Those emails with Trump-ets
Bob Graboyes writes about what he calls “Trump-et blasts” – that is, gratuitous anti-Trump statements in emails on a wide variety of unrelated subjects:
My friend’s note was merely one car in an endless freight train of similar emails rolling and rumbling into my inbox each day. In them, one can discern empirical regularities. Trump-et Blasts are never offered as hypotheses, opinions, or topics for discussion. Rather, they are always stated as Euclidean postulates—self-evident Truths that we surely agree upon and which warrant no discussion. Recipients of Trump-et Blasts have five possible Supreme Court-like responses: affirm, ignore, concur, dissent, or defer.
I’ve noticed these Trump-et blasts more in conversation than in emails to me, probably because almost everyone I know is aware of my politics and doesn’t bother with the random snipes in emails. It’s in casual talking that it comes out, especially if I’m part of a group. In a group, even if people know I disagree, they’re not catering to me. And why should they, actually? Often, it’s a group bonding experience, a sharing of what is considered tautological and the mark of their agreed-on virtue. I’m grandfathered into the group, as it were.
And that is why – as Graboyes describes – the critique of Trump is not really up for discussion on the merits. It’s an article of faith, and/or a thesis they believe has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt or perhaps beyond any doubt.
I wrote on a similar topic back in January of 2005, when I was rather new to the blogging game. It’s called “The fine art of insulting half your audience,” and can be found here. An excerpt:
It happens nearly every time. I’ll be reading a short story, let’s say, enjoying myself, lost in the experience—when suddenly, there it is: the gratuitous and mean-spirited and out-of-context slap at Bush, or at those who support him. It’s not as though the story is even tangentially about politics, either; it can be about anything at all, it doesn’t really matter.
The Bush-dissing will be thrown in when you least expect it, just to let the reader know—well, to let the reader know what, exactly? To let the reader know that the author is hip, kindly, intelligent, moral—oh, just about everything a person ought to be. And that the reader must of course be a member of the club, too—not one of those Others, the warmongers, the selfish and stupid and demonized people who happen to have voted for Bush.
Back when I was one of the gang, too, back when I was in with the in crowd (“if it’s square, we ain’t there”), did I notice when authors dragged in their political credentials from left field? Or perhaps it wasn’t quite as commonplace back then for them to do so?
At any rate, now it seems positively obligatory. I’m reading along, sunk deep within the story, bonding with the characters—and then, suddenly, it’s as though the author has reached a hand out of the pages of the magazine (OK, I’ll confess, sometimes it’s the New Yorker—yes, I still read it for the fiction, just as some people claim they read Playboy for the interviews) and slapped me across the face.
Authors, do you really want to do this? Because, with a single sentence, you’ve managed to alienate and offend (not to mention insult) up to half your audience.
More at the link.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
It’s not just in emails but in articles on topics that have nothing to do with Trump or only in the most tangential way where the author will drop in some non sequitor about the ‘felon in the White House’ or something.
A golf writer that I agree with quite a lot on the topics he writes on is absolutely pathological in this way and it always leaves me with a sour taste of him.
The in-group call-and-reponse has a very long history, predating Bush and Trump of course.
In my professional life anti-anything Republican or Trump is assumed, and the call-and-response gets dragged into anything and everything, related or not.
Oh my gosh, YES. I read a lot, and listen to audiobooks on my walk each morning. Almost all nonfiction. SO many books written since 2016 have some sort of reference to Trump, either overtly or somewhat, and very slightly, obscured. And they’re all negative, and assume everyone reading (or listening) agrees.
If not Trump, then it’s about climate change, racism or something-ophobia. I’ve been listening to The Self-Talk Workout this week, copyright 2022. It has nothing to do with politics or even current events, and darned if the author didn’t “sneak” in references to the 2020 election, climate change, racism, AND homophobia.
There were so many slams of Margaret Thatcher in the light novels and mysteries by British writers during the 70s and 80s — even if it had absolutely nothing to do with the plot! — that I began to think that it was required by the writer’s contract with their publisher.
There were so many slams of Margaret Thatcher in the light novels and mysteries by British writers during the 70s and 80s — even if it had absolutely nothing to do with the plot! — that I began to think that it was required by the writer’s contract with their publisher.
==
Thatcher stood for virtues the chattering classes generally despise. The chatterati have skills, now and again, but no virtues beyond being able to earn a living producing words and images.
Mr. Graboyes is an academician and his experience is a manifestation of the decay of academe into a political monoculture.
I see this in books and magazines–often in a book or article that has nothing to do with politics but the anti-Trumpism is forced into it. I think it’s mainly signaling: powerful people, I’m on your side, please don’t hurt me.
The chattering classes aren’t worth much on average.
For me, this goes all the way back to McCain/Palin. We had a couple over, wife friend of my Wife through church. The Man started railing against Palin, and looked over at him and said we were Palin people. He shut up. If this had been in his house, I would not have said anything
I can honestly say I’ve never felt the need to insert a completely off topic, purile denigation of a political figure, celebrity, or any other high profile individual that I may dislike in the middle of an email or comment or conversation. I don’t understand it and can only dismiss it as evidence of some sort of mental disturbance or trama. I know it’s a tactic of blog and other social media trolls. But the psychology of trolls is a whole other topic that would need unpacking that I don’t have the energy for
Was in an organized discussion group, maybe eight of us. Introduced ourselves. Two said something–very brief, since when you say “Trump” no more need be said–about their political positions. Was unnecessary.
One said she’d voted for Trump in 2016 because she hadn’t been paying attention. Since then, though, paying attention, she’d voted against him twice. The presumption was that we’d understand that anybody who has been paying attention would know the dems do things better.
salman rushdie was one of these who was venomously anti Iron Lady, but after the Satanic Verses, (he apparently thought that the sort of Satire in Midnights Children, would land, he was mistaken) he gained a certain respect, he had Bush 2, derangement around 2000, like many litterati, perhaps not as pronounced as say
David Cornwell (who among many other things was less tolerant of Rushdies
plight,) as severe as Blair derangement that Robert Harris and David Hare have worked out to some degree, in the Ghost Writer and the Worricker series,
Time apparently does not sooth old wounds in the case of Hilary Mantel, a
rather good novelist
(although her choice of Thomas Cromwell as a hero, should give her pause,)
Back in my professor days it became the “opening prayer” at any faculty committee meeting to bash Bush, GOP, or Trump. It really seemed to be a requirement to bring the meeting to order
@miguel cervantes:her choice of Thomas Cromwell as a hero
He’s the protagonist, not the “hero”….
From what I’ve seen, it has to a lot to do with the impact the event/person had on the writer.
For example, games journalists have spent the last decade complaining about GamerGate (the proponents talked about ethics in (games) journalism; its detractors refer to it as a harassment campaign) as some sort of buttress for their politics-in-video games rants.
Similarly, the folks who have made it their profession to inflict diversity and inclusion on the rest of us cannot write an article without mentioning George Floyd’s martyrdom.
Mind, both events tie into the Trump presidency; Floyd is immediately obvious, but many of the Trump memesters in 2016 were veterans of GamerGate and the meme warfare of that movement… and a number of games journalists have credited GamerGate with Trump’s victories in both 2016 and (with many GamerGate veterans all grown up and more widely conservative) 2024.
Tying back to another recent thread, you know where I bet they don’t do land acknowledgments? Ireland. With all the times land was conquered or confiscated and redistributed over hundreds of years, and all those people’s descendants having to live together afterward, I don’t see how you couldn’t have a fistfight break out even if you could figure out who you were acknowledging.
“Authors, do you really want to do this? Because, with a single sentence, you’ve managed to alienate and offend (not to mention insult) up to half your audience.”
The typical response would be “Those people don’t read books anyway.” Or possibly “can’t read.” I’ve heard it.
Also during the Bush administration: I picked up a used copy, in good shape, of Linda Ronstadt’s album which had arrangements by Nelson Riddle, which I’d heard very good things about. Not too long after that I ran across an interview in which she said she didn’t want any Republicans or conservatives in her audience. Never did listen to that album, finally gave it away recently.
British progressives seem to still hate Thatcher as much as ours currently hate Trump. I watch way too many British crime dramas, and for a while I was surprised at the venom that was exhibited any time there was occasion to mention Thatcher, or even that period. Not surprised anymore.
I like British crime drama. I don’t think I’ve heard any remarks about Thatcher in them. What I’ve noticed is that they’re now a jobs program for West Indian actors. The cast of one I’ve seen recently would have you believe that the racial composition of Britain was similar to that of Louisiana.
Art Deco,
The very pleasant light crime drama Grantchester set in the 1950s Cambridge had a new vicar this past season and of course he was black. The bishop the last few seasons has also been black and I saw somewhere there wasn’t a black bishop in the Church of England until 1983 or something.
Scotland appears to be the most racially diverse place on earth on tv dramas despite being something like 90-95 white.
I’ve noticed plenty of allusions to miners strikes and other comments about Britain in the 1980s that are pretty clear shots at Thatcher if you know a little about the times but they don’t usually say her name.
Yes, the racial composition of the cast is often strained to put it mildly, sometimes to the point of seeming ludicrous. Probably 40-50% of marriages are interracial.
Other things I’ve learned from British tv, especially but not only the crime dramas:
–The most serious socio-political problem in the UK is right-wingers who either engage in or want to engage in a great deal of violence. These are easily identified because they aren’t keen on mass immigration from Muslim and other non-European countries. Also they are ugly, especially the women. They do a lot of plotting but are usually thwarted.
–White working-class men are stupid, violent, and racist.
–“Eastern European” is a race. I just learned that one tonight: hostility to Poles or other EEs is racism.
–Roughly 25% of the population is gay and gaily married.
–Maybe 5-10% are transgender.
–The only problem associated with Pakistanis and other Asian-Muslims is the racism of the white working-class men.
@gwynmir … truth!
My wife listens to lots of them, usually of fairly recent vintage, and I overhear a lot. Gratuitous references to climate change affecting the local flora and fauna seem to be required. Nobody with even slightly conservative politics can be a neutral character, and flaming liberals are always the most sympathetic. She leans toward who-dun-its and covert action thrillers so every plot has to involve an obvious stand-in for Putin or Orban, usually supported by shadowy US politic operators obviously drawn to look like Steve Bannon with Musk clones come up fast.
I always wait for the most innocuous discussion with my sisters to advise them that Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself.
@Griffin:The very pleasant light crime drama Grantchester set in the 1950s Cambridge had a new vicar this past season and of course he was black. The bishop the last few seasons has also been black and I saw somewhere there wasn’t a black bishop in the Church of England until 1983 or something.
Scotland appears to be the most racially diverse place on earth on tv dramas despite being something like 90-95 white.
The “diversifying” of the past is a pretty transparent propaganda technique. It’s even done in what’s purported to be history, with credentialed historians (dishonestly) defending it:
The dishonesty here is twofold: first, pretending that “African” and “black” are synonymous–any visit to Libya, Egypt, Algeria, etc should quickly disprove that. Second, pointing to “several instances of Africans”–“several” meaning countable on one hand–in Roman Britain and from that justifying a portrayal of a black African Roman soldier as somehow representative.
If you read enough old primary sources, you will find isolated incidents of “diversity”. They are noted in these primary sources because they are rare and unusual, not because those societies were “diverse” as people use the word today.
In London Labor and the London Poor the author describes about half a dozen black street people. Everybody in Victorian London had heard of them and knew who they were, because there were only half a dozen of them, not because Victorian London was “diverse” in the modern sense.
Samuel Pepys’ famous diary describes black people he met in England. They were so rare he went home and wrote about it in his diary when he met one. (One of them, Mingo, lived with his boss’s family, and so it wasn’t a special occasion to meet him, but Pepys notes him three times in the diary.)
The famous Dr Samuel Johnson left his property in Lichfield (a cathedral town of at that time a few thousand people) to a black man, Francis Barber, who had been his servant. He moved to Lichfield, married a local girl, and their descendants continued to marry locally and are indeed still in Lichfield to this day, and I bet you everyone in the 18th and 19th centuries in Lichfield knew who they were because there was only the one family.
There is a vast gulf between “existed” and “common” or “typical”.
It was named Bush Derangement Syndrome. But it has long been around, Reagan, Nixon, Goldwater. Nixon ‘60,
It’s more Democrat than Bush or Trump, so Dem Derangement Syndrome.
But the reason is their own false facts, their delusions. Dem Delusion Syndrome.
But the purpose is to demonize. It’s a semi-conscious culture, for at least many Dem thinkers, an actual strategy.
The Demicratic Demonization Strategy. Against Trump, as also Bush, but also Kavanaugh and Palin in 2008.
People like to hate. Hating is fun, sadly. It’s also a common bonding emotion, we can all easily agree on hating the bad.
DDS-the Dem Demonization Strategy. Now used by many Dems against any leading Rep, like Musk.
“Hating is fun, sadly.”
Very true. It’s the dirty secret of the left. This really hit me some years ago, realizing that the people, some of whom are personal acquaintances, more or less screaming out their hatred of this or that person or movement opposing their doctrines and programs, were getting some kind of pleasure from it.
Obviously there’s plenty of hate on the right, too, but it’s more of a contradiction for leftists, as their whole self-conception rests on the belief that they are the Smart Good People, the kind and generous people, intrinsically the opposite of haters.