In Front of Our Nose: Capricious Petulance
A commercial has hurt the CINC's fee-fees.
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”-George Orwell.
For previous entries, click here.
Via Reuters: Trump says talks with Canada off after ad invokes Reagan as free-trader.
U.S. President Donald Trump intensified his criticism of Canada on Friday after terminating trade talks over a Canadian political advertisement that used Republican icon Ronald Reagan saying tariffs cause trade wars and economic disaster.
Trump, who imposed import tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum and autos earlier this year, called the video ad fraudulent in a Truth Social post Thursday.
“Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Of course, at some point they will resume again, because the Master Negotiator will deign to speak again to the Great White North.
But man, having a manchild govern via social media reactions is just so very ridiculous.
I feel like I need the “You are not serious people” meme from Sucession playing on a loop.
This is exactly why tariffs should be in the hands of Congress and not a single personality (especially not this one). A government should set overall policy on the basis of some level of deliberation. Allowing that policy to be directed by an individual is a structural problem that the Constitution sought to solve, but the Republican party fails to appreciate.
Perhaps the ironically named Truth Social platform will ultimately be a go-to source for historians who want to document every dumb utterance from our tragically disordered President.
Here’s Reagan’s address.
I can see how this would upset El Taco. Here’s a Republican president talking like an articulate person. Preposterous!
Also, at some point I don’t think it’s too much to ask that someone who’s committed so much fraud in his life have at least a notion of what fraud is.
The Toddler-in-Chief, indeed.
Cue J.D. Vance:
“We call upon all our allies to uphold free speech! No, not like that!”
Speaking of petulance, trump lashed out at CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins yesterday when she fact-checked him as he responded to her question asking why he chose to pardon the founder of Binance (Changpeng Zhao)…
Trump: I don’t know, it was recommended by a lot of people. A lot of people say that… Are you talking about the crypto person?
Collins: Yes.
Trump: A lot of people say that he wasn’t guilty of anything. He served four months in jail. They say that, he was not guilty of anything, that what he did…
Collins: He admitted to his crimes.
Trump: Well you don’t know that much about crypto. You know nothing about… you know nothing about nothing. You fake news.
If trump wanted to fire up nationalistic fervor by getting fresh video of Canadians booing the U.S. national anthem, then he’s likely to get that tonight before game 1 of the World Series in Toronto.
CBC has the full text of Reagan’s speech, with the lines used in the ad bolded.
TL;DR: the sources I’ve looked at do a terrible job reporting the situation if one looks beyond the surface. CBC did the best, because all it did was bold the parts used in the ad. But the headlines imply that that ad misrepresents Reagan’s Address. It doesn’t. Trump claims, in all caps and with Elaine Benes exclamation point usage, that Reagan loved tariffs. That is a misrepresentation of Reagan and that address. But I guess quoting Trump’s response side-by-side with the full text of the speech, and the parts used in the ad falls under analysis rather than objective reporting.
I’ve looked at a few additional pieces:
BBC, Marketwatch, and National Post.
I pulled the relevant text from the address from the NP link. With the exception of the part I bolded, in that address, Reagan makes his case for free trade. It is in opposition to tariffs. He gives historical context from the Great Depression.
First, it should be emphasized that the ad was produced by a provincial premier, not anyone in the national government.
Second, note that he also calls Japan a “good friend”. Completely unlike how Trump treats traditional allies.
Now, the most accurate response to the ad I have seen is that the ad used five lines, out of sequence, from a five minute speech. That is true. But note what is missing from that claim: any specificity regarding how the ad misrepresents Reagan. Because it does not.
The Reagan Presidential Library released a statement claiming that the ad misrepresented the address and that they were exploring legal options, because Premier Ford was not granted permission to use the speech. The statement as a whole strikes me as performative—pre-compliance to avoid drawing ire from Trump, et al.
I concede that I don’t know for sure. But I have trouble imagining that anyone needs permission to use a Presidential address to the public. Much less someone from a different country. Anyone who knows, feel free to enlighten me. And if they do need permission, copyright/IP laws need way more reform than even I thought.
But the key point is that the ad does not misrepresent the speech at all. In fact the point of the speech was to reaffirm Reagan’s commitment to free trade—general opposition to tariffs. With one, limited exception. That is nothing like Trump’s approach to tariffs.
He then explains why he chose to make an exception to that general viewpoint in the case of one trade partner over one product (semiconductors) that was subject to a pre-existing trade agreement.
To be fair, Reagan does not provide the specific evidence of Japan violating the agreement. But the Trump administration’s ’evidence’ for the necessity of tariffs is an assertion that pretty much every country, excepting Russia, is screwing the US over. Oh, and that China manipulates their currency.
The headlines are mostly in the form of, “here’s what Reagan actually said about tariffs” as if it was any different from the text of the speech.
If the goal was to just present Reagan’s words, highlighting the lines used in the ad, the CBC did it correctly.
The BBC’s approach was awful. They reprinted the speech, showing what lines were cut from the ad, and which were presented out of order. But never do they demonstrate that the omissions and sequence change the meaning of the words. Either do what the CBC did or fact check the misrepresentation claims. Don’t half-ass it.
Moreover, writing that reordering the lines doesn’t change the meaning of the address is straightforward. It does not cross the line between reporting and analysis. It is basic reading comprehension.
If this approach was an answer on a standardized test, it likely would not pass. Neither would The Presidential Library’s statement. But maybe they would if the grader was generous, but it would likely be with a low score.
What I do know: Trump’s characterization would fail that portion of the test. He would not be able to move onto sixth grade with that kind of answer.
On a Friday afternoon with my scotch poured, I like to take a moment to reflect.
Today, my reflection is on a question that has me completely perplexed: How does the ego of a Republican Member of Congress – a person presumed to be interested in public service, power, or influence and therefore the type of person who would pursue the career of a politician – how does such an ego handle the relentless reminders that they have supplicated themselves to a manchild who governs via social media, with the attention span of a gnat, and the impulses of petulant brat?
I know I couldn’t take that kind of relentless humiliation before I would feel compelled to quit or switch sides in order to remove the source of my pain.
@Kurtz: In addition to your cogent comment, it’s worth pointing out that Reagan was consistently committed to free trade throughout his presidency, as indeed was the Republican Party. For example in a 1982 speech, he said this:
In the 1987 speech Trump claims was “fake”, he made a clear statement of general principles:
That Trump and the MAGA foot soldiers now seek to deny all this – to lie that in fact Reagan was all for tariffs – proves they have advanced to a stage where they are willing to ignore reams of hard irrefutable evidence in favor of their own made-up narratives.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. George Orwell, ‘1984’.
@Scott F.:
Easily. They’re Republicans. They’re kiss up, kick down kind of people.
And public service never had anything to do with it.