"Donald Trump Appears To Make Up Sweden Terror Attack"

The crowd in Orlando understood what Trump was referring to - the "news" that someone had been set on fire in a public square in the country that (once upon a time) gave us Volvo and Saab cars.  Here is what the President said on the subject of "Sweden":

"Here's the bottom line. We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening. We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what's happening in Brussels. You look at what's happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We've allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we're going to keep our country safe."

When the HuffPost and the former Prime Minister of Sweden and Boris and others "Fact check" Milo's Daddy, they are not doing what copy editors were once paid to do: go to the actual data.  But one has to make allowances.  What infuriates the educated Left, which includes nearly everyone with an advanced academic degree, is the man's language.  It is so maddeningly vulgar - just like "the people's".  

When I was in short pants wandering around Harcourt Brace & Co.'s offices on the weekends asking the editors to tell me about their WW II experiences in the early 1950s, Trump's syntax and vocabulary would have been scored as statistically average for 4th graders in the U.S.  (I have not seen raw scoring for "English" testing for American elementary schools in nearly 3 decades so I have no idea how they would be scored now; my guess is that it would be 7th-9th.)  If my guess for current standards is correct, that
same yardstick would score the language of Obama's speeches at College 1-2 levels.  

These facts raises two questions for List members: (1) How many of us have actually run for electoral office - at any level?  (2) And how many of us have won?  Those who can answer "yes" to the second question know that Trump has, for politics, nearly perfect pitch in terms of his level of language.  He knows this; even when he is doing his best to be "Presidential" - i.e. reading his speechwriters' College 1-2 level text - he interjects his own upper middle school diction.

Mrs. Clinton's fundamental mistake was to assume that, because Obama spoke at a "college" level, she could do the same.  She ignored the cultural truth that has always applied to politicians who come from previously shunned groups; they have to speak publicly at the next level of schooling to prove that they are respectable.  Eisenhower could mumble; Kennedy, as the one and only successful Catholic candidate, had to "prove" that he was "proper".  Obama, who has had a lifetime of race hustling, knows that he can never, ever be vulgar; he can be mean and insulting and grossly dishonest but he had to have the calm, "educated" diction that every successful "black" talking head in the news had always had.  

The truth of American history is that women, as a group, have never been shunned.  No party has ever run on a platform opposing women.  Even the people who argued against women's suffrage had to use the argument that women, as the superior gender, should not be sullied by joining the crude world of actual electoral politics.  

This raises a terrible challenge for the Democrats: where can they find a woman who comfortably speaks at no more than a 10th grade level?





Speak your mind

1 Comment so far

  1. Marion D S Dreyfus on February 25, 2017 8:31 pm

    While what the estimable (College freshman) Stefan J expounds (high school senior level) upon is incontestable (high school freshman English), one regrets it only briefly, because Obama, though articulate (high school), was a maze of brain-fogging verbiage that, when all was said and done, you had to scratch your head to understand and piece together wirth the question/s that elicited his tsunamis of word mullagatawnies.

    While too it is a decided treat to instantly grok (sci-fi) what the new President is saying on any and every subject, tweets being exceedingly clear and swift, I have resigned myself to the occasional flip remark or offhand japery (grad school) but acknowledge slowly and sadly that vaulting eloquence shall ne’er (Shakespeare) be issuing from the mouth of this blue-collar billionaire chief executive.

    And though we cannot but acknowledge his working-man’s vocabulary, pronunciation, elocution and syntax, indeed the many millions who voted for this man over the irksome, prissy over-enunciation of the pancake-flat female and Democrat candidate, the masses hungered for a champion after their own drinking-man’s beer-barrel (not to be too condescending, but failing) hearts and Joe Bag-O’-Doughnuts guy next-doorism.

    So/ Though we applaud the ease of instant comprehension and ennuiyeux repeated iteration of every one of his points, one misses the soaring rhetoric and heretofore usual elygaic speechwriterly effervescence of intoxicant phraseology.

    Given the alternative, we chide ourselves, it is still a far, far better thing (college lit 2.0) than what could (shiver, brr brr) have been, had we not won the prezzy sweepstakes on 20 Nov 2016.


Resources & Links