Trump the Divider

Antiochus argues that Trump has been divisive.

Trump is obviously a divisive figure—witness this discussion—but the times may call for this.

There are times when being divisive is the proper thing to do, and unity is wrong. Martin Luther King was profoundly divisive. Lech Walesa was divisive. Churchill was a famously divisive figure in the UK in the years leading up to the Second World War. It is “divisive” whenever a cop arrests a suspect, or a judge passes a sentence. I’d guess it’s a fifty-fifty proposition whether in any given situation divisiveness or unity is called for. The matter needs to be looked at case by case.

My strong sense is that there has been a growing divisiveness in North American and “Western” society for some time; for decades. Trump’s rise is a symptom and a result of that, not its cause. Since it pre-existed Trump, there is a decent chance he turns out to be the cure.

Actually, my conclusion from the discussion is that Antiochus, and others with TDS, despise Trump as a matter of taste; of aesthetics. Many people dislike tall tales too; and the reaction looks similar.

I remember when I was in China, and a shabby tent went up in a park nearby, with tatty cloth banners promising punters the sight of an exotic pig from Africa and a two-headed lady if you paid two yuan to go inside.

And my students solemnly cautioned me that it was a cheat. I had a hard time getting them to let me go in. I think they thought I was an idiot for paying the two yuan.

Of course I knew there was not a two-headed lady in the tent. Just as anyone should know, when they watch a movie, that those are not real people and real events. Same thing as with all art: an exercise of the imagination, a willing suspension of disbelief. No different for a tall tale.

So I was delighted to give them my two yuan—about 25 cents.

The pig from Africa was a guinea pig. Not quite right—Guinea is in Africa, but the critter is actually from South America, I believe. And the two-headed lady was a pickled snake. It may well have been a pickled female snake, for all I know.

After enjoying—yes, enjoying—a few more exhibits, I turned to leave.

And could not get out the door.

A huge crowd had come in behind me. I’m guessing to see an exotic new exhibit—me.

The barkers outside knew their trade.

I found it all great fun.

I find Trump fun to listen to in a similar way. So I gather do a lot of people. That’s why they come in such numbers to his rallies: great free entertainment.

I imagine some people would also find P.T. Barnum a bad sort for his art; or Walt Disney, or Shakespeare. It is not rare to find people hostile to artists in general. Plato thought all poets lied.

One can certainly accuse Trump of self-promotion. He made his money by selling the “Trump” name as a brand. It is his business to promote that brand. Faulting him for it seems like faulting an actor for making you think they are some character they are not. Or hating Jim Carrey because you think he is the Grinch.

This is at worst all about words, not what he has done. It looks like an aesthetic concern. I dislike jazz; I dislike realistic plays. Yet it seems wrong to get this worked up about it; so worked up you will ignore his actions in office.

Consider Antiochus’s original email:

"It's almost impossible to believe he exists. It's as if we took everything that was bad about America, scraped it up off the floor, wrapped it all up in an old hot dog skin, and then taught it to make noises with its face."

--Anthony Citrano

The fact that it was a joke also does not mean it was uncontroversial.

Imagine the same joke with “Jews” the subject instead of Trump:

“It's almost impossible to believe they exist. It's as if we took everything that was bad about Europe, scraped it up off the floor, wrapped it all up in old sausage skins, and then taught them to make noises that sound like German with their face."

Perhaps it is not so bad when it is just about one person? At worst, assassination is not genocide.

But then again, if Trump is so awful, it tends to imply that anyone who supports him is also awful.

It is surely too extreme to suggest that this kind of talk might, again, end in mass murder and general war. But that is where it is trending.

By comparison, how can anyone accuse Trump of being divisive?

Why can’t there be peace and civil dialogue instead?