The rhetorical signature of this committed hater.
One of the burdens Americans have had to carry for some years now is living with a figurehead–the nation’s leader, citizen number one, the country’s official spokesperson–who at the same time can rarely keep himself from unleashing the tired arts of denigration and retribution. At the risk of delivering old news, his output of public vituperation is off the charts and unlike any “leader” the nation has known. On occasion our leaders have unkind things to say about someone else. But they usually choose carefully when to share those negative judgments, reserving the public realm for silence or faint praise. It is hard to fathom how the nation managed to put a chronic bully in the role he inhabits.
To be sure, we know his type from any number of movie thugs. We can’t say that we haven’t heard his stale taunts before, but not from the person atop our political system. Even as a child he had a reputation as a bully that even placement in a private school apparently could not tame.
Trump professes to like “nice” things. People: not so much. He is a nonstop trash-talker. It does not help that the President’s grasp of language is limited. He and all of us are captives to the same name-calling that recycles endlessly. You know his favored terms of invective by now: “corrupt” “evil,” “crooked,” “failing,” “dishonest,” “crazy,” “phoney,” “Lyin,” “weak,” “vermin,” “wacko,” “nasty,” and so on. These are used in various combinations to describe the miriad ways others manage to spoil his world.
This is vitriol 101: the simple and tired language of a hater who lacks the capability to expand thoughts into more complex formulations. He uses Old Testament certainty that bolsters his own self-regard while diminishing others. People like Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff are “horrible persons.” Journalists are from outlets that are “crooked,” “fake news” or “Lyin.'” Hecklers should be “roughed up.” Political enemies are “Communists, Marxists, fascists, and radical-left thugs.” It is our misfortune that Trump thrives on ad hominem attacks that would be considered out of bounds by any high school debater.
A key presidential role is to act as a celebrant of all things American. It is not compatible with a person who needs to use the language of a misanthrope. Presidential rhetoric usually includes references to the generosity of others, the grace to not make every moment about oneself, and the impulse to resist another’s victimization in favor of pointing out the humanity they share with all others. For example, John Kennedy generally refrained from attacking any individual in personal terms. Instead, if he needed to, he focused on the faulty ideas that the individual favored, preserving his chances to protect his office. This norm of generosity is now violated every day. Will we remember what we lost?
Simplistic reduction is a necessary way to organize our thoughts about the world. We feel safe noting that “Italians love to cook,” or “Scandinavian men are taciturn,” or “Canadians are always nice.” But I have known mean Canadians, talkative Swedes, and Italians who are indifferent eaters. Every broad conclusion where one is intended to stand for many has huge limitations. I rue the judgment of British journalists that “America is no longer a reliable friend.” That hurts because most of us have not done anything to shake our faith and affection for our British cousins. The statist approach to world news may make it easy to toss around glib conclusions. But that only works when a synecdoche is used as a blind to conceal many exceptions that those with time constraints don’t want to explain.