Donald Trump’s tweeting ways continue unabated, with some such commentary offered during James Comey’s address regarding hacking to a House panel. Trump’s behavior is by now so commonplace that we are no longer surprised or outraged by this “conduct unbecoming a President.” His critics, and not just the over-the-top nitpickers, continue to justly deride this… well, lets generously call it “style,” as everything from sloppy to dangerous to proof that he is a liar, that he is unhinged, and that he is unfit for office.

And, indeed, this style is perilous, both to the President and to the country. It is beyond doubt that a President’s every word is scrutinized by parties from all sides, by journalists, by pundits, by statesmen, by leaders both foreign and domestic, by the business world, and by average Americans of all stripes. It is also beyond doubt that the President’s words matter, that they have an impact, that they affect the policies, actions and reactions of people and nations all over the world, and Trump’s “style” is the sort of thing that can breed uncertainty and damage important relationships, to put it mildly. Some excuse this “style” as rhetoric rather than statesmanship, and While it is true that people filter out or turn the volume down on “rhetoric,” Trump hasn’t figured out the difference between rhetoric and disprovable, unforced-error falsehoods.

Or, perhaps he has and simply doesn’t care. How could this be, we might wonder, given how easy it makes it for his critics to eviscerate him?

To answer this question, contemplate a comment made by a Facebook political “friend” of mine:

You have to understand his tweets.

Columnist Salena Zito famously observed, during the campaign, that “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” This remains true, and it remains the key to understanding both why his supporters stand steadfast despite the twitter storms and why Trump keeps up with this puzzling “style.” If we want to actually try to interact with and try to win over Trump’s supporters, to try and draw them out of their all-or-nothing partisanship, to open their eyes when he says or does things that are harmful, stupid or counterproductive, we need to come to terms with how they consider him and what he says. We need to come to terms with how they process “Trumpisms.” We don’t have to agree with them or accept them, or excuse Trump’s “style,” but if we want to engage the Trumpkins, we must understand them.

People like that he speaks his mind. People like that he doesn’t parse every word, that he chooses brash over measured, that he shoots from the hip, that he is confrontational and aggressive, and that he isn’t above talking trash, even after winning the Presidency. People like the appearance of anti-establishmentarianism that his style conveys. People like that the mainstream press hates him, that the opposition goes apoplectic over every outrageous tweet, and that the people they dislike are so incensed and off-put by his “Trumpisms.”

The harsher the criticism, especially over what his supporters consider mild stuff, the stronger their resolve to stand with him. The louder the outrage from the liberal press, the more determined the Trumpkins are to entrench their support. Make no mistake, this isn’t about factuality, or accuracy, or proof, or analysis or logic. This is an all-out shoving match, a battle of wills and a test of loyalties, and Trump’s critics will not win over his supporters by continuing to point out his unpresidential behavior, his propensity for making unsubstantiated and easily-disproved assertions, or his loose-cannon style every waking moment and at every utterance.

When Trump asserts that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, normal-thinking folks parse his words literally. They presume (as they should) that Trump is making a specific accusation.

However, Trump’s supporters don’t read it that way. To them, “Trump Tower” and “Obama” are shorthand for “The Trump campaign” and “the government.” They read the essence of Trump’s accusation, not the particulars, and when the opposition party, the press, and indeed various government officials sink their teeth into the literal words, they wave it all off as a distraction and a witch hunt. To them, Trump’s assertion is that the government in general snooped on Trump’s campaign in general, and disproof of the specific claim that Obama ordered wiretaps of Trump tower is an irrelevance.

Or, if not an irrelevance, a triviality. A common response to questions about all this runs of the form, “How’s your 401k?” “Notice that the Mexicans are leaving?” “See that Muslims are moving to Canada?” “Did you see how the deficit has declined?” “Catch all those EOs that undid Obama’s EOs?” “You’re welcome.”

Logically, such responses are fallacious. They’re deflections and non-sequiturs. Some of them are also challengeable on fact or arguable from a policy perspective. But, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t offered up, or at least used internally as means of affirming the correctness of their support for the Untethered Orange Id. And, they’re “proof” that the politics-as-usual folks are not only wrong in their hyper-criticism of the new President, but cloudy and narrow old-school thinkers in a new and different political era.

You, I, and other rational, skeptical folks can continue to parse Trump’s Trumpisms for logic and veracity (and lack thereof). You, I and other rational, skeptical folks can continue to point out that he’s saying crazy shit, that he’s making stuff up, that he’s either lying or failing to prove his accusations. You, I and other rational, skeptical folks can continue to draw our already-concluded conclusions, whether they be that he’s acting stupidly, that he’s a liar, that he’s worrisome, that he’s unhinged, that he’s dangerous, or that he’s a Machiavellian manipulator of the press and the opposition. In doing so, we are merely preaching to the like-minded and the converted, not to the Trumpkins. It is only when we come to terms with how they view and process Trump and Trumpisms that we can begin to figure out how to properly talk about him with them.

Make no mistake, Trumpkins are neither obligated nor willing to see the world and read his tweets the way we think they should, no matter how logical we are in thinking so. It’s a whole different world of political discourse, one where Mrs. Malaprop, William Archibald Spooner, Yogi Berra and, yes, George W. Bush are forefathers and where parsing things “seriously but not literally” is the baseline. If we wish, in our criticism, to tame Trump’s excesses, we need to come to terms with how his supporters regard him and the words that come out of his mouth, rather than continue to blast away at those words. After all, shouldn’t the goal be to win hearts and minds, rather than reinforce what we’ve already demonstrated to those who already agree with us?

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.