Tag Archives: John Kennedy

red and black bar

When the Chief Celebrant is Also a Full-Time Hater

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.

Tragic comic masks roman mosaic 2

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?

 

red white blue bar

When Words Do Not Matter

One British shop owner’s reaction after the election of Donald Trump in 2016.  London Evening Standard

We may no longer have the patience to read ourselves into the implicit contracts we must make to meld the private with the public.

I was in high school in April of 1962 when an angry President Kennedy delivered remarks to the nation, expressing his displeasure with the steel industry for raising prices that he thought would prolong a recession. Who remembers presidential comments while running the chaotic maze of high school? For many of us the landscape of national life was different then. Kennedy’s criticism of the steel industry caught our attention because presidents typically did not make disparaging comments about core businesses. With unexpected fury as he noted that “simultaneous actions of United States Steel and other steel corporations, increasing steel prices by some 6 dollars a ton, constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.” As was his habit, he talked about the national values. Hence, the rhetorical blow against “big steel,” which still supplied most of the American carmakers. “Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country, and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer.” The famous Kennedy style of understated affability had been momentarily wiped away by his revulsion. The chill was consequential even for a high schooler. At the time it seemed as if the nation fell silent for just a moment to ponder the weight of his words.

I offer this example in representative contrast to what has unraveled in the years since then. In 1962 Americans noticed a President’s atypical displeasure. How times have changed, with the words of Donald Trump falling like so many lit matches in a dry and empty forest. The pulse quickens from the spectacle, but fewer seem shocked by a national figure who has constructed his persona around daily taunts and obscene asides. Forget a major American industry like steel, no person has been too small to be picked off in a shooting gallery of rhetorical assaults.

The use of presidential rhetoric for incitement and harassment was rare in 1962. Kennedy and his 1960 presidential campaign opponent, Richard Nixon, kept their comments to each other and their supporters civil. Neither sought to use the plentiful indecencies of rhetorical attack to impugn the character of the other. In the end, the steel price hikes were rescinded, and the nation moved on.

trump

Now, it seems, words from former president Donald Trump seem to rush into the vacuum of what passes for civil discourse. We no longer pay much attention because the nonstop roar of hortatory language in the digital world is more distanced and transactional. In a culture of professional shouters we have apparently come to believe that we don’t have time to care. It seems not to matter that a candidate for the Presidency of the United States can suggest that a heckler should “get the hell knocked out of her,” or that he would deploy the military to handle the “enemy from within,” meaning “radical-left lunatics” like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. No wonder former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, has recently noted that the President he served under is “fascist to the core.”  And we should remember that in 2016 Trump indicted himself and the nation even more in the comment that he could “shoot somebody and not lose voters.” As The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum recently wrote, he “has brought dehumanizing language into American presidential politics.”  He has made language a disposable afterthought.

As a rhetorician I have a professional distaste for his sloppy indifference to the advantages of a tempered response. As for his brazen palaver, the acceptance of it by a sizable portion of the county is its own national crisis: maybe less than Kennedy’s confrontation over Cuban Missiles, but certainly more than JFK’s showdown with big steel.

short black line

Because government reaches further into our lives, its rules and stipulations provoke in some a barely dormant impulse to celebrate chaos. 

It follows that his conviction for multiple felonies and an assault on at least one woman seems not to be disqualifying. A discouraging number of Americans have dismissed the details of the former President’s crimes of rebellion against the rule of law. It is no coincidence that the British chose a hasty exit from the EU at about the same time Americans first elected Trump. Both societies behaved like bored middle-schoolers searching for a sense of identity in a confusing world.

The influential conservative writer David Brooks has noted that the United States is “a democracy in decline,” in part because more Americans with lives shrunken to the size of their personal devices are ill suited to deal with pages and paragraphs that are needed to make sense of a complex society. Primary sources have been overwhelmed by influencers and interpreters. With news readership and viewership at record lows, too many distracted owners no longer feel compelled to confront the stressed political environment. It is easy to get comfortable with the realization that no one is really paying much attention.

There are also other forces at work. Speaking in broad strokes, because government reaches further into our lives, its rules and stipulations provoke in some a barely dormant impulse to feed a backlash that celebrates chaos. Many no longer have the patience to read themselves into the implicit contracts with civil institutions such as schools and libraries that meld the private with the public. The ubiquitous use of film violence targeting men offers a clue. It seems to function as an opportunity for vicarious release from the work of living in an interdependent and culturally diverse society. To self-identify as dispossessed is reason enough not to care.