Radicals must be resilient and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics.
—Saul Alinsky, 1971
Pioneer of community organizing
“Be spittingly angry … angry enough to curse, scream and name-call” rages Jessica Valenti in The Guardian. “Spare me the calls for civility,” because expecting me “to speak with civility is absurd.” She is defending Robert De Niro’s “Fuck Trump!” shout-out at the Tony Awards and comedian Samantha Bee’s “feckless cunt” slur against Ivanka Trump.
Valenti is arguing against Frank Bruni. She has found him “yammering” against De Niro and Bee’s vulgarity in his New York Times op-ed. There he also points out, “Anger isn’t a strategy. Sometimes it’s a trap.”
I’ll call it the “useful-enemy trap” because populist leaders need enemies. The more outrageous, rude and unreasonable an enemy appears, the more useful they are. Valenti and De Niro are most useful … to Trump. This trap is particularly dangerous because those caught in it aggressively spread their misconceptions and entrap others. Their “righteousness” makes them effective proselytizers.
Two days after Valenti’s op-ed in The Guardian went viral, comedian Kathy Griffin made headlines by tweeting with sparkling humor, “Fuck you, Melanie (sic). … you feckless complicit piece of shit.” Surely that had many in Trump’s base quaking in their boots, don’t you think? She thought she was getting even after Trumpsters had harassed her. But not understanding the game, she gave Trump a present.
Why Enemies Are So Useful
George W. Bush’s approval rating jumped from 51% to 86% in one week after the 9/11 attacks. It was not simply the attacks that did it. His speeches were good and well-received. But it is no coincidence that his most effective speeches occurred in that particular week. The country was unified by the attacks, and he was clearly on our side and intent on defending us.
The idea that an external enemy is helpful to leaders is anything but new. It is so well known that leaders often invent threats when none present themselves. For example, Bush invented the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So it is hardly surprising that Trump would know that enemies are useful. What’s surprising is that radicals don’t get this.
So Trump plays the left with his outrageous attacks, knowing his base is so aware of the game that they mockingly refer to the radicals’ counterattacks as “Trump derangement syndrome.” And even though they know Trump is deliberately pushing the left’s buttons, the counterattacks still prove to them that the “deranged left” is a real danger. Their view is this: Just imagine if such angry and easily-manipulated people gained power. Perhaps they have a point regarding our radical extremists.
Anger Is Not a Strategy
Frank Bruni’s New York Times op-ed — the one attacked by Valenti — begins, “I get that you’re angry. I’m angry, too. But anger isn’t a strategy.” Completely missing Bruni’s point, Valenti strongly implies that Bruni opposes being angry. She even went so far as to suggest that he calls for “putting up with injustice” while being “cheerful throughout.”
Obviously, Bruni expected this counterattack, which is why he began his op-ed with “I’m angry, too.” But it’s no use because the Valentis of this world can see no difference between being angry and screaming. That, of course, is exactly how very young children think. When angry, all they know how to do is throw a temper tantrum. So for them, anger equals a tantrum. And for Valenti, no tantrum means Bruni must not be angry.
But as adults, we learn to channel our anger in many other ways — even, for example, pretending not to be angry and then proceeding to stab our attacker in the back. Sociopaths like Trump become experts at finding sneaky ways to get even. As Bruni says, “Anger isn’t a strategy.” But temper tantrums are a strategy and organizing to beat Republican candidates is another strategy. Both can be fueled by anger. The first is a counterproductive strategy; the second, effective.
Valenti makes no logical argument for her temper-tantrum strategy. Instead, she simply lists terribly offensive things Trump has done. Because these are true, she gets credit with her audience for speaking the (completely obvious) truth. Then she jumps to the conclusion that since he’s horribly offensive, we should be offensive too. What?! We should follow Trump’s lead? Mimic his behavior? Some have even taken to saying, “When he goes low, we go lower.”
Going lower is a strategy. Cursing is a strategy. Name-calling is another. But anger is just fuel for the strategy we choose. We should use that fuel wisely and choose a strategy that works.
Conclusion
Radicals seem to believe that the more obvious their attack, the better. Perhaps this is to score points with fellow radicals. Or perhaps they believe their opponent will be frightened by the noise.
In any case, the more obvious the attack, the more Trump loves it. Representative Ocasio-Cortez is one of his greatest assets. Of course, she doesn’t mean to be. Her heart is in the right place.
It’s our job first to not fall into this trap ourselves. Second, we must remind our friends.
Ripped Apart
