a speech when the format called for brief questions and statements. I don't know for sure, but let's look at the publicly available evidence.

The Haab family produced an email from CNN that read:

That really is way too long. These are quick questions so that we can get to as many people as possible. This is what Colton and I discussed on the phone. He needs to stick to this. 

Senator Nelson, if Coach Feis had had his firearm in school that day, I believe that he could have most likely stopped the threat. Have we thought about having a class for teachers who are willing to be armed trained to carry on campus? 

This gives the impression that CNN provided the question.

CNN's version of the email is:

That really is way too long. These are quick questions so that we can get to as many people as possible. This is what Colton and I discussed on the phone that he submitted. He needs to stick to this.  [italics supplied]


Senator Nelson, if Coach Feis had had his firearm in school that day, I believe that he could have most likely stopped the threat. Have we thought about having a class for teachers who are willing to be armed trained to carry on campus? 

The difference is the phrase "that he submitted," which contradicts Haab's claim that CNN provided scripted questions.

Who is telling the truth? A definitive answer will need to wait until we hear more from computer experts.

Unfortunately, people are responding according to their political views more than the evidence. It comes down to, who do you trust? Conservative Fox New's Gregg Re's reporting about the incident claimed that "The atmosphere at the event was, at times, awkward and even hostile for the Republicans, who were interrupted several times by the jeering crowd." He described CNN as a "left-leaning cable news network," which adds to the air of mistrust. Inquisitr, in turn, emphasized what they called "allegedly doctored" emails from the Haabs.

Colton's father, Glenn Haab, provided pages of points that he wanted his son to make during the town hall. Colton claims that CNN asked him to write a speech, which the network denies. Since network town halls don't usually allow long speeches, it is no surprise that Haab's request was turned down. CNN has offered Colton a chance to appear on CNN.

Of course, if Haab had actually attended the town hall, which he skipped, it would have been hard for the moderator to interrupt him if he asked his own question, wouldn't it? But he would have been interrupted if he used too much time.

Lessons:

1. Haab made an accusation, but the evidence for his accusation is weak. Not nil, but weak. The dispute is still at the he said / no, he said stage.
2. There is a time and place to give a lengthy speech, but this obviously wasn't it. Haab's talking points would have taken time from other students.
3. Haab's protest, no matter whether true or false, gave him much more attention than he could have gained by asking a question.
4. The allegedly scripted question, which was about arming teachers, had a conservative slant. It does not sound like a question that a "left-leaning news network" would concoct to advance a gun-control agenda.
5. Most important lesson for all readers and viewers: Don't jump to conclusions! Not all accusations are true! Not all accusations are false! Get the evidence before you decide!
6. Also, fathers, please: let your teenaged children speak for themselves!  

So, until the truth comes out, let's withhold final judgment.

P.S.: Context makes a difference! Leave out a few words, and the meaning changes. 

P.P.S.: The computer bots have been busy pushing Colton Haab's story. Here's my post about the bots. 

Update: Haab's father admitted to the Washington Times, a noted conservative paper, that he accidentally altered the email. This pretty much discredits the idea that CNN fed questions to the students. 

Nancy Pelosi Gave a Long, Long Speech About Immigration

Nancy Pelosi, official congressional photo

Earlier today, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gave an eight-hour speech on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, during which she advocated the plight of immigrants who came to the United States as children, usually through no fault of their own, and who now seek citizenship or legal status. These people are often called "dreamers." This policy has caused great controversy, and President Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign condemned unauthorized immigrants, sometimes referring to them as "snakes." I blogged not long ago about Mr. Trump's use of an obscenity to describe immigrants from third-world countries. 

Ms. Pelosi's very long speech was filled with quotations from letters that immigrants had written, discussions about contributions that various immigrants had made, and so forth. That's fine, as far as it goes, but a normal speech on that topic, using those materials, would attract little public attention.

We notice what is different. It is unusual for anyone to give such a long speech in the House, and the speech's length gained attention. Here are a few headlines:

CNN: "Nancy Pelosi Marathon Speech on DACA Sets Record"

Bloomberg: "Pelosi Marathon Speech on Immigrant Breaks 1909 House Record" 

Even Fox News: "Pelosi-Buster: House Democratic Leader Speaks for Record 8 Straight Hours Demanding Immigration Vote"

Her speech's purpose was to ask Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to bring a bill about the immigrants, and to allow an open amendment process. Not too many years ago, that would have been a routine request, but in today's hyper-partisan environment it is unusual for congressional leaders to open the floor like that. 

Although the speech's content and delivery were fine, the speech gained attention because it was different. When we do something different, get noticed. A quick look at Pelosi's website shows that she has recently given various other speeches and made various other statements, often on important topics, none of which attracted much notice. So, her rhetorical technique was effective.

 


Pelosi's Democratic colleagues gave her a standing ovation, maybe because they like her message, maybe because they admired her stamina, maybe because they knew she was representing their opinions with force, but most likely all three.  

The hashtag #GoNancyGo took off on Twitter, encouraging people to tune into her speech on C-Span. Usually, short speeches are best. This time, length counted. 

Rep. Pelosi's recent statements from https://pelosi.house.gov/news

The Nunes Memo: Why Does Context Matter?

Opening section of the Nunes FISA memo

Representative and House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes' controversial FISA memo has one big problem. It ignores context. That is, it says things that seem to be true, but it gives the reader a wildly inaccurate impression.

Like many political screeds, the memo over-promises and under-delivers. After raising "concerns" about "the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" and complaining about a "troubling breakdown" of 4th Amendment Protections, the memo mostly deals with technical issues in the investigation of Carter Page, a US citizen who came under surveillance because his contacts with Russians made it appear that the Russian government was trying to recruit him as a spy. As far as we know, Page rebuffed those efforts. This will be forever known as the Nunes memo, despite Nunes' admission that he didn't read the documents on which it was based.

The House Intelligence Committee Democrats produced a response, claiming that the memo left out key facts that would change the public's perception. The Republican majority on the committee refused to declassify the Democrats' response. Warning number one: if you only hear one side of a story, you might believe it even if it is inaccurate. Caution!

Now, it is argued that the memo's claims, most centrally, that Mr. Page was surveilled largely because of the Steele dossier, were true. It is also argued that the Democrats financed the Steele dossier, making it biased. I'm no spy expert, so let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the central claims are true. What about context?

To be accurate, you must speak the truth, but also must supply enough context to give a correct impression. Here is an example that I often gave to my classes:

Let's start with this wonderful old Punch cartoon. An incredibly filthy man writes a letter to a soap company: "I used your soap two years ago, and have not used any other since." This is true. He is not lying. He has not used any other soap. It sounds like a ringing endorsement, a pledge of great loyalty to the soap. The problem is that he hasn't used any soap.  The missing context is what makes the cartoon so very funny.

The man's letter is absolutely true, but is utterly inaccurate. The missing context is so important that it makes the letter dishonest and meaningless.

Did the FISA memo leave out any context? Well, for one, it omits to mention that the FBI and the courts often work with biased informants, and generally understand when to trust them and when not to trust them. It omits that the Steele dossier was initially funded by conservatives. In its effort to make the FBI sound anti-Trump, it omits to mention that the FISA warrant was obtained only after Page left the Trump campaign. It omits to mention that Page himself confirmed many of the dossier's findings during his congressional testimony.

Democrats say that the memo's information was cherry-picked. It is interesting that the Republican majority on the committee refuses to release the Democratic response, which, supposedly, contains information to provide more context. How much context? We don't know. Apparently, however, it's enough context that Nunes and his colleagues don't want the public to see it. What makes this ironic is that the memo's central claims are that the FISA application omitted important context. The memo's authors obviously understood context, but applied a different standard to themselves than what they applied to the FBI.

Truth matters. But context matters, too. To speak truthfully but to ignore important context is wrong. A statement that is untrue can never, ever be accurate. But accuracy also requires the speaker or writer to give a correct impression.

Ideologues produce things like the Nunes memo all the time. They are often happy to say something that is true in a narrow sense, and feel justified in believing it. They talk as if context doesn't matter. But they are wrong. Context always matters.

Cartoon from Wikimedia Commons. 

Update; Democratic memo released, although redacted.