Nicely said. Theodore Roosevelt also said “The phrase-maker, the phrase-monger, the ready talker, however great his power, whose speech does not make for courage, sobriety, and right understanding, is simply a noxious element in the body politic, and it speaks ill for the public if he has influence over them. To admire the gift of oratory without regard to the moral quality behind the gift is to do wrong to the republic.”
What you say about the first attempt to kill Trump is true. Like you, I don't admire Trump as a person. Yes, he tends to turn everything into a story about himself. And he's certainly not in the same presidential league as Roosevelt. But these are not good enough reasons for succumbing to cynicism.
Though not a mind reader, I suspect that Trump had something else (or at least more than one thing) in mind immediately after that shot. He might well have been trying to prevent mass hysteria, for instance, which could have endangered many other people. Moreover, I suspect that he was reacting defiantly to years of demonization--not only of himself but also of his followers. Could it not be that he felt obliged to give them some sign of encouragement?
This would not be an unreasonable interpretation and, ordinarily, I'd be inclined to charity in judging anyone's actions in a shooting. But.... In the hours and days and weeks following, if that person consistently used the incident in the shallowest, most self-promoting way possible -- and if this person had a lifelong history of shallow self-promotion -- I think it is wilful blindness to ignore all that and continue to charitably interpret the event itself.
We live in an age of shallow self-promotion, Dan. Surely you have noticed how politicians on the opposite side of the political spectrum pump themselves up by spending other people's money extravagantly on their morality crusades, how they virtue-signal from their institutional pulpits at the drop of every hat. Trump is *hardly* unique in this respect; he is closer to the norm these days. Canada's blackface Prime Minister is the epitome of shallow self-promotion, even in the teeth of ample evidence of his own moral vacuity. It seems to be what people fall for. FDR lived in a different time and culture. One can prefer the FDR model without being transparently partisan about it.
Grant, surprise! I actually agree! The culture has become vastly more accepting of chest-beating self-promotion. I don’t agree Trump is not unusual — he’s still an extreme case — but it’s an interesting point that highlights an important and broad cultural trend.
But you just had to turn this into an attack on my supposed partisan motivations because, well,
that’s what you do with the predictability of a well-tuned clock.
Well, no, not at all. "Intellectualizing" the partisanship makes it all the more effective. Partisanship wrapped in the guise of an objective exercise fools a lot of middling intellects. (Self-deception is a powerful part of human psychology.)
I'm not being "charitable" as an end in itself. I'm trying to say that reality is more complicated than you suggest.
I'm not aware that Trump has any affinity for religion. And yet it's natural in emergencies to think that God intervenes to save people from disasters. This is called "foxhole religion." It's very common but also very naïve. The same God who presumably intervened to save Trump, after all, did not intervene to save others. My point is that people are not consistent, certainly not Trump.
And if you're going to denounce Trump's immediate reaction to being shot, let alone his later interpretation of it, then it's surely "wilful blindness" to ignore the reactions and interpretations of his hostile adversaries as well. These were hardly edifying. A few openly wished that he had been killed, and I suspect (given their years of openly demonizing him as Hitler) that many others did so privately. In any case, both sides found ways of exploiting the event for their own political purposes. It's not as if people on either side took seriously their common and stated goal of toning down the polarizing rhetoric.
I don't know that your interpretation is any more "complicated" than mine. Of course it is possible yours is right and mine wrong. But given the abundant evidence, both before the shooting and after... I'll stick with mine, thanks.
As to your last point, I agree. So many of the reactions were appalling. But they are simply not relevant to the point of my article, so I don't see how I was "wilfully blind" to them.
It is also true that Trump is an old man who could be enjoying the fruits of his considerable business success instead of tramping around obscure parts of the country to political rallies while taking heat - much of it underserved and hyperbolic - from 90% of the world's pundits. I think it is beyond cynical to suggest that Trump is doing this purely out of shallow self-promotion and not because he actually loves America and wants to "make it great again." You might disagree with him about what American "greatness" consists in, and on how to achieve it, but I don't think you can honestly deny the sincerity of Trump's desire for a change in direction from the past 30 years. The "Fight, fight, fight!" fist pump looked 100% spontaneous and genuine to me - and I'm as cynical as they come where politicians are concerned.
It also reveals a lot about the character of a pundit when they jump on the bandwagon to throw shade on an old man who is trying to save his country from falling off a dozen cliffs at once.
Everyone who has ever run for President of the USA has a big ego. You must be an egomaniac to think you are worthy of the task. Here's what Barack Obama said upon winning the Democratic nomination: “...this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."
All this discussion about trump’s “fight, fight, fight” reaction just highlights to me his true genius in self-promotion. That’s a skill to be envied, and I bet Putin and Orban took notes.
As for Elon, I used to admire him so much. Now I can’t stand the guy. Like every other power-sniffing oligarch, he’s hitched his trailer to the one he can most manipulate. In his case, Elon wants deregulation. Apparently he can’t stand those tedious safety rules for rockets and spaceships. Those bureaucrats don’t seem to appreciate his genius. You know who else felt the safety rules were for losers? That guy who built the Titan submersible. And we all know how that turned out…
I came across your substack, read this piece, and am COMPLETELY HOOKED! As an ambulatory wheelchair user(Spina Bifida), I will never climb a flight of stairs, but I am tough as hell and will fight with every last breathe of mine to deafeat this fascist and his entire maga fascist party! I am becoming a paid subscriber now!
Thanks for an interesting piece. A nice reflection as well on the tendency to take one single data point and attribute much more importance to it than can be reasonably inferred. Most of the promotion of the moment focusses almost entirely on that moment, that photo, as an indication of character and value. However, as you outline there ought to be much more looked at around the moment if we want to glean any insights as to the full character of the individual.
Another element of the Trump and supporters response which feels problematic is the need to argue his worth as something God-given. That is, God spared him for a higher purpose. And Trump has played off that issue all the while neglecting what that might mean about God’s assessment of others killed or injured.
In ordinary times, Dan, there would be no need to say much more than you did. But these are not ordinary times, not when half the country hates, or comes close to hating, the other half. There's a context to the assassination attempt but also to your essay.
It's true that our political system is inherently adversarial, as are the legal system and the academic system. And that's a good thing in some ways. But when any adversarial method or strategy becomes an end in itself, takes on a life of its own, then we're all in big trouble. So, yes, I think that we need desperately not only to speak but also to think very carefully about anything that is likely to foster contempt for either side and therefore to reinforce what I call "selective cynicism"--especially, but not only, just before and just after an election that has taken on apocalyptic overtones.
Unless, of course, your site really is a politically partisan one. I wouldn't be reading your essays at all if that were the case.
My piece compares how two presidents responded to almost being assassinated. That's it. To add "but here are some Democrats saying bad things" even though those things are completely irrelevant to the essay would be an intellectually dishonest way to say, "see, the score-card is balanced, so congratulate me for being even-handed." In its own way, that would be to allow partisanship to steer the writing. And no, my writing is not and never will be partisan. (Not least because I'm Canadian!)
You make the comparison more partisan than it needs to be by failing to note that these two presidents lived and functioned in two very different cultures. The inter-war depression era selected for stoic men of action; in the tik-tok era, politicians are selected for their shallow self-promotion.
Excellent article Dan! Who knew Musk was such a fool. However it is very evident he’s not alone. I still cannot reconcile the fact that nearly half of the American voting population see, not only anything of value in Trump, but that he deserves to occupy their White House once again. Will this election be a true test of character for the American electorate?
Calling the man who might be the smartest on the planet these days a “fool” would be foolish indeed. Calling Kackala a fool might actually be a sign of wisdom.
Oh Elon’s no fool, but he’s an opportunist and has developed delusions of grandeur. Seems to happen to a lot of the ultra-rich. I’m a genius! Who else is better-suited to rule than moi?
So it doesn’t give me an option to upgrade to paid. If anyone reads this and can help; please do. I am on the website and subscribed, but no option. Thanks!
Hi Lisa: I’m writing a book so I can only write here very occasionally. Hence I’ve turned off paid subscriptions for now. I expect to get back to writing seriously here early next year and will turn paid subscriptions back then. Thanks for asking! Dan
Nicely said. Theodore Roosevelt also said “The phrase-maker, the phrase-monger, the ready talker, however great his power, whose speech does not make for courage, sobriety, and right understanding, is simply a noxious element in the body politic, and it speaks ill for the public if he has influence over them. To admire the gift of oratory without regard to the moral quality behind the gift is to do wrong to the republic.”
This is fine writing, Dan. Thank you. Also, I did not know that it was Roosevelt who said that, about fear.
What you say about the first attempt to kill Trump is true. Like you, I don't admire Trump as a person. Yes, he tends to turn everything into a story about himself. And he's certainly not in the same presidential league as Roosevelt. But these are not good enough reasons for succumbing to cynicism.
Though not a mind reader, I suspect that Trump had something else (or at least more than one thing) in mind immediately after that shot. He might well have been trying to prevent mass hysteria, for instance, which could have endangered many other people. Moreover, I suspect that he was reacting defiantly to years of demonization--not only of himself but also of his followers. Could it not be that he felt obliged to give them some sign of encouragement?
This would not be an unreasonable interpretation and, ordinarily, I'd be inclined to charity in judging anyone's actions in a shooting. But.... In the hours and days and weeks following, if that person consistently used the incident in the shallowest, most self-promoting way possible -- and if this person had a lifelong history of shallow self-promotion -- I think it is wilful blindness to ignore all that and continue to charitably interpret the event itself.
We live in an age of shallow self-promotion, Dan. Surely you have noticed how politicians on the opposite side of the political spectrum pump themselves up by spending other people's money extravagantly on their morality crusades, how they virtue-signal from their institutional pulpits at the drop of every hat. Trump is *hardly* unique in this respect; he is closer to the norm these days. Canada's blackface Prime Minister is the epitome of shallow self-promotion, even in the teeth of ample evidence of his own moral vacuity. It seems to be what people fall for. FDR lived in a different time and culture. One can prefer the FDR model without being transparently partisan about it.
Grant, surprise! I actually agree! The culture has become vastly more accepting of chest-beating self-promotion. I don’t agree Trump is not unusual — he’s still an extreme case — but it’s an interesting point that highlights an important and broad cultural trend.
But you just had to turn this into an attack on my supposed partisan motivations because, well,
that’s what you do with the predictability of a well-tuned clock.
Well, you throwing shade on Trump at every opportunity - even in this life-and-death moment - is also as predictable as a well-tuned clock, Dan.
If my intent were to “throw shade,” I think I might have taken a different route than telling an obscure story from 90 years ago.
Well, no, not at all. "Intellectualizing" the partisanship makes it all the more effective. Partisanship wrapped in the guise of an objective exercise fools a lot of middling intellects. (Self-deception is a powerful part of human psychology.)
I'm not being "charitable" as an end in itself. I'm trying to say that reality is more complicated than you suggest.
I'm not aware that Trump has any affinity for religion. And yet it's natural in emergencies to think that God intervenes to save people from disasters. This is called "foxhole religion." It's very common but also very naïve. The same God who presumably intervened to save Trump, after all, did not intervene to save others. My point is that people are not consistent, certainly not Trump.
And if you're going to denounce Trump's immediate reaction to being shot, let alone his later interpretation of it, then it's surely "wilful blindness" to ignore the reactions and interpretations of his hostile adversaries as well. These were hardly edifying. A few openly wished that he had been killed, and I suspect (given their years of openly demonizing him as Hitler) that many others did so privately. In any case, both sides found ways of exploiting the event for their own political purposes. It's not as if people on either side took seriously their common and stated goal of toning down the polarizing rhetoric.
I don't know that your interpretation is any more "complicated" than mine. Of course it is possible yours is right and mine wrong. But given the abundant evidence, both before the shooting and after... I'll stick with mine, thanks.
As to your last point, I agree. So many of the reactions were appalling. But they are simply not relevant to the point of my article, so I don't see how I was "wilfully blind" to them.
It is also true that Trump is an old man who could be enjoying the fruits of his considerable business success instead of tramping around obscure parts of the country to political rallies while taking heat - much of it underserved and hyperbolic - from 90% of the world's pundits. I think it is beyond cynical to suggest that Trump is doing this purely out of shallow self-promotion and not because he actually loves America and wants to "make it great again." You might disagree with him about what American "greatness" consists in, and on how to achieve it, but I don't think you can honestly deny the sincerity of Trump's desire for a change in direction from the past 30 years. The "Fight, fight, fight!" fist pump looked 100% spontaneous and genuine to me - and I'm as cynical as they come where politicians are concerned.
It also reveals a lot about the character of a pundit when they jump on the bandwagon to throw shade on an old man who is trying to save his country from falling off a dozen cliffs at once.
Well, then, be sure to show your support by buying your “Fight! Fight! Fight!” T-shirt. Only $35 plus shipping and handling.
Nah, I think I'll stick with my Che Guevara T-shirt and Mao cap, thanks.
I don't like the commercialization of everything in this day and age any more than you do, Dan. That doesn't negate my point.
Your point? That the great businessman Donald Trump is selflessly struggling to save the country? I didn’t intend to negate it. It needs no negation.
Everyone who has ever run for President of the USA has a big ego. You must be an egomaniac to think you are worthy of the task. Here's what Barack Obama said upon winning the Democratic nomination: “...this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."
All this discussion about trump’s “fight, fight, fight” reaction just highlights to me his true genius in self-promotion. That’s a skill to be envied, and I bet Putin and Orban took notes.
As for Elon, I used to admire him so much. Now I can’t stand the guy. Like every other power-sniffing oligarch, he’s hitched his trailer to the one he can most manipulate. In his case, Elon wants deregulation. Apparently he can’t stand those tedious safety rules for rockets and spaceships. Those bureaucrats don’t seem to appreciate his genius. You know who else felt the safety rules were for losers? That guy who built the Titan submersible. And we all know how that turned out…
I came across your substack, read this piece, and am COMPLETELY HOOKED! As an ambulatory wheelchair user(Spina Bifida), I will never climb a flight of stairs, but I am tough as hell and will fight with every last breathe of mine to deafeat this fascist and his entire maga fascist party! I am becoming a paid subscriber now!
Lisa💙
Thanks for an interesting piece. A nice reflection as well on the tendency to take one single data point and attribute much more importance to it than can be reasonably inferred. Most of the promotion of the moment focusses almost entirely on that moment, that photo, as an indication of character and value. However, as you outline there ought to be much more looked at around the moment if we want to glean any insights as to the full character of the individual.
Another element of the Trump and supporters response which feels problematic is the need to argue his worth as something God-given. That is, God spared him for a higher purpose. And Trump has played off that issue all the while neglecting what that might mean about God’s assessment of others killed or injured.
A quick synopsis of Reagan’s response to his assassination attempt would have been an interesting addition to your perceptive article.
In ordinary times, Dan, there would be no need to say much more than you did. But these are not ordinary times, not when half the country hates, or comes close to hating, the other half. There's a context to the assassination attempt but also to your essay.
It's true that our political system is inherently adversarial, as are the legal system and the academic system. And that's a good thing in some ways. But when any adversarial method or strategy becomes an end in itself, takes on a life of its own, then we're all in big trouble. So, yes, I think that we need desperately not only to speak but also to think very carefully about anything that is likely to foster contempt for either side and therefore to reinforce what I call "selective cynicism"--especially, but not only, just before and just after an election that has taken on apocalyptic overtones.
Unless, of course, your site really is a politically partisan one. I wouldn't be reading your essays at all if that were the case.
My piece compares how two presidents responded to almost being assassinated. That's it. To add "but here are some Democrats saying bad things" even though those things are completely irrelevant to the essay would be an intellectually dishonest way to say, "see, the score-card is balanced, so congratulate me for being even-handed." In its own way, that would be to allow partisanship to steer the writing. And no, my writing is not and never will be partisan. (Not least because I'm Canadian!)
You make the comparison more partisan than it needs to be by failing to note that these two presidents lived and functioned in two very different cultures. The inter-war depression era selected for stoic men of action; in the tik-tok era, politicians are selected for their shallow self-promotion.
Excellent article Dan! Who knew Musk was such a fool. However it is very evident he’s not alone. I still cannot reconcile the fact that nearly half of the American voting population see, not only anything of value in Trump, but that he deserves to occupy their White House once again. Will this election be a true test of character for the American electorate?
Calling the man who might be the smartest on the planet these days a “fool” would be foolish indeed. Calling Kackala a fool might actually be a sign of wisdom.
Oh Elon’s no fool, but he’s an opportunist and has developed delusions of grandeur. Seems to happen to a lot of the ultra-rich. I’m a genius! Who else is better-suited to rule than moi?
Hard to call his extraordinary success a “vision” of grandeur.
So it doesn’t give me an option to upgrade to paid. If anyone reads this and can help; please do. I am on the website and subscribed, but no option. Thanks!
Hi Lisa: I’m writing a book so I can only write here very occasionally. Hence I’ve turned off paid subscriptions for now. I expect to get back to writing seriously here early next year and will turn paid subscriptions back then. Thanks for asking! Dan
I, too, am Canadian. As you know, the same polarization exists here.