Not really the comic strip character Dilbert saying it, but his creator Scott Adams, who asserted very early in Trump’s campaign that Trump would not only win the nomination but the presidency as well while other commentators, like moi, were calling him a clown.
The basis for Adam’s assertion was that Trump was such a highly skilled persuader that only a fellow expert persuader, as Adams dubbed himself, could appreciate Trump’s advantage. I have qualms about Adam’s acting as if he were the voice of detached reason in all of this – he has done his own B. S. ing to promote his stature – but the insight that Trump is the Albert Einstein of B. S. and could make facts seem irrelevant cannot be denied.
These days he completely ignores anything that does not fit with the message he wants to sell, and the press seem impotent to challenge him, like a few days ago on the White House lawn when they appeared like a bunch of yapping puppies and he their master, avoiding answering anything really, just a lot of B. S. and evasion. The press must rethink how they are going to handle this slippery serpent.
I’m not going to further describe the obvious as one either sees what I’m talking about or can’t be convinced, but I get nervous when I hear talk of a “blue wave” when so much depends on who wins the battle of conflicting narratives in the minds of those relatively few who seem likely to tip the fall elections to one party or the other. Just like with the presidential election.
And in winning those folks over, successful B. S. might be the big divider – certainly not the weight of facts – so I think it a good idea to become familiar with Scott Adams’ views expressed in his: blog.dilbert.com By the way, the truncated analysis borrowed for the title above comes from Episode 104 of his blog, titled: Propaganda videos, Peace with NK and Racism.
In there you’ll also find Adam’s high praise for the propaganda video given to Kim Jong Un, a video that most observers, again like myself, laughed at. Before wading in be prepared to feel uncomfortable. Seeing him tearing apart positions you might hold dear, such as the inhumanity of putting “kids in cages,” a position he calls “fraudulent, but deeply effective persuasion.”
His emphasis on the effectiveness of the persuasion rather than the right or wrong of it can be disconcerting. I would imagine he would give high marks for Hitler’s persuasiveness. Still, bottom line. His analyses seem well worth reflecting upon, especially for liberals who place too much emphasis on facts to sway others, which could leave us shocked once again by the results of the next election.
P. S. – A little self confession. I can’t watch much of Rachel Maddow’s show anymore. I respect her ability and knowledge, but she continues to teach facts, often repeating and reconnecting ones she has taught before, as if continued speculative analysis of of the Mueller probe is going to persuade anyone anew. I for one just want Mueller (and those investigating Michael Cohen) to finally present their findings before it becomes awkward to do so too close to the fall election. People hearing “witch hunt” incessantly while Mueller remains silent is a troubling brew.
I think for these cases to drag on through the election will confirm Trump’s being a victim B. S. in the minds of many who are on the fence awaiting a push to the Dem side or to that of the Trumpublicans.
Much more than usual, which party winds up controlling the House of Representatives will dictate much of what is to come in the next two years.