I’d love to
see a whole article just on Donald Trump’s hair – the flip, the wispiness, the
firm, long-lasting hold he gets from a half a bottle of hairspray. The more attention to detail, the better. As one of the
executives in a season of The Apprentice,
I spent an uncomfortable hour with the man in a limousine, waiting for the
director to wave us onto the set, trying to keep my eyes averted from that orange
super structure, and I can tell you, it’s fascinating. But, no, this is about his recent rhetoric, namely, his usage of “sarcasm.”
Trump claims he was being sarcastic
when he called Obama the founder of Isis. He’s mistaken. He was not even being
“that sarcastic,” which was how he back-stepped
from his original claim. He was not being sarcastic at all.
If he were being sarcastic, he would
have said the opposite of what he meant to make a point. He’d say something
like, “Obama is not responsible for Isis, yeah right.” So when he claimed that
we, the rest of the world, don’t “get sarcasm,” it is he that doesn’t get sarcasm. Neh neh neh neh neh.
Trump was being hyperbolic,
exaggerating Obama’s supposed contribution to Isis. Now, if I were being sarcastic, I’d say that Trump
has a wonderful command of the language; I’d say he has a firm handle on reasoned
debate. If I were being metaphoric, I’d say he was a boob. If Donald Trump knew
his history, that it was mostly Musab
Al-Zarqawi that formed Isis
before Obama even took office, I'd have to consider the
possibility that he stated a lie.
Sarcasm
is lazy and so is hyperbole. It’s a way of attacking or dismissing the
opposition without actually showing any respect with whom you disagree. Sadly,
Trump seems to be incapable of taking the time to explain his position in
clear, respectful terms, which is, in politics, the essence of
diplomacy.
Question: If Reagan was The
Great Communicator, what does that make Trump? Let me think: what’s the
opposite of “communicator?”
No comments:
Post a Comment