Well once again there is an abundance of riches available for columnists to write about. "Why, oh why," I say, "do all the stories unfold at the same time?" Shoving matches in the House of Commons, the potential for a contested or just plain ugly Democratic convention, and more primaries to report on but this week I see a real opportunity to discuss political rhetoric. If I was teaching my class right now I would definitely stop and open up a conversation about the tone and structure of the Trump campaign.
I was struck this week by the response to the New York Times May 14th cover story about Donald Trump's treatment of women. In case you didn't see the article it is called: "Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump behaved with women in private (Interviews reveal unwelcome advances, a shrewd reliance on ambition, and unsettling workplace conduct over decades)" by Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey. The article goes all the way back to Trump's boarding school days and chronicles his many personal and professional relationships with women over his career.
The reactions were swift and came from all sides: from commentators, from some of the women mentioned in the article, from political opponents, from Trump supporters including his daughter and from Trump himself. He tweeted: "Everyone is laughing at the @nytimes for the lame hit piece they did on me and women. I gave them many names of women I helped-refused to use."
Typically, what followed was the usual 24-hour news cycle response. The cycle is fairly routine: report the story and then invite reaction. I am going to pick on CNN because I happened to be listening to them but they are not the only outlet to rely on the "balanced story approach" which, in this case, is to invite two women on to argue about the merits of the article and the veracity of the claims. The commentators tussle back and forth: "he is a misogynist"; "he isn't a misogynist"; "he has hired women"; "he has been rude and offensive to women"; "many women love him"; "many women hate him"; and the comments goes back and forth and we aren't left with any analysis.
The balanced approach, in which two people simply shout at each other across a table, is not really useful to us as critical thinkers. Trump's words and actions need to be seen in a larger context about the way he presents himself and his ideas on the political stage.
For this analysis, I harken back to a column I wrote in September 2013. I wrote then: "During the summer I had the chance to see a play performed that has come to have a rather profound impact on my thinking over the last few months. The play by David Campton is entitled "Us and Them" and it tells the story of two groups who travel to the same place only to discover they will have to share the land.
Very quickly the "sharing" defaults to the usual sandbox games where petty comments escalate into full blown suspicion and walls are erected to keep out the 'neighbours.' The us and them attitudes are all about fears of the unknown and fears of cultures subsuming cultures. There are no redeeming characteristics among these individuals who all fall in line to justify the building of the wall."
Donald Trump's rhetoric constructs people as "them" or as "others." Trump tends to focus on categories of people and then comments on groups as a whole.
"Women" constitute just one group but this approach is obvious in all of his discussions that reference groups. He says, "the blacks, the Latinos, the Asians." The problem with the rhetoric of "othering" (which is the habit of referring to people as "not one of us") is that it can leads to stereotypes and to the implication that there is an "us and a them."
The outcry over a recent Trump's tweet that said, "The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!" is an example of the inappropriate stereotyping for which he is now well known.
While it is true that there may be differences in practices among cultures, religions, and gender, all the groups share their humanity. The fact is that othering is how walls get built.
Pun intended.
