Call it “The Narrative,” or memes, or misinformation or whatever you want to call it, but it is time people actually listened to the President of The United States. He is unconventional, particularly in political circles. He speaks as if uneducated. He lacks erudition. But you know what, in this era of grade inflation and poor performing universities, that just might be a plus. If you actually listen to what he is saying, instead of forming an opinion based almost entirely on how he is saying it, I think you’ll find he is not nearly the monster everybody says he is. I want to consider two examples in this piece.
Let’s start with his post after the death of Robert Mueller – a post that drew nearly universal condemnation, Here it is in full:
Robert Mueller just died. Good, I am glad he is dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people! President DONALD J TRUMP
For starters, Do you have any idea how hard it was to find that full actual quotation? Not just an excerpt of the “Good, I am glad he is dead” part, but the whole thing. Most of what I was able to find was a screen shot in a video that was not actually on screen long enough to read it through unless you are a very rapid reader. I found a few screenshot stills embedded in commentary, but all behind expensive paywalls. The Facebook post just linked was the only thing I could find that was universally accessible. So, it was very difficult for people to read the whole thing, in context.
Now, the next thing to note is that while his lack of sympathy for Mueller is is graceless, crude and crass – it is also born of charity for others. Mueller did Trump grievous personal harm and he does not want such harm to befall anyone else. In full context, Trump’s post is an expression of a charitable impulse – just not directed at Mueller. Honest commentators have pointed out, after an adequate mourning period, that the end of Mueller’s career, his time prosecuting DJT, was a disaster all the way around – harmful not just to DJT but to the law itself.
Trump’s post, while graceless, crude and crass, is charitable and truthful. But no one listened, no one considered, everyone simply piled on. People reacted to Trump’s delivery, not Trump’s message.
Which brings me to the second example. It is now commonly accepted “wisdom” that the President has not adequately declared the aims and goals of military conflict with Iran. OK, no, there has never been a set piece speech with bullet points clearly delineated. But that does not means the aims and goals are not firmly established and well understood, unless you are such a Trump-hating imbecile that you do not bother to listen. Many times, many ways, he has made his aims clear, while also retaining his freedom to make decisions in the moment. The aim is simple and well stated – he wants to eliminate the Islamic Republic of Iran as an evil actor and destabilizing force on the world stage – and particularly end any nuclear ambitions that regime may have.
But what does that look like? The fact of the matter is we don’t know. What would the occupation of Germany have looked like at the conclusion of the War in Europe had Hitler not committed suicide? What would it have looked like to invade Japan had the Emperor not surrendered after the atomic bombs were dropped? We don’t know. The president has stated his aims very clearly, but no one has a clue what it will look like when those aims are achieved. So what is unclear is what the state of affairs will look like when hostilities end. And when the Trump-hating commentariat rails on and on about the unclear aims of the war, what they are actually looking for is a commitment to some state of affairs that will end hostilities – they are asking for something no one can know.
Let’s do a thought experiment. If we were treated to a president whose common mode of speech was what used to be called “Ebonics.” If people started writing such an individual off as ignorant and inarticulate, how long would it take for the cries of “prejudice,” “bigotry” and “racism” to spread across the land? My guess is less than ten seconds. So why is that different than writing off this president because his mode of communication does not rise to your standards? Seriously, just who is the bigot in this circumstance?
Trump can be crude, crass and graceless. That’s a fact. But why does the story end there? Why does that fact therefore disqualify everything else the man says and even the context in which he says it?
You want to understand POTUS? Listen to him, actually listen to him.
