Category Archives: Problem Practices

Communication behavior or analysis that is often counter-productive

bar line from web header

Is Retribution an Actual Organizing Principle?

He says he is doing this for others. But his vindictive acts seem to spring from a persecution complex that turns the idea of a unifying president on its head.

Donald Trump has noted many times that his administration is organized to seek retribution for words or actions used against him and others who share his views. “For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution,” he told supporters in March 2023. He warned the nation that this would be his guiding “principle” for governing, and he has kept that promise. In a stunning break with the norms of past presidents, Trump makes it a point almost every day to use his office for payback to group and individuals he sees as oppositional. Hence he has taken away security protection for former officials who have criticized him, including Anthony Fauci and John  Bolton. And ostensibly “woke” safety net and federal aid programs that have offended him have been unfunded. Stripping people of their employment or protection is cruel and easy; doing the hard work of governing is mostly beyond him. Given this logic, only the completely synced vice president could imagine that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan were  “placeholders” rather than true “men of action.”

Retribution is a behavioral outlier that turns the long settled idea of a unifying president on its head. Instead of looking for transcendent themes, Trump cites injustices—often against him personally—most of his time is spent on proclamations of  denial and repudiation. This attitude has its own lexicon;  reckoning, redress, reprisal, retaliation, revenge, and vengeance are among the many terms at the bottom of a dark pit of dystopian motives. Normally these play out in criminal narratives, such as The Sopranos or the Godfather films. Most Americans would not want to be ruled by these impulses. But Trump has a sociopathic streak. Hiding his ire behind a reality show smile, he seems to think that the enactment of flamboyant public reprisals gives him stature.

In truth, there’s no normalizing these pitiful attacks. Consider the vast range of civil society institutions denigrated or defunded:

  • Universities
  • Federal and state courts
  • Political opponents
  • Former NATO allies
  • News organizations
  • Businesses
  • Trading partners
  • Election volunteers
  • Former presidents
  • Law firms
  • State leaders
  • Equal rights groups
  • Museums and libraries
  • the United Nations
  • Immigrants
  • Aid agencies
  • Funded medical and academic  research

NPR has tallied over 100 targets picked because of some slight against the President, or one of his questionable assertions. The New York Times has a more detailed catalogue. Most, he believes, are guilty of  what he sees as personal slights against him, some ginned up to be “treasonous” crimes.

Its an old trope of our species to feed off the familiar cycle of hate,  victimage, and punishment. Think of Puritan trials, male oppositional rituals in violent “sports,” or Shakespeare’s historical plays that display brooding quests for revenge. We have mostly tamed these impulses, giving the formal function of retribution to the criminal courts. Who else is interested in building a national movement around so aggressive and brutal an idea? As a collection of scholars writing in the journal Law and Human Behavior note, “Retributive justice essentially refers to the repair of justice through unilateral imposition of punishment,”   but courts can also take the different route of “restorative justice, meaning “the repair of justice through. . . a shared. . . bilateral process.”  Requiring a defendant to make good on an earlier promise to a plaintiff would fit the restorative model, which can be adapted to policy-making.  But seldom does Trump take this more coactive stance.

Who builds a national movement around so brutal an idea?

Retribution is easily paired with the idea of hate, the engine that powers the desire to give a wounding response. In turn, this adds a level of worry within targets fearful of the negative consequences that may result. Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski recently reported her own fear of the consequences for doing her legislative duties.  That is a terrible omen, and surely the reason we have a servile GOP.

It is apparent that Donald Trump has obviously banked a lot of the personal and professional slights that have eaten away at his judgment. The result is that we’ve ended up with endless executive actions against individuals and groups that have verge into the pathological.

black bar

Kennedy’s Misrepresentations of Autism

A person “on the spectrum” would hardly recognize Kennedy’s characterization of it.

In a press conference earlier this month Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had more bad advice to offer on the nature and causes of autism, or what used to be known as Asperger’s Syndrome. The Health and Human Services Secretary mischaracterized autism as a “preventable disease” and unfairly stigmatized those who are on the spectrum.  Not only do these neurodivergent people supposedly suffering with a dire condition, but “many” were once “fully functional,” but later “regressed” because of some sort of “environmental exposure.” These false claims were bad enough, but then he launched into a whole cluster of slights:

“These are kids who will never pay taxes. They’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date,” Kennedy said. “Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted. And we have to recognize we are doing this to our children, and we need to put an end to it.”

Oh, and autism supposedly “destroys families.”

The Trump administration playbook always seems to trivialize the complex, reaching too far for single and simple solutions. We currently have junk economics draining away American credibility. It is as much a disgrace for a health official in this country to pedal junk science. A person labeled with the slippery and still bewildering indicators of autism would hardly recognize Kennedy’s characterization of it. His suggestion that he will soon set us all straight is disingenuous, given years of substantial research that has already been done.

As the name suggests, Autism Spectrum Disorder comes in a vast array of behavioral and social responses deemed “unusual,” “obsessive,” or socially isolating. It is a highly variable condition that shows itself in different forms of thinking and relating to others. There are often mild manifestations of it that require nothing more than the understanding of others. Severe instances of speech or cognitive disruption may require more help. In addition, repetitive behaviors and picking up social cues can be a challenge. And noise or the operations of some machines may be bothersome. Even so, there are people on the spectrum who own businesses, hold advanced degrees, marry, and do advanced research. To be sure, at its onset at age 2 or 3 autism can create challenges to a caregiver. Children especially struggle to find the kinds of social skills and connections that are rewarding. But with age, most learn to cope with the consequences of this condition reasonably well, and would be offended by Kennedy’s disablism.

Kennedy is into the weeds from the start

Naming autism as a “disease” is misleading, and—like other forms of behavior that have been medicalized—takes many people out of the game. It suggests that individuals cannot be agents of their own adaptation. Many folks on the autism scale are doing fine as they are. And some familiar features of autism, such as giving extensive attention to one thing, or seeing obscure patterns or relationships, can be useful capacities that those of us who are hopelessly distracted may never acquire. It is a common idea among autism researchers that Sherlock Holmes would probably have been considered on the spectrum, and perhaps Albert Einstein as well. Well-known animal researcher and author Temple Grandin notes that she still cannot “read” others well, but her awareness of this challenge has helped her adapt and thrive.

Differences Versus Deficits 

Most of all, broad generalizations are risky. While some neuroscientists see what they consider to be unusual patterns of brain activity in autistic people, the causes and symptoms are not always accepted as representing a distinct condition to be treated. There are no definitive indications that “deletions” of genetic material causes autism. And evidence in favor of possible environmental causes is suspect. This murky etiology along with the wide spectrum of behavioral effects of autism has led some to question whether milder forms are really separate conditions at all; they may simply be  manifestations of natural neurodiversity. In this view, what is called autism may point to natural differences, but not necessarily deficits.

Then, too, I believe that our modern other-directed communication has been “normed” into American life, especially among families who believe they understand the social intricacies of “getting ahead.”  We often assume the worst for children left to the kinds of unstructured and solitary play that was the norm in previous centuries. This may be one reason that autism’s isolation and social awkwardness are relatively new disorders. Eccentricities that were once “understood”—sometimes with compassion, and at other times with institutional isolation—are now subject to intense study, and sometimes premature interventions. It’s easy to sympathize with Liane Willey, who notes in her book, Pretending to be Normal, “I do not wish for a cure to Asperger’s Syndrome. What I wish for, is for a cure for the common ill that pervades too many lives; the ill that makes people compare themselves to a normal that is measured in terms of perfect and absolute standards.”

______

Portions adapted from the writer’s, The Rhetorical Personality (2010).