You have to be able to switch up as well as down
Speaking of Trump’s incredibly stunted vocabulary, and the horrifyingly stunted thinking and knowledge that reflects – Trevor Noah said some interesting things about all that on Fresh Air yesterday.
If you look at this election, I feel like Donald Trump was speaking a different language to Hillary Clinton. You know, it’s not dissimilar to what we saw in South Africa with our president Jacob Zuma. I remember sitting with people laughing when they would watch the debates, and they’d go this guy’s a buffoon. Oh, man, he has such a low word count. He’s got the grammar of a 5-year-old. He has the – you know, vocabulary of a toddler. And I said, yeah, but do know how many people find that appealing right now? He’s up there and everybody understands what he’s saying. And they were like, oh, can you imagine this guy as a president? And I said, yeah, but think of how many people who for the first time are listening to a presidential candidate understanding every single, quote, unquote, “policy” that he puts forward.
And sometimes that’s a thing that I will call them, you know, like elites, not even liberal elites, just people who are educated. They forget sometimes that communication is more important than your grasp of language. You know, can you communicate effectively with a person? That’s what I learned as a comedian. I remember one time I went on a little bender I tried to learn as many words as I could from the dictionary. And I thought I’m going to increase my vocabulary on stage. I’m going to expand my word count. My word cloud will be immense.
And I got onstage, and I lost half of the audience because half of the people in the audience were going we don’t know what perambulate means. Why do we have to think about this? And I realized you’ve got to be careful in deciding what your intention is. Are you using language, you know, as a flourish or are you trying to communicate as effectively as possible with another human being? And that’s what Donald Trump, in my opinion, did very, very well.
In other words you have to be good at code switching. That’s how Terry Gross responds to what he said:
GROSS: Do you find yourself code switching in the U.S.?
NOAH: I do. I do definitely, depending on where I am. And code switching is fun for me. You know, I don’t even do it intentionally. I just find, speaking to one person, I change a few words; I change my tone; I change my accent slightly. It’s a seamless transition that I do without even thinking, like a chameleon. I don’t think that I’m doing it. I just do it.
Sure. We all do. Adults code switch when they talk to toddlers, for instance. But I disagree with his last two sentences about Trump –
Are you using language, you know, as a flourish or are you trying to communicate as effectively as possible with another human being? And that’s what Donald Trump, in my opinion, did very, very well.
He did it well in the sense of getting a lot of people on his side. He did not do it well in many other senses that are relevant. He did not for instance do it well in the sense of getting people on his side without inciting them to misogynist and racist hatred. He did not do it well in the sense of telling the truth. He did not do it well in the sense of modeling reasoned political discourse. I could go on.
Also, Trump can’t actually code switch. He can’t code switch in the way he needed to in that meeting with the Times people for instance. He can’t switch up, he can only switch down. That’s no good in a president.
You know who can code switch, of course. The current president is brilliant at it. Remember him at the funeral in Charleston? And his campaign speeches over the past few weeks, too. But Trump has only the one register, and it’s desperately inadequate.
Yeah, I heard that on the radio yesterday, and I didn’t really buy it. I agree that Trump is very skilled at hitting that one audience where they live, but I don’t think he’s good at anything other than taunts. He’s terrible at “riffing,” something Noah praised him for. He doesn’t riff. He doesn’t elaborate or lead you along or work up to a point or keep hammering away from different angles. He just repeats himself over and over, as though he’s stalling for time.
I also thought it was silly to paint Hillary Clinton by comparison as some kind of egghead using three-dollar words. Is there anyone in even the reddest of red zones who watched Hillary and said, “Huh? What the hell is she trying to say? I can’t follow this.”
Ha, funny you should mention it, I went on to talk about the riffing bit in a follow-up post. I struggled with that too. I didn’t feel equipped to disagree outright, because I haven’t watched enough of his campaign speeches to know. I can’t stand watching him, so I’ve seen only short bits.
About the egghead thing – I really don’t know. It seems unlikely to me but that could just be because I’m clueless about it.
Vuvuzela, the one-note trumpet.
I am not an expert, but I didn’t hear a lot of people complaining that they were unable to understand Clinton. They said she wasn’t warm, and deleted email and was crooked. I didn’t hear a lot of complex policy discussion. Most of it was at the level of the local newspaper, which tends to be written at about the eighth grade level. I think if might have been somewhat about sounding “smart” but I also think we are drawing the wrong conclusion. The solution isn’t – or shouldn’t be – talking to ordinary people like 3 year olds, but finding a way to tap into their grown-up self.
And Hillary was promoting the idea that we are all equal citizens, regardless of external differences. This was simply an unpopular message. The press doesn’t want to admit that, because it requires them to recognize that half the country hates the other half.
3-year-olds should not be voting.
It’s surprising just how many people feel outright contempt and hatred for education and educated people. I can think of a large number within my circle of acquaintances (and believe me they are not the sort I seek out). These are not down and out types either. They are generally business owners and trades people. Social conservatives with attitudes towards women, LGBTQ and racial minorities that range from ‘sub-optimal’ to outright fear and loathing. They are invariably people who have minimal education, but enough intelligence and drive to have been at least modestly successful in their chosen field. They invariably dislike and distrust rules, laws and norms of behaviour and will flout these the instant they get the chance.
They struggle to work through complexities and grey areas. They want life to be simple and black and white. They value ”common sense” above all else (see earlier comments on another post about that). they’d rather do well at the expense of other people, because then they’re the winner, than do a little less well alongside others also doing well.
It’s primarily this class of people that Trump and other nationalist and conservative politicians appeals to. They may not be Nazi’s, MRA’s or outright racists per se, but in conversation with their guard down and in voting behaviour it can be hard to see a colour-able difference.
Clinton – I actually thought she was a good, clear communicator. She was also very clearly a careful and educated user of language. The fact that pretty much EVERY thing she said was clear and concise was a red flag to Trump-supporter types, because that is not how they tend to speak and think. Trumps disorganised seemingly rambling 10 word vocabulary resonated with a certain type of people and did so world wide. The political battleground for the next 40 years needs to be education.
You don’t value it until you have it…
Rob -one thing that scares me is how many people hate and dismiss education IN SPITE OF BEING EDUCATED THEMSELVES. When I was working on my doctorate, I had to take two graduate level philosophy courses. The students, intelligent and educated, believed education was 1) unimportant and 2) imperialist. I never figured out why they enrolled in graduate school unless out of self-hatred.
Sorry iknklast, delayed response. I passed out when my head hit the desk harder than usual.
Sorry, Rob, hope the concussion isn’t too bad. Join us again when you’re out of the hospital, okay?
My head hit that desk that hard about 12 years ago…when I encountered this for the first time. That was also the first time I heard a non-creationist, non-believer say that we should teach creationism in the schools because we are majority rule, and the majority want it so (yes, this came out of that same philosophy class). It’s a good thing I have a wider experience with philosophy, or I would have turned into one of those scientists who think there is no value to philosophy. Most of the scientists in our program felt that way, because this was their only encounter with philosophy. It was grim.
The thing is, even with his limited vocabulary, Trump *still* doesn’t end up speaking in coherent sentences most of the time. So much of what he says has half-finished thoughts that suddenly branch off into other topics that also never get finished, except for when what he’s saying is outright word salad.
Yup. He interrupts his own self. It would be funny if only he weren’t…
Ugh how did this happen.
Hot button social media and campaigning protocols don’t support communication like Roosevelt’s affective and effective fireside chats. “The election is not a time to discuss serious issues.” Kim Campbell. In fairness to Campbell she wanted to give substance to her campaign but learned a lesson that campaigns are about party success.
If you (as a politician) lie to a constituency because you think they are stupid–outright lie, lie by omission, lie by misrepresentation–of course the constituency will not respect you. If your reaction to neo-liberal economics is to tell an out of work man in the rust belt that it’s his fault he is unemployed because he did get the right education likely he will not vote for you.
Constituencies are not stupid but political, economic and social issues are complex. It’s the responsibility of a politician to understand and communicate these issues clearly and truthfully, not as mouthpieces for whoever is paying for the campaign. The Chair of a Trade Justice Committee challenged me recently to say what “transparency” of government solicitations of public opinion in local constituencies should really mean instead of as a cover for campaign promises: “honesty”.
Paraphrasing Roosevelt’s fireside chat on lend-lease for WWII, “Suppose your neighbour’s house is on fire, should you lend him your fire hose …”