Who Knew—Except Donald Trump?

And so it came to pass: a wealthy suburban snake-oil salesman, living a life of luxury, conned millions of American voters in the 2016 presidential election into thinking he’s just like them.
In hindsight, which often teems with insight, President-Elect Donald Trump seems to have duped far too many people into believing he is just an ordinary guy. But is it possible he really identifies with average Americans more than his detractors want to admit?

Empathy Sells

Paradoxically, Trump, a wealthy real-estate developer and late-blooming T.V. star, seems the antithesis of all those average Americans with whom he supposedly identifies.
How could this high-living, self-proclaimed billionaire possibly identify with average Americans? How could he possibly know how it feels to be worried about paying the bills, or what it means to be concerned about job stability?
In fact, though, Trump doesn’t have to be disenfranchised to empathize with those who are. Whether Trump’s empathy for the disgruntled public was contrived or not, he still convinced enough of them to believe he understood why they were dissatisfied with the status quo.
A Good Example
Ironically, Trump seems to have taken his cue for empathizing from former President Bill Clinton, the husband of Trump’s election foe. In 1992 Bill Clinton famously made headlines for his apparent profound empathy when he told an AIDS activist, “I feel your pain,” when the man urged Clinton to take a stand about the AIDS epidemic.
Did Bill Clinton have to have AIDS to understand why the man was discouraged? Did Trump have to live paycheque to paycheque to understand why many Americans are upset with their federal government and the state of their own lives?
Offensive Language
After the release of the disgusting audio from a now-infamous video, Trump even tried to explain away his crass taped words about women as just ‘guy talk;’ the way he suggested all males talk in locker rooms. Most people already know about Trump’s vulgar language on that tape, so his words don’t bear repeating here.
Trump’s incendiary language during the election campaign was often shocking and inflammatory, partly for what he said directly, and also for what he sometimes seemed to suggest.
Yet, as repulsive as a lot of Trump’s language was during the election campaign, including his disparaging comments about immigrants, women, and others, he still has the right of free speech—perhaps unless he uses words publicly to intentionally incite others to violence.
Inflammation Overload: Gunning for Votes
At least once, Trump seemed to purposely incite gun owners to violence against his opponent, Hillary Clinton. He opposed her goal to have stricter gun laws in the U.S.
Presumably vying for gun owners’ votes, Trump implied the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, dealing with the right to bear arms, would allow gun-owners to deal with Clinton, in their own way.
Many pundits believed Trump was encouraging gun-owners to assassinate Clinton, which he denied by explaining he meant only that gun owners could vote against her in the election. Was Trump really advocating violence against Clinton? Or was he just using language cleverly to make a point?
Powerful Language
Trump’s oratory during the campaign was often xenophobic in nature and powerful for his ability to tap into many Americans’ fear of foreigners, for his rich bluntness, and for his bluster about those he deemed unfit and ineligible to be in the country--such as unlawful immigrants and terrorists he claimed are currently allowed to be in the United States. Trump’s skillful-yet-often offensive use of language resonated with many average Americans who might fear their own jobs will be given to lower-paid unlawful immigrants or others, or who worry that potential or actual terrorists are now in the U. S. waiting for a chance to wreak havoc on the country.
No Shortage of Opinions
Trump always had an opinion or explanation about everything during the election campaign; however dubious, distasteful, fabricated or outright false his comments were. But he also seemed to consistently connect with profound voter unrest that Clinton and her Democratic party didn’t seem to recognize or acknowledge.
A Winning Combination
No doubt many factors contributed to Trump’s election victory, all of which ultimately seemed perfectly aligned when he finally grabbed the brass ring, including: general dissatisfaction with the status quo including ‘typical’ politicians like Clinton and others; the impact of his own loud, brazen rhetoric—regardless of how divisive and hateful it was or seemed; his keen instincts and intuition for ‘reading the public;’ his obvious showmanship, insatiable need for attention, and love of the limelight; and his impeccable and fortuitous timing in being a candidate in this particular election.

 

Actions Trump Empty Words

         Many of us like looking down on others, especially those in powerful positions who get themselves in trouble through their own stupidity, foolishness, arrogance and/or perceived importance.
          In this regard, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in the U.S. presidential election next month, has turned himself into a pariah in many circles--within and outside of his party--thanks to his just-revealed-and-reviled sexist and misogynistic comments about women in general, and a female soap opera actress in particular, from a 2005 video.
         Yet, three high-profile male Republicans--Sens. Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz, and Vice-Presidential candidate Gov. Mike Pence--who presumably can influence many male and female voters by their own actions, seem like hypocritical political cowards: talking big by publicly condemning Trump's sexist comments, but still supporting him for President of the United States.
        Thus, despite their moralizing against Trump's taped remarks objectifying women, Ryan, Cruz, and Pence seem motivated mainly by their own self-interests, not by their alleged morals. In this context, are they really any better than Trump? 
         In the audio from the video, released on Oct. 7, 2016 by The Washington Post and NBC News, Trump, who was married to his current, third wife at the time, is heard describing efforts to have sex with a married woman, and bragging about women letting him kiss them and grab their genitals because he is famous. 
        "When you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything," Trump says in the video. Seconds later: "Grab them by the p----. You can do anything." Of his impulse to kiss beautiful women: "You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/trump-vows-to-press-on-despite-mounting-calls-from-gop-for-him-to-quit-1.3107441).         
        While watching the rich and powerful with egg on their faces can be among many people’s favorite pastimes, there can’t be much joy now even among Trump’s many dissenters--including many who previously expressed their formal support for him.
        Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), who had formally supported Trump’s presidential bid, now says enough is enough: "…Donald Trump’s behavior this week, concluding with the disclosure of his demeaning comments about women and his boasts about sexual assaults, make it impossible to continue to offer even conditional support for his candidacy…”
         But McCain, who is up for re-election, appears to be doing some hypocritical moralizing of his own and seems to be trying to save his own political skin by disavowing Trump--saying Trump "alone bears the burden of his conduct and alone should suffer the consequences"  (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/08/mccain-withdraws-support-trump/91797024/).
            Meanwhile, two of Trump’s current high-profile supporters, Sens. Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz, both publicly decried Trump’s audio comments from the video released this week, but their words seem like empty platitudes since they are still formally supporting his presidential bid.

"I am sickened…Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump…works to demonstrate…that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests…"--House Speaker Paul Ryan (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/republican-reaction-ryan-sickened-cruz-disturbed-by-trump-s-comments-1.3107258). “These comments are disturbing and inappropriate, there is…no excuse for them."-- Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who only recently endorsed Trump (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/republican-reaction-ryan-sickened-cruz-disturbed-by-trump-s-comments-1.3107258).

Continuing to publicly endorse Trump despite denouncing his taped comments negates Ryan’s and Cruz’s criticism of his remarks. These two senators now seem like shallow opportunists--likely hoping their continued public support will get them named to Trump’s cabinet if he wins November’s election.

Even Trump's vice-presidential pick, Gov. Mike Pence, despite publicly proclaiming he can't support Trump's comments about women, is still on the ticket, implicitly endorsing Trump. "As a husband and father, I was offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the eleven-year-old video released yesterday," he said. "I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them."
           By stressing Trump's video comments are 11 years old, perhaps Pence is trying to ameliorate them and suggest that was the 'old' Trump. And continuing to run with Trump, despite disavowing his sexist comments, implies Pence could have self-serving motives of his own: hoping Trump will quit at the last minute; leaving Pence the Republican presidential nominee by default, if that is possible.

On Oct. 7, 2016 Trump said in a statement he was wrong and apologized for his video comments. But true to form, he implicitly minimized the significance of his remarks on the video by using part of his so-called apology to castigate Bill and Hillary Clinton; and didn't focus just on the apology or demonstrate any discernible insight into his own behavior. Trump also told supporters he won't quit the presidential race because he “will never, ever let you down.” Yet, he doesn’t seem to realize or want to admit that his offensive video comments are just another crude example of why many people think he has already let them down time and time again.

 

 

 

Tragically Hip's Tragic News Aims for Maximum $$$

          Amid the news this week that Gord Downie, the lead singer of the Canadian band, The Tragically Hip, has terminal brain cancer, it's worth noting that the group shamelessly used Downie's illness as a gimmick to promote and sell its new record and upcoming concert tour; and to manipulate fans into spending their money. 
         Many media reports and fans have rightly and appropriately expressed their condolences and well-wishes for Downie. The news of his diagnosis surely must be tragic for him and his family and friends, for his bandmates, and for the group’s fans.
Selling Tickets and CDs Key to Cancer Announcement
         Yet, on closer inspection, the timing of the news of Downie's cancer diagnosis seems crass and commercial since it was clearly choreographed to coincide with the announcement of the band's new concert tour; to make as much money as possible for the group before Downie dies.
Skepticism Warranted
         We can be forgiven for being skeptical about the timing of the news of Downie’s illness, because it was followed just one day later by the announcement of the group's new record and summer 2016 concert tour--which has been referred to in some media as a ‘farewell tour.’      
         The concert tour seems mainly meant to support the release of the group’s latest record. This is understandable, since The Tragically Hip is a business entity, and like all businesses, the group is in business to make money, in addition to music.
Commercialism Integral to Cancer News
         Ultimately, though, the timing of this week’s announcement of Downie’s diagnosis is questionable and can reflect badly on Downie and The Tragically Hip as a whole.
         This is because the formal news of Downie’s illness initially seemed intended only as a thoughtful and respectful gesture to notify the group’s fans about his illness. But the bloom wore off that rose the next day when the band announced its summer concert tour and upcoming release of its new CD.
         That's when it became clear that Downie's cancer news was obviously well-timed and expertly-planned to milk maximum money from fans—to prime fans to spend their money on the band's new CD and concert tickets; since news of the concert tour came just one day after word of Downie's cancer diagnosis.
         In this context, The Tragically Hip's unspoken message to fans in this week’s back-to-back announcements seems clear: put your money where your sympathy is.
Cashing in on Cancer Diagnosis     
         As a result, the band, and Downie in particular, seem to be crassly and cleverly cashing in on his illness as a new and inventive, albeit tragic way to promote this particular concert tour--which could be fans' last chance to see Downie and/or the group. 
         We can assume Downie approved this week’s public pronouncement of his cancer diagnosis, along with the group's announcement, the next day, of the band's summer 2016 concert tour in support of its new record.
Personal Adjustment Necessary        
          Those involved in announcing Downie's cancer news earlier this week said he actually got the diagnosis about six months ago, in December, 2015. 
          In fairness to Downie and his bandmates, before going public with his cancer diagnosis they all likely needed, wanted and deserved to have sufficient personal time to digest the diagnosis themselves first, before the public was told. No doubt they also needed time to notify family and friends, personally, before Downie’s illness became public knowledge.
Negative Optical Illusion      
         But the perceived ‘optics’ of this situation would have been more-positive if Downie’s diagnosis was publicized a few months ago, on its own, with no mention of this summer’s concert tour and new record.
         Then, this week’s news of the group’s concert tour and new record wouldn’t have gone hand-in-hand with news of Downie’s diagnosis, and wouldn’t seem meant to prey on fans’ sympathy for their money.

Jian Ghomeshi: The Psychology of Hiring a Lawyer

           As most news-followers will know by now, a reportedly tough female lawyer, Marie Henein, will be in court today to start defending her high-profile client, former CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi--charged with four counts of sexual assault and one charge of overcoming resistance by choking.
          The charges against Ghomeshi involve three women and will be tried by judge alone. The so-called optics in this case, or the way he and his legal team can be perceived or seen by others, and his possible reasons for hiring Henein as his lawyer, are interesting.

Is Being a Good Lawyer Enough?

Many published accounts of Henein, in various news stories over the past year, report she is tough and accomplished; a good lawyer. But are her professional abilities and qualifications the only reason Ghomeshi hired her, as opposed to having an equally-tough, accomplished, and good male lawyer?

Could Ghomeshi have other less-obvious reasons for wanting a woman to defend him against serious criminal charges of sexually assaulting and choking, especially when the complainants are other women?

No doubt Ghomeshi wanted and needed to have a top-notch criminal lawyer on his side defending him in court and in other legal venues. By all published accounts of Henein, she fits the bill in this regard. This is obviously critical, regardless of the outcome of his trial starting today.

Perception Important

There can be an important distinction and sometimes even a fine line--depending on various simple or complex factors--between whether Ghomeshi is actually guilty or not guilty of the charges of sexual assault and overcoming resistance by choking, and whether he is found guilty or not guilty of the charges in court.
          Either way, many people might think no woman in her right mind, even a crackerjack lawyer as Henein reportedly is, would even think of defending a man charged with sexually assaulting and choking other women.

By defending such a man, a female lawyer could be perceived by many other women and men as condoning that kind of alleged behavior by Ghomeshi against other women. Some people might even believe a female lawyer defending a man in his situation might tarnish her own personal and/or professional reputation.

Psychologically Intriguing

Most published accounts of Ghomeshi since he was charged with these criminal offences variously paint him as weird, controlling, narcissistic, talented behind a microphone, likeable, charming with an ability to help others feel comfortable speaking with him, insecure, cruel, and clever.

In these contexts, Ghomeshi’s apparent cleverness could have led him to consider the overall potential psychological benefits of fighting these criminal charges with a female lawyer, instead of with a male attorney. The former CBC host might have assumed he and a male lawyer could be perceived, in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, as having a ‘men against women’ defence.

Enter Marie Henein.

Hope and Perception

Since perception is important, including in courtrooms during trials, Ghomeshi will be hoping he will be perceived by the judge as not guilty of the four charges of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking, involving three women.

When all is said and done, Ghomeshi’s hope for a positive outcome for him at his trial could be bolstered by the possible psychological advantages of having another woman, Henein, defending him.