How HBO’s statement helps explain Donald Trump’s popularity
By Bart Barry
Wednesday HBO released a statement about Manny Pacquiao’s weeks-old statement about the prizefighter’s interpretation of the Bible’s anticipation of the current LGBTQ platform. There is rarely a reason to interrogate press releases from cable networks, but this one seemed portentous: One opened the email thinking HBO, in an incredible expression of solidarity with oppressed persons everywhere, had announced its refusal to condone Pacquiao’s hate speech by cancelling its distribution of the Filipino’s match with Timothy Bradley in April.
Well, no, actually – of course not. Instead, in a manifestation of what groupthink imbecility corporations reduce themselves to whenever trying to accomplish anything different from revenue (like moral judgements), the network decided to condemn Pacquiao’s sincerely held, sincerely stated and sincerely reiterated beliefs by implying, in the insincerest way possible, the network’s endorsement of Pacquiao would continue unabated because of its “obligation to both fighters” – only a network far less scrupulous than HBO, in other words, might punish Bradley for Pacquiao’s ignorance.
But why bother? why now? what could this accomplish? Answer: To illustrate tidily how Donald Trump is, in March, nearer to becoming our 45th President in November than any contemplative person in January imagined he would be.
It’s the insincerity of the HBO statement that rankles, and since HBO is a media company, it should be instructive for us, the large percentage of the country that cannot grasp whence Donald Trump’s popularity derives, to contrast the event of HBO’s statement with the event of Trump’s ascent. Trump embellishes most everything, exaggerates his own record, obfuscates, and often says things he knows are not true, but he never appears insincere. His appeal is his sincerity – his zealous belief in his own greatness; anything might be said in service to it – and his supporters are not the idiots we think they are.
For a few presidential cycles now, the dog-whistle metaphor has been fashionable, likening the insincere and euphemistic bits politicians say to a sound humans cannot hear but puppies can. Probably this sort of analogy first achieved acclaim with Ronald Reagan’s laudable/infamous (depending on one’s region and political bent) States’ Rights speech in Mississippi 36 years ago, a speech that winked at Southern segregationists while giving its speaker all sorts of deniability.
If employing rhetorical irony is saying something that means more than merely the denotative sum of its words, being cynical often is saying something that means nearly the opposite of its literal contents – “all natural ingredients” for instance – and cynicism is inferring from another’s rhetoric its opposite. While the crafters of dog-whistle statements would defend them as irony, Shakespeare’s own mechanics, they rely on the cynicism of their audiences, which in its own tawdry way attributes more talent and imagination to these audiences’ members than outsiders generally do.
What Trump practices is not dog-whistle so much as dog-tail; in all of nature, there are few things as decisively honest as a dog’s tail. A dog does not wag its tail ironically, a dog does not eat food it dislikes then whip its tail sarcastically about, a dog may misunderstand, and a dog may stand bemused by human indecision, but a dog’s tail ever tells the truth. What Trump’s supporters watch is his tail; when he is speaking in circles, when he is contradicting himself, when he is insulting his opponents, when he is effusively praising himself, his supporters ask only one question: Does he believe this? Their support for him as a candidate, not his platform or ideas that are alternately threadbare and frightening and frighteningly threadbare, are proportionate to how enthusiastically his supporters see his tail wagging and subsequently how enthusiastically their own tails wag back.
Well what have we here? This column has now done the unthinkable, likening humans to animals, the sort of ruse that got the congressman from Sarangani Province summarily scolded by blogs across the fruited plane, disowned by an apparel manufacturer notorious for its international labor practices, and called “insensitive, offensive and deplorable” by HBO.
Really, you say, your own tail beginning to stir, a broadcaster stated something that honestly about one of its assets?
Well, no, actually – of course not. Manny is none of these things to HBO on the eve of a broadcasting event with revenue expectations in the millions of dollars; his “recent comments”, you see, those are the insensitive and offensive and deplorable things, not the beloved lad nicknamed Pacman who once eradicated world poverty with yellow gloves (to pick the one ludicrous Pacquiao prefight storyline for which HBO is not responsible).
Saturday after results from the Republican primaries came in, Trump opened the floor to media inquiries by saying, “I would love to take a couple questions from these dishonest people.” It’s no wonder his supporters howled and cheered; much as members of the media may hold them in contempt, much as they may coin ironical terms like “low information” and “poorly educated” as descriptors, Trump supporters hate members of the media all the more, and their surging hatred now sloshes over every abstract and arbitrary barrier, from decency to integrity to education to partisanship.
Trump’s contempt is genuine; he considers his opponents beneath him, and he hates the dishonesty of an electoral/press cycle in which the candidates who purchase the most advertising traditionally receive the most coverage from a media that calls itself independent, unbiased, objective, and fair and balanced. The sole way to disabuse Trump’s supporters of their fervor is to prove in some playful and offhanded manner their man is inauthentic.
That feat, though, would require both authentic spokesmen and media outlets capable of recognizing and disseminating authentic commentary.
Bart Barry can be reached via Twitter @bartbarry