Mar.19

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

Of Course Trump Meant His "Bloodbath" Comment

Let us start this item by talking about... The Wizard of Oz. There is a well-known argument (at least among historians) that the book is an allegory for the Populist movement, with Dorothy representing average people, the scarecrow representing farmers, the tin woodsman representing silver miners and factory workers, and the cowardly lion representing William Jennings Bryan (note that "lion" rhymes with "Bryan") as they try to solve their problems by traveling the yellow brick road (i.e., by using gold). In the end, the path of gold fails to do anything for Dorothy, and what actually solves her problem (namely, that she wants to get home) is the slippers she's wearing. While the slippers are made from rubies in the famous 1939 movie, so as to show off the then-new medium of color film, in the book they are made of silver. So, silver saves her where gold failed.

There are many historians who buy this interpretation (first put forward in the 1950s). There are many historians who say it's poppycock. (Z) is inclined to side with the first group, due to one detail in particular. If it is an allegory, then the wicked witches would represent businessmen and bankers, who were the enemies of the Populists. And in the movie, after Dorothy (inadvertently) kills the Wicked Witch of the West by pouring water on her, the Wizard of Oz observes that "you liquidated her, eh?" That's a pretty odd way to refer to getting rid of someone UNLESS the author was trying to carry off the allegory, and so needed the double-meaning of "got rid of" and "put out of business." Often, the biggest clues to the existence of allegory are unusual word choices. Yes, it is true you need the silver slippers from the book, and the "liquidated" line from the movie to make it work well, but one can argue the movie's screenwriters just made explicit the notion that L. Frank Baum implied in the novel (i.e., liquidating the witch).

What does this have to do with anything? Well, in yesterday's posting, we noted that at one of his rallies this weekend, Donald Trump warned that there will be a "bloodbath" if he is not reelected. We also added that this was just the latest such remark in what is proving to be a very dark campaign for the presidency.

By the time we were writing that, some Republicans had already leapt to Trump's defense, suggesting that he did not mean "bloodbath" in the sense of "violent uprising" but more in an economic sense. During the day yesterday, after we went live, many more Republicans advanced that line of thinking, going onto the various news programs and social media platforms to defend the former president and to lambaste the media for making much ado of nothing (see here, here and here for examples). And note, it wasn't just pundits, and it wasn't just Republicans. In fact, we got several e-mails from readers saying that we should not have misrepresented Trump's words the way we did.

For the record, so readers can judge for themselves, here is exactly what Trump said:

They think that they're going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China. If you're listening President Xi [Jinping], and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal: Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now, and you think you're gonna get that, you're gonna not hire Americans and you're gonna sell the cars to us—no.

We're gonna put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not gonna be able to sell those guys if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole—that's gonna be the least of it, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the country, that'll be the least of it.

For our part, we stand 100% behind what we wrote yesterday, for these three reasons:

1. If you are a politician, particularly one who would presume to run for President of the United States, you are responsible for every word that comes out of your mouth, and that also means having an awareness that "bigger" thoughts could be reduced to smaller sound bites. Think, for example, of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables." In context, what she said was perfectly correct. But it was reduced down to that three-word phrase, which enraged many Trump supporters. Few Democrats, and zero Republicans, were rushing to Clinton's defense to say that the remark was taken out of context. And, to be blunt, it was Hillary's fault; she should have known full well the risk that her words would be decontextualized like that.
   
   
2. Donald Trump has used dark and violent rhetoric before. And not once, or twice, or three times, but dozens of times. If, say, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had used the word bloodbath in a concerning way, then maybe you give them the benefit of the doubt, because they do not have a history of using violent verbiage. But Trump gave up that benefit of the doubt long ago.
   
   
3. Most important, how many damn times does this man have to run this playbook before people catch onto it? He blathers out a word salad and included therein is something problematic. Then, when he's called out on the problematic verbiage, he claims his words were taken out of context, and it's just more fake news from a media establishment that's out to get him. Oh, and he also turns around and uses that to fundraise, which he is already doing with the bloodbath situation. To return to The Wizard of Oz, it is very odd to use the word "bloodbath" in this particular context UNLESS you are trying to get your violent ideas out there while at the same time giving yourself plausible deniability, so you can then do your performative outrage.

Oh, and even if you think Trump was shooting straight, and really was just talking about the auto industry, his threat to put a 100% tariff on all foreign cars, including those from Mexico, is lunacy, and would devastate the U.S. economy if it happened. In case the $230 billion his trade wars have cost the country was not enough.

But again, he wasn't just talking about the auto industry. Trump meant what he said, and he said what he meant. And while he's squeezing the "evil media" angle for all it's worth, he's already moved on to the next bit of violent and hate-filled rhetoric. Yesterday, he sat for an interview with Sebastian Gorka and decreed that Jews who vote Democratic "hate Israel" and aren't truly Jewish. So, it was a day full of fake news and fake Jews for him. Undoubtedly, he only meant Jews in the auto industry though, right? (Z)