On a Tweet-Drizzle on Trump’s Honest Dishonesty

I suspect many poll respondents do not separate “appearance of emotional authenticity” from “verbal approximation of factual truth” in polls such as the one Mr. Bouie finds “bewildering,” in which “45% see [Trump] as honest and trustworthy, but it goes lower, to 36%, for Clinton.” Setting aside, as we must in order to comment on the political campaigns, the encompassing inanity of the terms of discussion, we can further observe that the answer “he is more honest” replicates the same pattern: The answer itself may be an “honest” as in “honestly dishonest” answer in the minds of such respondents, meaning they can both “honestly” and “dishonestly-honestly” judge Trump “honestly a liar,” a liar true to himself as a liar, while Clinton remains for them a “dishonest truthteller.”1

Bouie is hardly alone in his mystification. In an essay from May2, David Frum predicted that the reaction to Trump’s dishonesty, or his honest dishonesty, would be “the hardest [part of this story] to explain after it’s all over”: 

Trump did not deceive anyone. Unlike, say, Sarah Palin in 2008, Trump appeared before the electorate in his own clothes, speaking his own words. When he issued a promise, he instantly contradicted it. If you chose to accept the promise anyway, you did so with abundant notice of its worthlessness. For all the times Trump said believe me and trust me in his salesman patter, he communicated constantly and in every medium that there was only thing you could believe and trust: If you voted for Donald Trump, you’d get Donald Trump, in all his Trumpery and Trumpiness.

Trump may be relentlessly mendacious, but he is not simply mendacious, or, to put it paradoxically, and not for the last time, he is so simply and obviously dishonest that there is, in this sense, no question of his honesty and openness. As Frum puts it, Trump “appear[s] in his own clothes, speaking his own words.” He gives “abundant notice.” Trump voters know that they will get the authentic Donald Trump.

This paradoxical conversion into a version of virtue, of a diametrical opposite of virtue may in a lover or an artist or in the daily life of a citizen of this world count as a necessity, perhaps a dreadful necessity or nothing honorable in the old sense. In a leader the quality is contrary to the minimal functional requirements for any form of non-tyrannical governance, especially to those of a self-governing liberal-democratic republic. This disrelation between Trumpism and rational political discourse makes it incompatible with American-ideological conservatism, which means to be reasonable, but not with the reductive, likewise emotionally rather than rationally authentic version of American-national conservatism, the conservatism that would be conservatism for us because we recognize it and the recognition of it, and so on, as altogether ours and ourselves all together.

The rump of faithful “movement conservatives” among the politerati strenuously insist that Trump is not authentically a conservative, and will have in mind his lacking commitment to small government or other elements of Reagan Era dogma. Yet we cannot say that Trump’s firstly and even only emotionally authentic form of conservatism is not a conservatism at all. The Trumpian conservatism that is conservatism because people who call themselves conservative deem it to be and thus convince their enemies as well to call them by that name connects here to the simplistic nationalism of the alt-right, the traditional conservatism of attachment to “one’s own,” however “one’s own” defines itself (always circularly: how one defines oneself pre-determines how one may define oneself): Thymos, emotional energy of collective self-assertion, the generation of the something worth dying for out of itself, is also authentically conservable.

Where we seem to differ, or are not in fact all together, is over what “our own” can and should be, not over its indispensability, which would be the indispensability of us to ourselves, whoever we are or manage to find in the historical mirror. The merely or mainly emotionally authentic nation is and cannot be the state from which the citizen expects reason strictly, or the liberal state, but that latter state cannot be at all without knowing that other, its contradiction, as also itself.

Notes:

  1. My own drizzle of tweets replying to Bouie and Digby, on which this post expands, can be found here. []
  2. Donald Trump and the Seven Broken Guardrails of Democracy – The Atlantic []
Lanced Infinity

WordPresser
Home Page Public Email Twitter Facebook YouTube Github  

WordPresser: Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001.

Posted in notes, Political Philosophy, Politics Tagged with: , , ,
Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related Posts:

Noted & Quoted

(0)

President Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics.

The allegations, if true, would appear to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics, even as US-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse.

Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million (£8 million) annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP.

Comment →
(0)

The texts, posted on a darknet website run by a hacktivist collective, appear to show Manafort’s family fretting about the ethics, safety and consequences of his work for Yanukovych. And they reveal that Manafort’s two daughters regarded their father’s emergence as a key player on Trump’s presidential campaign with a mixture of pride and embarrassment.

In one exchange, daughter Jessica Manafort writes “Im not a trump supporter but i am still proud of dad tho. He is the best at what he does.” Her sister Andrea Manafort responded by referring to their father’s relationship with Trump as “The most dangerous friendship in America,” while in another exchange she called them “a perfect pair” of “power-hungry egomaniacs,” and asserted “the only reason my dad is doing this campaign is for sport. He likes the challenge. It's like an egomaniac's chess game. There's no money motivation.”

By contrast, the Manafort daughters and their mother seemed much more unsettled about Paul Manafort’s work as a political consultant for Yanukovych’s Russia-backed Party of Regions, which is a subject of renewed interest among investigators probing possible links between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

In one March 2015 exchange that appears to be between the two sisters, Andrea Manafort seems to suggest that their father bore some responsibility for the deaths of protesters at the hands of police loyal to Yanukovych during a monthslong uprising that started in late 2013.

“Don't fool yourself,” Andrea Manafort wrote. “That money we have is blood money.”

Comment →
(1)

If there's anything mitigating the bad news for the White House here, it is that Comey may have also sent subtle signals that the matters under investigation are not principally about the personal conduct of Trump himself. While this is speculation, I do not believe that if Comey had, say, validated large swaths of the Steele dossier or found significant Trump-Russia financial entanglements of a compromising variety, he would have said even as much as he said today. I also don't think he would have announced the scope of the investigation as about the relationship "between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government" or "coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts"; these words suggest one step of removal from investigating the President himself. If the latter were the case, I suspect Comey wouldn't have used words suggestive of the Flynn-Manafort-Page cabal.

But that's reading a lot into a relatively small number of tea leaves. What is clear is that this was a very bad day for the President. In it, we learned that there is an open-ended Russia investigation with no timetable for completion, one that's going hang over Trump's head for a long time, and one to which the FBI director is entirely committed.

Comment →

State of the Discussion

bob
Ignored
Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Yeah, I read C's comments as trying to do a variety of things at the same time, having the effect of making interpretation more difficult. Any [. . .]
Benjamin Wittes: How to Read What Comey Said Today – Lawfare
bob
Ignored
Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Sure, so why do they have "work Phones" they take home? Even if they don't have fate of the world responsibilities, who they work [. . .]
Isenstadt and Vogel: Paranoia seizes Trump’s White House – POLITICO

In Progress

Support This Site?