Trump World: A World of Losers
P. Schultz
Below is a
link to an op-ed that appeared in the NY Times, written by Frank Bruni, arguing
that Donald Trump has an “existential pickle,” which he put himself in by using
the term “loser” to describe his rivals and others with whom he disagrees.
Bruni argues that this puts Trump in a position where he cannot lose without
actually destroying his campaign. Once he becomes a “loser,” as he might by
finishing second in Iowa, Trump is, Bruni thinks, finished.
There are
at least two interesting aspects to Bruni’s column. First, he doesn’t seem to
understand that the term “loser” as Trump uses it does not refer to actual
events or whether a person is successful or not. For example, as Bruni points
out, Bill Maher, Howard Stern, and Karl Rove are “losers” in “Trump world” and
all three are and have been quite successful. No, for Trump, the concept of
“loser” refers to character, to what a person is rather than to what a person
does, to whether a person is successful or not. So, if Trump finishes second in
Iowa, he doesn’t become, as Bruni thinks he will become, a “loser” because
Trump, by self definition, isn’t a “loser” and cannot become one because he
happens to be unsuccessful in a particular event or at a moment of time. “Losers”
are losers whether they win or lose and “winners” are winners whether they lose
or win, at least in Trump World.
But there
is another aspect to Bruni’s column that, to me, is even more interesting,
viz., that it is devoid of any criticism, sustained criticism, of Trump’s
politics. As this is not unique to Bruni, as others quite frequently criticize
Trump’s tone or his abrasiveness rather than his politics, this should give one
pause to wonder why. Could it be that Trump’s politics aren’t as far from the
mainstream as some want to think and, so, those in the mainstream, those who
embrace mainstream politics like Bruni, cannot offer any sustained critique of
Trump’s politics? Could it be that his politics makes Trump rather impervious
to criticism, just as it was his politics that made Ronald Reagan the “teflon
president,” as he was so often described? Both were much more mainstream than
their critics realized, who then attributed to them a special something that
protected them from meaningful criticisms.
Insofar as
this makes any sense, it would mean that we need to question, to subject to
criticism, sustained criticism, our mainstream politics. Could it be, as
reflected by Trump’s success and his rhetoric, that our politics is best
described as “mainstream extremism?” That would make for an interesting
situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment