Brilliant as always (meaning, the sub-series of poetry).
He's SO stupid. He comes at the subject in an almost Warholian way, without — of course — the grace, precision and clarity of vision...but Warhol was not bright, and Trump makes Warhol look like Don DeLillo.
And really, we've gotten used to it all, but what the hell is he doing with these rally speeches? How is this a "campaign speech"? I guess if you've grown accustomed to extemporizing in front of a crowd of detestable cultish idiots who will cheer whatever you say and must be "rallied," and yet neither you nor they have any idea what's going on in the world or the nation, it would make sense — out of sheer boredom, contempt and anxiety — to drop names and show off.
In the past I've compared Trump to the slightly cooler loser amongst the high school losers, who maybe helps one of the popular pretty girls with her math homework, and, in the lunchroom, regales the other losers with tales of what he saw at her house or the party he was briefly at or anything to get status over them by bragging about how he "totally hangs out" with the cool cliques who actually detest him. Anyway there's an element of self-loathing, a Charles Laughton kind of decadent misery, in the way Trump spends so many hours regaling these ignorant unwashed fools (whom he hates) with his nonsense, knowing it makes no difference what he says.
I can't think of anything else to add. It just gets worse and worse, doesn't it?
On that note, circa 2005 I shared an office with a woman who'd married into real New York wealth (three divorces later sharing an office with me to pay rent on a small apartment). She'd known Trump personally in the 80s and 90s, and said all he wanted in life was to be accepted by the truly elite NYC society, the people with class, old money, taste, memberships in very closed clubs -- and they thought he was a joke. She said he married Marla Maples because that inner circle is very conservative: If it becomes known you knocked up the chorus girl, you marry the chorus girl, at least for a few years, or you're ostracized. He knew if he didn't marry her, he'd never stand a chance. Which he did not anyway, but he seemed to have no idea what a ridiculous and preemptive character he cut, trying to crash events and muscle into private clubs and not a thing to talk about except money, all of which made it only funnier to that circle my coworker briefly held a spot in.
I didn't see primary source evidence, but I recently saw the claim that Nixon actually _could_ have gone to the Harvard Law School, that there were resources available for him physically to get there, but he just didn't feel like he could fit-in.
Trump entertains them. That's it. That's all it is. And they love it. These people don't understand, believe, or care about policies, plans, proposals. Those are all lies anyway, all politicians lie. This is the underbelly of our political system that has always been there, but the pathologies of the 20th century Republican Party has given it their platform, because they have nowhere else to turn for popular support.
And re the message: on any given whistle stop, I think the crowd is like Deadheads – they do not much care WHAT he says, only that they'll get a couple hours of it from the master.
I guess it's too obvious to point out, but it's typical of Trump that he could watch something like that (which he did; you've convinced me) and get nothing from the scene except the broad, basic physical concept of fighting uphill — because, as we know, abstractions like "honor" and "treason" and "sacrifice" (not to mention "secession" and "liberty" and "constitutional amendment" and "reconstruction" and "civil rights") mean nothing to him.
I'm reminded of that old video (from before he entered politics) wherein he was asked to discuss "Citizen Kane" — the only message he could discern from the movie (despite the ton of obvious parallels and resonances) was "He should have gotten a new wife" — meaning, of course, that he missed the part where Kane DID get a new wife; he seemed to be blending the early "breakfast montage" arguments with Emily Monroe Norton Kane and the later screaming matches with Susan Alexander Kane into a single "bad wife" "message." (Trump, of course, "got a new wife" TWICE, so in his mind he's got it up on Kane.)
"Robert E. Lee, who's no longer in favor—did you ever notice it? He's no longer in favor."
Not that it need be said, but this comment again reveals that he has no understanding whatsoever of the Civil War beyond a vague sense that it's got colorful pageantry that his supporters like (a flag; statues etc.) and that the "enemy" disapproves, so he's got to say it slyly...but it's like admitting you like an uncool band or something; it carries no moral weight.
He may not understand that Lincoln — the only president he allows might be "greater" than Trump — was on the other side, or even that it was about slavery.
He's obviously not interested in whether or not Lee or Lincoln was a good person or on the right side, as we might say, just as much as he can't understand why we ordinary folk have problems with Kim Jong Un or Putin. They're *strong*. When Jesus advises him to love his enemies, he thinks it's referring to military opponents, and that makes sense to him because they are his peers. It's just bad luck when they're fighting each other.
Now that you mention it, are there ANY "good" or "bad" people, on any level and at any scale, in Trump's world? Anyone judged by any criteria except what they've done to him or for him? Do morality and ethics exist at all? Or are they invisible; just words like "democracy" and "illegal" (that he will throw around in his tantrums out of mimicry of what seems to get to people)? Is the world composed only of sensations and surfaces ("beautiful" or "disgusting" as they may be)?
I mean there are the rapists and criminals, but they "aren't people," they're "animals," right? Is it as simple as that? White and non-white? Is that why Charlottesville was "very fine people on both sides"?
I'm not sure what to do with "Crooked Hillary," but that's just politics, right? Say what you need to say to get what you want? I mean his other epithets ("li'l", "sleepy," etc.) are all about charisma deficits.
"What they've done to him or for him" is the thing that really engages him on a moral level, who harms him vs. who helps him, and the rest is aimed at his audience within the same dichotomy, treating them as friends (as when he introduces himself as "your favorite president") who share the same enemies (Mexicans and Blacks and antiracist whites who have putatively harmed them, individuals like Hillary who have putatively harmed him).
I like your bringing up charisma, which goes both ways. With historical figures who haven't affected him one way or the other, like Lee or Lincoln, he admires those who have charisma, with which he identifies himself. Lee more than Lincoln, because Lee is such a true gentleman (i.e. a rich slaveowner, he doesn't have to be very specifically aware of that, but he's also named Gone With the Wind as a favorite movie). But Lincoln's a persecuted martyr, like Trump, whose sufferings are equivalent. And then with his real-life enemies, of course he likes to show that they lack charisma while he has it.
Charlottesville was the friends vs. foes of Robert E. Lee; he was giving a shoutout to the former (everybody thinks you're enemies but I don't think you're any worse than the other guys). "Racists never harmed *me*," as Tucker Carlson might say.
Though I sometimes say that about David Brooks (going on about how Lincoln "unified the country"), Trump literally doesn't know. Though as we all remember he does have a connection with those who object to pulling down statues of Lee, some of whom are "very fine people".
But his Lincoln obsession must reside in something other than just the Republican mythology. I think it's the penny. Trump wants his own face on a coin. This provides us a chance to rid ourselves of this muddlesome prat: put his mug on a $2 coin, mint a sackful and present 'em to the Don. He'll be adoring his own microvisage whilst we gently herd him off the national stage...
I do find myself doubly struck by his idea that soldiers learned the no-uphill rule only as recently as Gettysburg, given that as a lad, he was packed off to military school. I don't know how much military history is taught in military school, but I'll bet they spend at least a day on it, which is enough to learn that being on top of a hill has been a known advantage since the days of bronze axes. His brain really is broken in almost every way a human brain can be.
Great analysis, and you're absolutely right about Trump's inability to process the phrase "laid to rest." I can't bear the thought of four more years of this.
I found another take on the speech that you might like....
Brilliant as always (meaning, the sub-series of poetry).
He's SO stupid. He comes at the subject in an almost Warholian way, without — of course — the grace, precision and clarity of vision...but Warhol was not bright, and Trump makes Warhol look like Don DeLillo.
And really, we've gotten used to it all, but what the hell is he doing with these rally speeches? How is this a "campaign speech"? I guess if you've grown accustomed to extemporizing in front of a crowd of detestable cultish idiots who will cheer whatever you say and must be "rallied," and yet neither you nor they have any idea what's going on in the world or the nation, it would make sense — out of sheer boredom, contempt and anxiety — to drop names and show off.
In the past I've compared Trump to the slightly cooler loser amongst the high school losers, who maybe helps one of the popular pretty girls with her math homework, and, in the lunchroom, regales the other losers with tales of what he saw at her house or the party he was briefly at or anything to get status over them by bragging about how he "totally hangs out" with the cool cliques who actually detest him. Anyway there's an element of self-loathing, a Charles Laughton kind of decadent misery, in the way Trump spends so many hours regaling these ignorant unwashed fools (whom he hates) with his nonsense, knowing it makes no difference what he says.
I can't think of anything else to add. It just gets worse and worse, doesn't it?
On that note, circa 2005 I shared an office with a woman who'd married into real New York wealth (three divorces later sharing an office with me to pay rent on a small apartment). She'd known Trump personally in the 80s and 90s, and said all he wanted in life was to be accepted by the truly elite NYC society, the people with class, old money, taste, memberships in very closed clubs -- and they thought he was a joke. She said he married Marla Maples because that inner circle is very conservative: If it becomes known you knocked up the chorus girl, you marry the chorus girl, at least for a few years, or you're ostracized. He knew if he didn't marry her, he'd never stand a chance. Which he did not anyway, but he seemed to have no idea what a ridiculous and preemptive character he cut, trying to crash events and muscle into private clubs and not a thing to talk about except money, all of which made it only funnier to that circle my coworker briefly held a spot in.
That's perfect.
This is known about Trump, and it's reminiscent of Nixon's love/hate relationship with the Eastern Establishment .
I didn't see primary source evidence, but I recently saw the claim that Nixon actually _could_ have gone to the Harvard Law School, that there were resources available for him physically to get there, but he just didn't feel like he could fit-in.
Trump entertains them. That's it. That's all it is. And they love it. These people don't understand, believe, or care about policies, plans, proposals. Those are all lies anyway, all politicians lie. This is the underbelly of our political system that has always been there, but the pathologies of the 20th century Republican Party has given it their platform, because they have nowhere else to turn for popular support.
Similarly, 'Theyʼre all corrupt.' is the cry of the especially corrupt.
And re the message: on any given whistle stop, I think the crowd is like Deadheads – they do not much care WHAT he says, only that they'll get a couple hours of it from the master.
I guess it's too obvious to point out, but it's typical of Trump that he could watch something like that (which he did; you've convinced me) and get nothing from the scene except the broad, basic physical concept of fighting uphill — because, as we know, abstractions like "honor" and "treason" and "sacrifice" (not to mention "secession" and "liberty" and "constitutional amendment" and "reconstruction" and "civil rights") mean nothing to him.
I'm reminded of that old video (from before he entered politics) wherein he was asked to discuss "Citizen Kane" — the only message he could discern from the movie (despite the ton of obvious parallels and resonances) was "He should have gotten a new wife" — meaning, of course, that he missed the part where Kane DID get a new wife; he seemed to be blending the early "breakfast montage" arguments with Emily Monroe Norton Kane and the later screaming matches with Susan Alexander Kane into a single "bad wife" "message." (Trump, of course, "got a new wife" TWICE, so in his mind he's got it up on Kane.)
It's "his favorite film"! Via the redoubtable Erroll Morris:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeQOJZ-QzBk
lol perfect thanks. You've mentioned the Citizen Kane story before, but you're welcome to do it again and again, it's also perfect and I'd forgotten.
"Robert E. Lee, who's no longer in favor—did you ever notice it? He's no longer in favor."
Not that it need be said, but this comment again reveals that he has no understanding whatsoever of the Civil War beyond a vague sense that it's got colorful pageantry that his supporters like (a flag; statues etc.) and that the "enemy" disapproves, so he's got to say it slyly...but it's like admitting you like an uncool band or something; it carries no moral weight.
He may not understand that Lincoln — the only president he allows might be "greater" than Trump — was on the other side, or even that it was about slavery.
He's obviously not interested in whether or not Lee or Lincoln was a good person or on the right side, as we might say, just as much as he can't understand why we ordinary folk have problems with Kim Jong Un or Putin. They're *strong*. When Jesus advises him to love his enemies, he thinks it's referring to military opponents, and that makes sense to him because they are his peers. It's just bad luck when they're fighting each other.
Now that you mention it, are there ANY "good" or "bad" people, on any level and at any scale, in Trump's world? Anyone judged by any criteria except what they've done to him or for him? Do morality and ethics exist at all? Or are they invisible; just words like "democracy" and "illegal" (that he will throw around in his tantrums out of mimicry of what seems to get to people)? Is the world composed only of sensations and surfaces ("beautiful" or "disgusting" as they may be)?
I mean there are the rapists and criminals, but they "aren't people," they're "animals," right? Is it as simple as that? White and non-white? Is that why Charlottesville was "very fine people on both sides"?
I'm not sure what to do with "Crooked Hillary," but that's just politics, right? Say what you need to say to get what you want? I mean his other epithets ("li'l", "sleepy," etc.) are all about charisma deficits.
"What they've done to him or for him" is the thing that really engages him on a moral level, who harms him vs. who helps him, and the rest is aimed at his audience within the same dichotomy, treating them as friends (as when he introduces himself as "your favorite president") who share the same enemies (Mexicans and Blacks and antiracist whites who have putatively harmed them, individuals like Hillary who have putatively harmed him).
I like your bringing up charisma, which goes both ways. With historical figures who haven't affected him one way or the other, like Lee or Lincoln, he admires those who have charisma, with which he identifies himself. Lee more than Lincoln, because Lee is such a true gentleman (i.e. a rich slaveowner, he doesn't have to be very specifically aware of that, but he's also named Gone With the Wind as a favorite movie). But Lincoln's a persecuted martyr, like Trump, whose sufferings are equivalent. And then with his real-life enemies, of course he likes to show that they lack charisma while he has it.
Charlottesville was the friends vs. foes of Robert E. Lee; he was giving a shoutout to the former (everybody thinks you're enemies but I don't think you're any worse than the other guys). "Racists never harmed *me*," as Tucker Carlson might say.
Though I sometimes say that about David Brooks (going on about how Lincoln "unified the country"), Trump literally doesn't know. Though as we all remember he does have a connection with those who object to pulling down statues of Lee, some of whom are "very fine people".
But his Lincoln obsession must reside in something other than just the Republican mythology. I think it's the penny. Trump wants his own face on a coin. This provides us a chance to rid ourselves of this muddlesome prat: put his mug on a $2 coin, mint a sackful and present 'em to the Don. He'll be adoring his own microvisage whilst we gently herd him off the national stage...
I think he doesn't know about very many presidents.
I do find myself doubly struck by his idea that soldiers learned the no-uphill rule only as recently as Gettysburg, given that as a lad, he was packed off to military school. I don't know how much military history is taught in military school, but I'll bet they spend at least a day on it, which is enough to learn that being on top of a hill has been a known advantage since the days of bronze axes. His brain really is broken in almost every way a human brain can be.
We can assume he never saw "Revenge of the Sith."
Great analysis, and you're absolutely right about Trump's inability to process the phrase "laid to rest." I can't bear the thought of four more years of this.
I found another take on the speech that you might like....
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1c6ccrc/what_am_i_going_to_do_with_this_student/#lightbox
Thanks! The Reddit professor is hilarious.
I think Lee fell out of favor as Frederick Douglass became more and more well known.
Fewer people are saying it.
To be clear: you're saying Trump saw this specific movie, or at least this scene?
Yes, the whole thing, dying generals included.
Well if they DID dye them, they didn't use no black!