How Trump works to muddy the waters and how his opponents play into his hand.

Napoleon Bonaparte once remarked, “the art of war consists, with a numerically inferior army, in always having larger forces than the enemy at the point which is to be attacked or defended.” While nominally referring to his area of expertise — the theater of war, Napoleon digs into a deeper truth about struggle: to defeat an opponent holding a stronger position, spread her thin and attack at the weakest points. Now, I’m not sure that President Trump has ever read Napoleon but he’s the embodiment of such a strategy. His use of divisive rhetoric and ability to reframe any argument continually stumps traditional intellectuals. Many claiming to understand his tactics continue to fall into the same traps and it has eroded the value of intellectual discourse.

It has often been said that you cannot reason an individual out a position they didn’t use reason to reach in the first place.

For discourse to happen, both sides must operate in good faith. A dialogue is meant to act as a spotlight, illuminating the issues and coming to an understanding of what either side believes and revealing if there is room for synthesizing new ideas. When discussions become nothing more than exercises in searching for “gotcha!” moments, moral candor quickly dwindles. Conversations become reduced to 240-character bullets that can be posted in seconds to gain the most traction. Those random tweets that get the most likes become the only narrative that matters.

To make it explicitly clear, it is not one side that is responsible for the downfall of authentic debate. I think this degradation can be summed up as the intellectually dishonest versus the intellectually arrogant. Those attempting to defend the indefensible operate by shifting the goal posts, building arguments on shaky logic, confusing the conversation with pointless non-sequiturs, and, at worst, directly attacking their opponent. This is not a new phenomenon but the outrage machine of ready-made talk-shows and social media has made in an inescapable constant. It is a tragedy that these debate tactics are so common in the world today, but they are staggeringly effective, especially when the intellectually arrogant play into their hand.

The ability of the president to perpetuate this is staggering. How many times have you read a tweet or official statement that left you grasping? Take for example his treatment of the NFL players who decided to protest police brutality by kneeling during the National Anthem. His ability to redirect that conversation from the subject of police brutality against minorities to a vague notion of anti-Americanism and anti-military leanings from the left had a twofold effect on the conversation. First, it provided adequate fodder to energize his base, but more importantly it moved the conversation away from a difficult argument to defend to one based on primal instinct. Respect for the flag and America’s soldiers is so sacrosanct in a large segment of the populace that to disrespect it is to have already lost the argument.

It has often been said that you cannot reason an individual out a position they didn’t use reason to reach in the first place. The intellectually arrogant still try. Instead of pausing the conversation and refocusing on the initial point of debate they indulge the other side in these tangents much to the detriment of pointed discussion. I think this is a deep flaw in how the intelligentsia of the opposition to Trump sees itself. They understand the need for education and feel it is their duty to both dispel false arguments and ‘teach’ the other side what they’re doing wrong. When done in a proper way it is a positive exercise in expression and learning, but more often it’s a paternalistic gesture that the intellectually dishonest will never accept. Much of this stems from the opposition’s fear of normalizing the rhetoric of Trump and his followers. Refusing to call out the innate racism, misogyny, and xenophobia of Trump is tantamount to endorsing those ideas.

Perhaps that’s a form of arrogance in itself. Why should the opposition consider itself responsible for the caustic speech of Trump if not for some paternalistic notion of responsibility for what others think? Is this not a case of individuals placing the blame on themselves for not educating the other side better, like a parent doing the same for their ignorant child? It is a logical flaw for the people fighting for equality to place the blame on themselves for the crass views of others. When activists conflate the fight over words with the fight against the policies of the administration, they play directly into the hand of those that seek to muddy the waters to avoid change in the first place. Well-intentioned activists fall into the trap of relying on the use of words like ‘bigotry’ and ‘racism’ that, while absolutely well-founded, also work to validate and entrench their opponent.

What’s more, I think the opposition understands this to some degree. It’s delusion to claim that ending an argument with accusations of racism, no matter how valid, will have an educational effect on the person they are debating. In the age of Trump, with daily reminders of the negative direction of the country, any victory against a supporter can be internalized as a victory against Trump. It’s easy, and nominally right, to call people out on their racism and bigoted ideas but it’s much harder to do it in such a way that focuses on change rather than victory and shame. What is the opposition to do? It’s the paradox of ignorance — challenging someone’s ideas in an effort to change them often causes them to become more deeply entrenched. This is where Trump thrives and the opposition falters.

When he puts forth an absurd quotation basking in ignorance or just a purely racist remark, the outrage machine spins. 24-hour news networks and social media alike talk incessantly about why he’s wrong and his supporters are stupid. This has no effect on changing anything, it doesn’t confront the heart of the issue, and further it actually strengthens Trump’s position within his base. Trump exploits this perfectly as a distraction or to alleviate criticism of his policies. If he releases an unpopular policy, all he has to do is accompany it with an outlandish remark and inevitably it results in fighting and outrage about the comment itself.

The opposition needs to stop feeling responsible for the words and actions of the other side and instead focus on the issues themselves. I am by no means absolving myself of this. Like many of my generation, I too am frustrated with current administration and its supporters and the supreme ignorance they show. President Trump uses his rhetoric as a distraction from his hurtful policies. The less they’re talked about, the fewer people understand the scale of their damage. The use of distraction is intellectually dishonest, but we’re often so wrapped up in our arrogance and need prove to others that we’re not racist or bigoted like them, that Trump continues to be successful with his smokescreens.

It’s tempting in the age of Trump to search for the small victories where they can be found, to call supporters on their bigotry and count it as a win on that scale. There must be a balance between guiding the ignorant to knowledge and simply seeking to insult them, though. While it feels right in the moment and acts to assuage our fear of condoning and normalizing their behavior, realize that for the most part it’s a distraction. Whether purposeful or not, it acts as a diversion away from discussing the real problems America is facing. As the opposition clamors over itself to condemn all acts of speech, Trump continues to pass his agenda and further entrench his followers in his ideology. Ultimately, focusing on the issue at hand and passing legislation to protect the vulnerable will always be more effective than policing vitriolic speech.

Photo by George Makris with a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license for Flickr