Donald Trump: An Exercise in Exaggeration?

            Many political pundits and others who seem offended by recent questionable comments by Donald Trump, a candidate for the 2016 U. S. Republican presidential nomination, could be falling right into what might be Trump’s trap.

Those who are offended by some of Trump’s recent perceived negative comments about Muslims and about Hillary Clinton, the perceived front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, seem to believe he means what he says.

Yet, Trump might not really believe what he said or implied. He could be saying controversial things in an exaggerated way to ensure the media and others don’t take his candidacy for granted, and don’t forget about him.

All the Campaign’s a Stage

First, Trump claimed or suggested all Muslims should be barred from entering the United States, at least in the immediate future, in light of recent terrorist acts in the United States and elsewhere. In fairness, Trump did clarify he was not referring to Muslims who are residents of the United States; only non-U. S. resident Muslims seeking to enter the United States.

Then Trump made perceived distasteful remarks about an apparent lengthy bathroom break Clinton took during a recent debate. He also used a perceived derogatory sexual innuendo—saying she got “schlonged” in 2008--to remind people she lost the Democratic presidential nomination in that contest to Barack Obama.

Trump has since explained his comment about Clinton’s defeat in 2008 was not vulgar, and is merely a Yiddish term meaning she got badly beaten in that nomination contest.

Exaggeration for Attention?

Trump clearly knows how to use language effectively and could be exaggerating his actual thoughts and feelings, mainly to make a point, or to get attention. A key aspect of running for political office is acting and performing for audiences. Some candidates sometimes say things that should not necessarily be taken seriously. Some candidates say things that seem controversial to get attention for the candidate, or to draw attention to a specific cause or situation.

While Trump’s comments about Muslims and Clinton are disconcerting to many people, he could have carefully planned his questionable comments and exaggerated for various reasons: 1) to make a point about the quality of border security in the United States; 2) to get attention for himself so people don’t forget about him; or 3) to make a point that candidates in national political debates should be better-prepared—personally and professionally.

Possible Insecurity

Notwithstanding Trump’s brashness and confidence, he also might make seemingly outlandish comments about others because sometimes he might feel somewhat inadequate running for president in the company of experienced politicians. If so, he might sometimes feel the need to ‘stir the pot’ with outrageous comments to remind people about his campaign.

In this context, Trump might sometimes feel the need to pull the rug out from under his competitors, or to wildly exaggerate some claims—such as his perceived derogatory claims about Muslims and Hillary Clinton--to make a point; to remind everyone he is still in the picture.

With these kinds of possibilities in mind, the kerfuffle over Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims and Clinton might be much ado about nothing

No Shrinking Violet

Clearly, Donald Trump is not shy. He seems intelligent. He is a showman who seems to thrive on attention. He knows he needs to act and perform on the campaign trail. He knows he has to sometimes say controversial things to get attention for himself; or to draw attention to situations some others might avoid because they might fear ‘bad press’ or ‘negative voter feedback.’

As a businessman and would-be politician, Trump also knows he has to be more-interesting to the media and to the public than his fellow candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. He knows he has to intentionally set himself apart from other contenders in his party--and from Hillary Clinton, the perceived frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

Intentional Exaggeration?

What better ways for Trump to achieve these goals than by presenting himself in a highly-exaggerated way as a racist and a misogynist—perhaps to make a point--when he might not be either one?

Yet, Trump seems so secure and comfortable with himself, no doubt because of confidence derived in part from his apparent vast personal wealth, that he seems unafraid to make himself a target of disrepute to get attention.

 

The Senator Speaks: Mike Duffy Had an Option

As Senator Mike Duffy started his own testimony this week, in his fraud trial, he unwittingly evoked the withering verbal attack by Progressive Conservative leader Brian Mulroney on Liberal leader John Turner in 1984. In a televised debate Turner, the newly-minted prime minister following Pierre Trudeau’s retirement, was assailed by Mulroney for finalizing some controversial Liberal patronage appointments made—but not finalized—by Trudeau before the former P.M. left office.    

     Mulroney famously told Turner he had a choice, or an option to say ‘no,’ and that he could have refused to finalize Trudeau’s patronage appointments. By many accounts, Turner never had a reasonable chance of winning that election after Mulroney reprimanded him as he did.

Duffy Could Have Said ‘No’

As most followers of the news know, Senator Mike Duffy is facing a slew of criminal charges relating to his allegedly fraudulent expense claims. In the many months leading up to his trial, Duffy, on his own and through his lawyers, has consistently seemed to blame others for his current misfortunes, instead of accepting responsibility for his own behaviors—and instead of acknowledging he largely contributed to his own present predicament. In this context, Duffy has always implied he had no choice in being named to the senate, and that he had to accept the senate appointment. In fact, he did have a choice: he could have said ‘no.’

If Duffy had exercised his prerogative and declined Harper’s senate appointment, he could have preserved his previous generally respectable reputation, he could have saved himself a lot of presumed heartache and aggravation, and he could have prevented the rest of us from being subjected to this sad excuse for a story for so long, so far.

Throughout this whole sorry mess, Duffy has intimated he was reluctantly forced into accepting a seat in the Senate, representing the Conservative Party, after being appointed in 2008 by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Yet, was Duffy really the reluctant senator? Various media reports over the past several months indicate he had, more than once, lobbied at least one previous prime minister to be named to the senate.

High Ambitions

In reports of Duffy’s first day of testimony he appeared to portray himself as some sort of unsophisticated, academically-uneducated rube from Prince Edward Island. In fact, for many years Duffy had been a successful broadcast journalist living and working in Ottawa, and, by many other less-fortunate people’s standards, he was living the high life and travelling far and wide in his work. But according to various news reports, in Duffy’s first day of his own long-awaited testimony this week, he seemed to be looking for pity and sympathy.

To Be (A Senator) or Not to Be

Many media reports say Duffy initially told Harper, before being appointed to the senate, that Conservatives would not be pleased with his appointment as a Tory senator since he, Duffy, was not a Conservative. Reports of Duffy’s court testimony indicate Harper told him to not worry about Conservatives’ complaints in that regard, and they would ‘get over it.’

Ultimately, Duffy was appointed as a senator representing the Conservative Party. Since Duffy accepted Harper’s senate appointment, supposedly against Duffy’s own better judgement, he can be perceived as opportunistic, ethically and morally-challenged, and driven by ambition, greed, ego, and insecurity. Perhaps he perceived the senate appointment as the culmination of his previous efforts to be successful and famous, and as a way for him to feel and seem important.

Choices

Through it all, from the beginning of this sordid situation, presumably, Duffy had a choice, or an option: 1) he could accept Harper’s senate appointment, representing the Conservative Party—even though Duffy says he told the former prime minister he was not even a Conservative; or 2) he could just say ‘no.’ In this regard, Duffy can be perceived as being the author of his own current misfortunes—including his criminal court trial over alleged fraudulent expense claims. Duffy easily could have avoided all of this by simply saying he would not sit in the senate as a Conservative because it was not right, since he wasn’t a Tory.

You Had an Option, Sir

Is Duffy guilty of any or all of the fraud charges he is facing? The court will decide that. Is Duffy guilty of bringing all of this on himself? Is he right to seem to be blaming everyone else except himself for the mess he’s in? If he hadn’t accepted the senate appointment, and made other choices, would his personal and professional reputations be suffering as they likely are now?

In this context, Brian Mulroney’s scathing rebuke of John Turner in 1984, for finalizing former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s cushy patronage appointments, echoes loud and clear: You had an option, sir. Duffy could have said ‘no’ to being a Conservative senator, and avoided his current legal troubles. Instead he said ‘yes’ to the senate appointment and got himself into his present predicament.