A while back I stumbled across a blog by Scott Adams, author of the Dilbert comic strip, where he has been commenting extensively on the presidential campaign. I'd seen his Dilbert comics, but never realized what an narcissistic egomaniac Adams is. He even admits purposely writing embarrassing things to get attention, so it's not surprising that he regards Trump as highly intelligent. Based on what he sees as Trump's superior powers of persuasion, Adams has been predicting since last August that Trump will win the general election by a large margin. Only recently, with Trump's poll numbers tanking, has Adams finally revised his prediction.
I myself am a rabid anti-Trumper, so I was particularly interested in Adams' blog post, How to Un-Hypnotize a Rabid Anti-Trumper. The same post has been picked up by a number of other sites, at least one of which appears to be pro-Trump and is interesting for its comments. (Comments are disabled on Adams' blog.) "Just for fun" I decided to annotate Adams' blog with lots of links documenting how absurd some of his propositions are. I offer the result now as a resource for fellow rabid anti-Trumpers who might encounter Trump trolls or would-be hypnotists, or for anyone suffering from Post Hypnotic Trump Disorder™. Adams begins by bragging about being a "trained hypnotist" and an expert in the art of persuasion. As such, he is able to see how actions that "appear random and even dangerous" to rubes like you and me are really what puts Trump
in a league of his own.
You think I'm overstating the case for persuasion. Perhaps you think Trump is doing well for a variety of reasons that include his accurate reading of the Republican base.
But Trump's accurate reading of the Republican base is part of the art of persuasion. None of what you see in Trump's election success so far is luck or coincidence. It is technique. If you're not trained to see it, the method is invisible.
I would agree that Trump has accurately read the Republican base, but I think that's as far as it goes. I do wonder whether he has some hidden agenda, but everything I've seen indicates that his unfavorable ratings are not likely to change enough to turn the general election in his favor, even given Clinton's nearly as high unfavorability. Adams goes on to brag how he has already used "several persuasion techniques" that most readers don't recognize because they are "hidden in plain sight." He claims he can apply such techniques to un-hypnotize rabid anti-Trumpers. He does it "Just for fun" and is sure his readers can do it too.
When you encounter a rabid anti-Trumper, ask her what are the biggest concerns of a potential Trump presidency.
If "Supreme Court nominee" is one of the top objections, discontinue your persuasion for ethical reasons. This person has put some thought into the decision and has a legitimate opinion that is at least partly based on reason. I don't recommend changing that person's mind.
What? Supreme court nominations are always a concern, especially now for Democrats with the justices most likely to retire in the next four years being liberals or swing votes. But a truly knowledgable and thoughtful person might suspect that a Supreme Court justice will not typically remain committed to a particular doctrinal course beyond the term of the president that appointed him or her. That Adams would single out this concern as indicative of a reasoned opinion makes me suspect his agenda is every bit as opaque as Trump's. Could it be that it's all just snark? After all, in his other blogs, Adams points out that facts aren't relevant to persuasion, which explains why Trump, a "Master Persuader," has been so successful. Or am I just missing the "hidden in plain sight" persuasive techniques in the superficially logical arguments he suggests may be used to un-hyptonize anti-Trumpers?
But if a person's main objections to Trump include any the following four reasons, I would consider it ethical to apply persuasion.
...
Objection 1: Trump is a loose cannon who might offend other countries and maybe even start a nuclear war.
Persuasion: Trump has five decades of acting rational in business dealings, and getting along with people all over the world, including China and Russia. By now you would have heard stories of Trump being a loose cannon in his business dealings if such a thing had happened. We are hearing no stories of that nature.
Aren't we? It seems to me more like we're getting a steady diet of such stories. How about "The night the Rolling Stones fired Donald Trump?" Or the details of his failed stint in the airline business: "I cringed every time he opened his mouth," recalls Bruce Nobles, the former president of Trump Shuttle. On the lighter side, Frank Cerabino, Palm Beach Post humor columnist, counts Trump among his "favorite Palm Beachers, a guy who selflessly provides the world a constant stream of unintended humor."
Of course, even if there were a lack of stories about Trump's business dealings, it wouldn't prove anything. You wouldn't expect to hear inside details of high level corporate proceedings, particularly if they cast the participants in a bad light. Indeed, Trump is known to make extensive use of non-disclosure agreements to hide his dirty laundry. Nevertheless, there's plenty in the reports of Trump's public persona to suggest that his impulsive actions might be a cause for concern. Consider, for example, the fallout with NBC and chef José Andrés over his derogatory statements about Mexicans.
We may not know what Trump says in private in the board room or over the negotiating table, but when he shoots off his mouth in public and gets sued for defamation, he certainly looks more like a loose cannon than a rational businessman. In 1990, Trump threatened to sue securities analyst Marvin Roffman's employer over his comments published in the Wall Street Journal about the financial problems of the Taj Mahal casino. Roffman refused to retract his comments. He was fired, but won an arbitration award from his employer. Roffman then filed a two million dollar defamation suit against Trump that was eventually settled. More recently, Trump was sued for defamation by political strategist Cheri Jacobus for some of his disparaging tweets following her criticism of his claims that he is self funding his campaign.
Given the number of insults Trump has posted on Twitter just since becoming a candidate for president, it's surprising more people haven't sued him. Maybe they would, if defamation laws were loosened up. So when Trump himself, speaking about "hit pieces" in the NY Times and Washington Post, says, "We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before," it's really hard to imagine that it's all part of some "Master Wizard" plan.
His insults, outlandish statements and political incorrectness in general are probably nothing but pandering to his base, but even if there's more there than meets the eye, it doesn't make Trump any less a loose cannon. At the very least, he has emboldened racists and other social misfits, documented, e.g., here, here, and here. It doesn't matter whether Trump's rhetoric is part of a carefully thought out plan to persuade people to vote for him. The fact that it stirs up social unrest makes the "loose cannon" epithet entirely appropriate.
While most of the lawsuits in which Trump has been involved weren't for defamation, the sheer number of them-- 3500 according to a recent report in USA Today-- is unprecedented, offering further evidence of his capricious nature. Trump doesn't just make brash statements in front of the microphone. He makes them in his court pleadings. "No detail is too small for a Trump suit, and he often brings to bear overwhelming legal resources that enable him to outlast his adversaries." Many of the suits in which Trump is involved are brought by others against him, which may suggest something about the ethics of his business practices, but as a plaintiff, he depends on lawsuits as "one of his primary negotiating tools." That should give us further pause. It's been widely noted that running a business isn't like running a government, and Trump provides a stark example. Threatening to sue a competitor may be effective in a business setting, but it wouldn't work in international negotiations. That's especially true given that international courts rely for their authority on the very treaties from which Trump has vowed to withdraw.
And people don't suddenly change character at age 70. (That last sentence is the important one.)
That's for sure. Before there was Twitter, Trump used full page newspaper ads to air his incendiary comments.
How risky is Trump? Consider that Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage.
Could that have something to do with the failure of Trump Vodka? (Sorry-- couldn't resist that one.)
He was against the Iraq war.
Not according to PolitiFact:
A timeline of Trump's statements on the Iraq war by factcheck.org indicate that he was at best ambivalent in the run up to the war, and that he had a financial interest in opposing it.
He doesn't want boots on the ground in Syria. He wants a strong military to discourage war. Trump personally gains nothing from war, but he has a lot to lose, including every building with his name on it.
Most people want peace, so even if you knew it were true it's not much of an assertion to say that Trump is against war. To suggest, however, that Trump's buildings could be destroyed if the US went to war is absurd.
Putin already seems to like Trump. They are similar characters in terms of their persuasion talents. And it wouldn't hurt to be on good terms with Russia while we go after ISIS. Trump seems to have that relationship covered.
Or so he would have us believe. The facts may be otherwise:
Trump has been negotiating with the Chinese for years, with no problems yet. And the Chinese leaders are not children. They got their positions by being great deal-makers, like Trump. They might not want to negotiate against Trump, but they aren't afraid of his personality type.... They are not naive. They can tell the difference between a negotiator and a madman.
It's hard to overlook the fact that while he loudly proclaims the US trade deficit with China amounts to "rape," many of his products are manufactured there. Of course, hypocrisy does not disqualify one as a negotiator, but to say there have been no problems is probably a stretch. The story behind his investment in the Bank of America building near Rockefeller Center paints a different picture of Trump's business prowess. And while Trump vows to be tough with China, not everyone is confident he would be successful. See, e.g., President Trump would hand the world to China, by David Ignatius of the Washington Post. The Chinese might not want to negotiate against Trump, but they would probably prefer him to Clinton. In their eyes, Trump isn't a madman, just a big-mouthed clown.
Objection 2: Trump is terrible at business, as proven by his several bankruptcies.
Persuasion: Ask how many bankruptcies Trump has had. Most people say between 5-10. Then ask how many entities Trump has his name on. The answer is about 500. Then ask if that is a good performance for an entrepreneur who is often trying things in new fields.
It's pretty widely reported that Trump's companies have been through bankruptcy at least four times, or as many as six, by Politifact's tally. Trump is quick to point out, when countering criticism of his business acumen, that he has never filed for bankruptcy personally. It's only his business that have gone bankrupt. He even argues that his having filed for bankruptcy is a sign that he is skilled businessman. That's almost as ridiculous as the persuasion technique described here, suggesting that an entreprenuer can be considered successful by simply avoiding bankruptcy. In fact, Trump's bankruptcies were not the routine corporate deals he now says they were. To stave off his creditors, he gave up large ownership stakes and control of his business ventures along with substantial personal assets. And in addition to his huuuge casino bankruptcies, Trump has had numerous business failures that didn't end in bankruptcy, accounts of which we rabid anti-Trumpers find immensely entertaining. Some of the more widely publicized include:
Trump Airlines
Trump's loose cannon demeanor, noted above, combined with his ego-driven, bad business judgement were major factors in his failure as an airline executive. One of his pilots, Ray Belz, recalled that Trump was upset with the first makeover paint jobs on his planes because the big red T on the tail wasn't big enough. Though Trump now claims he "did great with it," it's estimated that his personal loss for his year and half in the airline business was about $100 million.
Trump Vodka
It does seem odd that Trump, a teetotaler, as noted above, would have his own brand of vodka. Trump's own account, however, proves that his vodka venture was just one more manifestation of his outsized ego: "[A] great friend of mine was a founder of Grey Goose. And what we're trying to do is top it. I want to top them just because it's fun to top my friends."
Trump: The Game
Not just one, but two failures. Trump partnered with Milton Bradley in 1989 to create a board game resembling a cross between Monopoly and Trump's real estate ventures. It was discontinued after only a year due to poor sales. A second edition came out in 2004, this time with Parker Brothers and featuring elements from Trump's reality TV show, The Apprentice. I find it interesting that Trump promised to donate profits from sales of the first game to charity. Now it's reported there is No Evidence Trump Gave Board Game Proceeds to Charity. Go figure! Perhaps when he made that promise he was thinking of the instructions for making deals in Trump: The Game-- "You cannot lie to another player or intentionally break a promise. Of course, some situations may be open to interpretation."
Trump Magazine
It may not be fair to call Trump's magazine a failure, since it was probably intended more as an ad space for Trump's other products than as a source of revenue. The original Trump magazines were distributed free at his hotels and other properties. The publisher of the last Trump magazine insists that it was profitable, but hasn't produced financial statements. Maybe they're hidden away with Trump's tax returns. Profitable or not, Trump Magazine folded after only two years. Maybe it lost too much revenue as major advertisers like Trump Steaks and Trump Vodka went out of business.
Trump Steaks
Clearly, Trump was no better a judge of steak than vodka, as manifested not only by the failure of Trump Steaks, but Trump's personal preference for well-done steaks. No taste-- sad! It was even the subject of a protest sign at one of Trump's rallies and some amusing comments on twitter. In unrelated news, Trump Steakhouse hit with 51 violations.
Trump University
I feel I should refrain from commenting in any detail here, since this is the subject of a pending class action suit. (snark) Oops-- there's already a Wikipedia article with more than 70 references and a lively talk page.
(Asking questions in that fashion is good persuasion technique. It removes the adversarial frame and gives the person a sense of coming to a new conclusion without pressure.)
I suspect it works even better if that "new conclusion" is based on actual facts.
Then explain how licensing works. Trump puts his name on various products and he gets paid even if the product or company does poorly in the end. That's an example of Trump taking the LEAST risk in a deal. The other parties take larger risks and frequently fail. Trump gets paid either way. All parties to the deals have lawyers who review everything....
Maybe Trump should study this explanation of how licensing works, since he seems not to have applied it very well. It's hard to know whether Trump's personal risk and involvement with his various business failures went beyond simply licensing his name. He did serve as a pitchman for the ones listed above, which is certainly in keeping with his huuuge ego.
As noted above, Trump Airlines was a perfect example of Trump's ego getting the better of his business judgement. He not only overpaid, by some accounts, on his purchase of the airplanes, but spent too much on top of that to have them luxuriously refurbished.
In the case of Trump Steaks, he negotiated with a supplier for the steaks and after trying to sell them himself with limited success, struck a deal with Sharper Image. Part of that deal included Trump's picture on the cover of the Sharper Image catalog, but very little investment by Sharper Image. The steaks never sold well and were soon discontinued, but Trump's picture on the catalog apparently stimulated sales of Sharper Image's other products. In other words, Trump took all the risk and none of the profit. Unfortunately, the Trump boost wasn't enough to keep Sharper Image afloat-- it filed for bankruptcy a year later.
Trump Vodka, aside from Trump's personal involvement in its promotion, was a more straightforward licensing deal. Apparently the lawyers who reviewed it, however, missed a detail or two. After Trump's licensed brand flopped, the trademark was abandoned. Later, Trump learned that an Israeli company, H. Pixel, was marketing its own kosher-for-Passover vodka under the Trump brand. H. Pixel had obtained permission from Trump's U.S. licensee, but Trump sued, claiming the license had been revoked.
Trump doesn't like risk. We see it in lots of ways.... He creates separate entities so some can go bankrupt without bringing down the rest. He licenses his name so he gets paid even if the company buying the license does not make a profit. And he diversifies his portfolio to reduce exposure to any one risk.
An explanation of how licensing works should include at least a cursory mention of trademarks. It's certainly true that Trump collects a bundle in fees for the use of his name, but to do so he must first obtain trademarks for the particular products his licensees are selling. Trump has applied for hundreds of trademarks, many of which seem to represent business failures. The filing fees for all those trademark applications are not the only cost. Before a trademark is registered, it must actually be used in commerce. It is possible to apply for a trademark based on "intent-to use," but if the mark is not used within six months, the application is deemed abandoned.
Many of Trump's trademark applications are for expressions that do not include his name. As with eponymous marks, their coverage is limited to the specific goods or services identified in the application. To capitalize on the success of his reality TV show, Trump famously attempted, without success, to register the expression "You're fired." It's interesting that Trump's application for casino services was rejected, but the owner of a ceramics studio was able to register the same mark. In fact, the same phrase has been used by at least one other ceramics studio whose owner did not apply for a trademark, but sought to block Trump from doing so.
Trump did manage to register "Make America Great Again" last year, having originally applied in 2012. That trademark only covers "Political action committee services," but it didn't stop Trump from sending a cease and desist letter to CafePress for undercutting his price on "Make America Great Again" baseball caps. Trump has pending applications for caps and other campaign apparel and accessories, but he wasn't actually the first to file. To get the applications assigned to him, Trump had to make a significant donation to a charity, the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, designated by original filer.
Obtaining trademarks is just the beginning-- management of the portfolio is itself a significant enterprise. Trump recently transferred many of his trademarks to a new company incorporated in Delaware, a move calculated to save him a considerable amount in taxes.
While well within his means, the effort required to maintain his large trademark portfolio makes it clear that Trump's licensing ventures are not a simple matter of sitting back and getting paid. Moreover, Trump's income from the various ventures described above is relatively insignificant next to what he makes on his luxury golf courses, hotels, condominiums and reality TV show. "Mr. Trump, it seems, has not embraced the widespread practice of diversifying his financial holdings." Trump does have significant diversity in his loan portfolio that he apparently likes to think gives him leverage with the banks. In his book, The Art of the Comeback, he boasted that when he couldn't meet the payments on his loans after the real estate downturn in the late 1980's, he was able to renegotiate them according to terms he dictated. "Look," Trump recalls telling his banker creditors, "I can tie you guys up for years-- in court proceedings, bankruptcy filings, and the other legal maneuvers I'm good at--when forced." Maybe now Trump is thinking that as President of 50 states he could just threaten to let a few of them go bankrupt when the national debt got out of hand. You know, so they wouldn't bring down the rest of the country. Too bad Trump's account of his savvy handling of debt, like so much of what he says, doesn't correspond too closely with reality: Trump Bankers Question His Portrayal of Financial Comeback.
It's easy to see that Trump's bankruptcies are but one of many clues that he is not the astute businessman he claims to be. One of the best assessments of Trump's business acumen came from Warren Buffett, a real self-made billionaire and generally good person (unlike Trump): "He simply got infatuated with how much money he could borrow, and he did not give enough thought to how much money he could pay back."
Based on everything we see, Trump consistently tries hard to avoid risk in everything he does. And people don't change character at age 70.
The exceptions to Trump's risk-avoidance include some of the provocative stuff he is saying during the campaign. That behavior looks risky to most observers, but it was exactly what got him the Republican nomination. Evidently, Trump takes risks when doing so makes sense.
It is highly unlikely that Trump considers in advance the risk of his provocative campaign rhetoric. Rather, like the fact that he puts his name on so many of his businesses, Trump's outlandish, attention seeking behavior is more indicative of his inherent narcissism than any penchant for risk assessment. The one risk he does consistently try hard to avoid is having anyone publicly disparage him. As noted above, Trump uses lawsuits as a negotiating tool, so defamation suits are par for the course. Many are frivolous, like the one he filed against author Tim O'Brien for estimating Trump's net worth to be much lower than Trump claimed, or the one against comedian Bill Maher over facetious comments suggesting Trump might be related to an orangutan. More recently Trump has threatened legal action against Art of the Deal ghost writer, Tony Schwartz, to keep him from airing his concerns that Trump is a sociopath, unfit to serve as President, and against the conservative Club for Growth for running attack ads against him.
Trump uses his trademark portfolio as yet another litigation tool against those who mention his name in a way he doesn't like. Given that the main reason the government recognizes trademarks is to enable consumers to identify the source of goods and services in commerce, it would really be more correct to say Trump misuses his trademark portfolio. The exclusive rights of a trademark aren't absolute, but that didn't deter Trump from threatening to sue the owner of the website, stoptrump.us, for trademark infringement and cybersquatting. Since he began his presidential compaign, Trump may have become more vigilant about snuffing out internet domain names that include "trump," even if they aren't particularly disrespectful. Threatening trademark litigation, however, is not some change of character for Trump, now that he is 70 and newly beset with negative publicity as a candidate for president. Much earlier in his career, back in the late 1980's, Trump sued brothers Jules and Eddie Trump to stop them from using their own surname for their real estate development business. (Donald) Trump lost that suit, but did manage to get the brothers' trademark cancelled. An interesting sidenote in that story: "In 2013, ABC News reported that a research firm, Wealth-X, ranked Eddie as No. 35 on a list of the 50 'most influential ultrahigh-net-worth individuals.' He was the only Trump on [the] list..." 2013 was also the year Donald Trump sent threatening tweets to a rapper, Mac Miller, who used Trump's name in a song. Maybe if Donald Trump spent less time on twitter, he'd be richer than anyone else named Trump and he'd have enough money to self-fund his campaign.
To briefly recap, there is overwhelming evidence indicating that Trump is a "loose cannon", that he is not a skilled, risk-averse businessman, and that narcissism is at the root of these flaws. Trump's behavior and public statements also reveal an alarmingly indifferent attitude toward the first amendment. Along with his call to "open up libel laws," noted above, Trump's resort to actual and threatened trademark and defamation litigation and his ongoing war with the press have galvanized proponents of anti-SLAPP legislation.
Objection 3: Trump is a racist.
Trump has never mentioned race beyond pointing how how many African-Americans and Latinos support him. Ask your anti-Trumper to offer evidence otherwise.
How about this: The Collected Quotes of Donald Trump on "the Blacks"?
Then point out…
Mexico is a country, not a race.
So what? Adams seems willing to concede that Trump has made disparaging remarks about Mexicans, a nationality, which he certainly has. On occasion, he has also mentioned Hispanics and Latinos, typically when defending previous remarks. Technically, these terms refer to ethnicity, but it's not clear that Trump even understands the difference. Many Hispanics actually identify their race as Mexican, Hispanic or Latin American; indeed, Hispanic may be a race on 2020 census. Of course, till then, it might be more accurate just to call Mr. Trump a xenophobe, but we want to use language he and his supporters can understand. Just think of calling Trump a racist as sort of a linguistic kill shot.
Islam is open to all races.
Hmmm. How does Trump's failure to understand 1st Amendment freedom of religion make him not a racist? Again, we could just say Trump is a religious bigot, but in truth, he's not very religious, and it's shorter and pithier to say "racist" than "religious bigot". Also, see above re "xenophobe".
If the topic of Judge Curiel comes up, point out that all human beings are biased by their life experiences. Ask anti-Trumpers if they think Curiel would be comfortable at his next family gathering if his verdict favors Trump. (Notice the question form of persuasion again.)
Acknowledge that Trump was offensive when he attacked the judge's parental connections to Mexico. But note that it is also good persuasion and good legal strategy. It puts the judge in the tough spot of either siding with Trump or appearing biased if he does not.
First, let's make one fact clear: Trump's comments about Judge Curiel, aside from being offensive, are not "good legal strategy."
Trump has reproduced on his campaign website an online magazine article arguing that Judge Curiel should recuse himself. To the extent that any of the arguments presented there are even marginally coherent, they have been specifically rejected as legitimate grounds for recusal by courts and established guidelines. Moreover, Judge Curiel has an affirmative obligation not to recuse himself without good reason, and Trump has not made a formal motion to have him recused. Trump's own lawyer has stated, "The judge is doing his job. We're not seeking to recuse the judge." It's even been pointed out that Trump's lawyers could be subject to disciplinary action for filing such a motion, since it would likely be considered frivolous.
Trump has also tweeted and stated in interviews that Judge Curiel should have granted his motion for summary judgement in the Trump University case, earning Four Pinocchios from Washington Post's Fact Checker. Trump insists Judge Curiel's Mexican heritage makes him biased, a claim that is particularly ridiculous in view of the fact that as a federal prosecutor, Judge Curiel received death threats from Mexican drug trafficers.
Good persuasion? Asking about Judge Curiel's feelings at a family gathering? I guess that might work if it never occured to the subject of your persuasion that if judges couldn't put aside their personal biases to make impartial decisions from the bench, our whole justice system would collapse, but clearly it hasn't. To be persuasive, the question further requires the subject to assume that Judge Curiel's family members are also biased against Trump because of their heritage. Even Trump has backed off his original insinuation about Judge Curiel's inherent bias, stating that he himself would love to appoint Mexican-American judges.
Good persuasion? Putting the judge in a tough spot? Hardly. Trump's sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, is a federal judge, so he very familiar with the vetting process for that office. In his book, The America We Deserve, he recounted his sister's response at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing when she was asked her opinion about abortion. "She patiently explained," Trump wrote, "that her personal views on the issue were meaningless; a federal judge's job is to uphold the law as it is written, not to interpret from the bench based on his or her personal views."
Then point out that only the Democrats are talking about race. And all of that race talk has been divisive. Trump has literally never said a negative thing about race during this election.
Only Democrats? How many is the appropriate number of LOL's? You wouldn't expect Republicans to talk openly about race. After all, the Southern Strategy has been a mainstay in the GOP campaign playbook since Nixon used it to win the White House in 1968. It is no small irony that in this election season many Republicans are denouncing racism, but it's Trump's comments they're talking about. You can split hairs about race and ethnicity or whether saying something racist makes you a racist, but you'd be on more solid ground arguing that the Earth is flat than that Trump is not devisive.
(Professional pundits will talk about Trump's so-called "racist dog-whistles," but normal voters do not mention it. They don't know what it means.)
Racist dog-whistles-- there's a can of worms. Pundits actually seem to be divided on whether Trump is actually using dog-whistles, or has eschewed them in favor of overt racism. If you accept Adams' characterization, that Trump has "literally" said nothing negative about race, then you would probably say Trump's messages are coded. (Yes, I spotted that, Scott-- "literally" is another "linguistic kill shot," as in, if you "literally" believe that Trump is not a racist and has not been divisive, you probably also "literally" believe that Obama founded ISIS, the Air Force controls the weather, and NASA faked the moon landing.)
Why is Adams bringing up dog-whistles at all, only to treat them so dismissively? Could it be that he's hiding the whole key to Trump's persuasive technique in plain sight? His recent blog, How Persuaders See the World, makes me think that's exactly what he's doing. He even specifically mentions "racist" as one of the labels used by "word thinkers." Scott is just having a little fun with us. (By the way, Scott, I myself am one of those imaginary rational people who arrived at this truth using data and reason. I'm not a persuader. Really I'm not.)
The issue is not whether Trump's comments are overtly racist, or even whether Trump himself is racist. There's mounting data showing that many of Trump's supporters are driven by racial animus. Yet, Adams can claim it is literally true that "Trump has literally never said a negative thing about race during this election." That's pretty strong evidence that Trump is using dog-whistles. What's different is that he doesn't care if the pundits know it. It gives his supporters deniability, and that's pretty much what dog-whistles have always been about. A more nuanced analysis takes into account the way Trump frames so many of his statements: "A lot of people are saying..." It's exactly the technique he used to riff on Giuliani's criticism of Black Lives Matter: "A lot of people agree with that. A lot of people feel that it is inherently racist."
Objection 3.1: But Trump wants to discriminate based on religion!
Persuasion: Clarify to the subject of your persuasion that Trump only wants to discriminate against non-citizens. That is literally the job description of a president.
The job description of a president? Let's see, Article 2, Section 2... Commander in Chief... make Treaties... appoint Ambassadors... Section 3... State of the Union... Laws be faithfully executed...
Hmm, there doesn't seem to be anything here about discriminating against non-citizens. Oh, wait, you said "literally." I'm supposed to have to think about it, and conclude, "Yeah, that's not really written down anywhere officially, but it makes sense."
Maybe I thought about it too hard. Regardless, discriminating against non-citizens is definitely not the job description of the president, literally or otherwise. Besides, Trump's original statement on preventing Muslim immigration makes no such distinction. Exceptions for U.S. citizens appeared later, along with other "clarifications".
For context, point out that Islam is unique among religions in that it includes an order from God that Muslims should overthrow any government that is not compatible with Islam. Moderate Muslims around the world ignore that part of the religion, but refugees are coming from places where it is considered mandatory.
There are certainly many people who believe Islam is at war with the West, and there is a vast Islamophobia Network to support them in that belief. Sadly, that misinformation network reaches all the way into the U.S. government. Some Islamophobes go so far as to claim that Islam isn't even a religion at all, and therefore it is not protected by our Constitution.
It is undeniable that many professed Muslims believe their religion requires them to fight to overthrow secular governments, in favor of theocracy. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide support democratic government and freedom of religion for all denominations. Thus, Adams' statement implies that most Muslims are "moderate" followers who ignore a "unique" part of their religion. For a non Muslim to make such a claim strikes me as highly arrogant. Maybe the arrogance is intentional, meant to hide the absurdity of the proposition that follows it. Is it a bad thing that refugees are coming from places where there are mandates hostile to the principles of freedom that are the foundation of our form of government? Isn't welcoming such refugees "literally" what America is all about?
I don't think other religions have a mandatory requirement to overthrow the government. So comparisons to other religions are nonsense....
Well, I don't think Islam has such a requirement, so now we have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting and refuting that assertion. (If we go further and look at search results online, we can find a few sites that present Islam and CAIR in a positive light, along with a vast network of Islamophobic sites that describe not only how the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to take over the United States, but other "facts" like Khizr Khan is a Muslim Brotherhood agent and Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal purchased a $300 million share in Twitter to compel blocking of anti-Islam tweets. If you find actforamerica and shoebat and breitbart convincing, you may also take for granted that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax, the CIA created the HIV/AIDS virus, and the real goal of water fluoridation is mind control of the public.)
At least Adams acknowledges that Islam is a religion, but again he uses that arrogant claim about mandatory government overthrow to mask the absurdity of the proposition that it's "nonsense" to compare Islam with other religions. Isn't the statement itself that Islam is unlike other religions a comparison? So, how about comparing government meddling by religious leaders? Islam does not have a monopoly on leaders who are uncomfortable with separation of church and state. What about violent members? Islam is not the only religion with a tiny minority on the lunatic fringe who engage in terrorist acts to advance their warped "religious" agenda. How about harsh laws, or even commandments to kill non-believers? No, you can't use fabrication and sophistry to dismiss all these comparisons of Islam with other religions.
If you think we can screen Muslim immigrants well enough to stop all of the terrorists and future revolutionaries, just think about any job in which you had coworkers. Remember how incompetent some of them were? Those are the types of people screening immigrants. Does that feel safe to you?
My coworkers? Are you asking them the same question about me? I hope they don't tell you I'm incompetent. Are you suggesting everyone is incompetent? I'm not persuaded. I feel safe.
Objection 4: Trump is anti-women and anti-LGBT
Persuasion:
Trump is the only candidate calling out Islam for its followers' views on women and the LGBT community.
Trump's departure from the mainstream GOP view on LGBT issues is almost commendable, but not very risky given that a majority of Americans now oppose discrimination based on sexual preference. It also fits neatly with his pro-nationalism stance in general, since homosexuality is rejected not only in predominantly Muslim countries, but most African and some Latin American countries as well. The same is true of his statements on womens' rights in Islamic countries, which are viewed by at least some Muslim women as hypocritical. As for Trump being the "only candidate" speaking to such issues, his talk is cheap when you compare it to Clinton's record.
Trump wants women to have the right to own guns to protect themselves.
Trump is the only candidate concerned about crimes against women that are perpetrated by illegal immigrants from Mexico.
Nothing in Trump's position on Second Amendment rights specifically mentions women. He has taken a gender-neutral, pro-gun position to appeal to his base and to gain the endorsement of the NRA, which in no way refutes the assertion that he is anti-women. His stand against illegal immigration is gender neutral in the same way. He is not more concerned about crimes against women than crimes against men by illegal immigrants
Trump has a long business record of promoting women to executive positions in his company. He was doing it years before it was fashionable.
The women in his personal life – including his ex-wives – seem to like him.
Trump is offensive in the way he has talked about women. But keep in mind that Trump has offended nearly everyone at some point.
I'm not sure Trump's ex-wives or the women he's promoted to executive positions are necessarily good or unbiased judges of his character. The offensive remarks he has made about women have been made into a political ad against him. Could it just be some of that provocative stuff that got him the GOP nomination, or are his insults against women somehow different? I'm still more willing to believe the latter, that Trump really is a misogynist.
The way to know your persuasion is working is that your subject will change the topic instead of addressing your point.
Don't allow the topic to change. Instead, say again whatever you said just before it did. Make each point about three times, with slightly different wording each time. After the third restatement of your point, without an objection from your subject, allow the topic to change. It means you won.
Of course, it could also mean that you sound like a total fool and your subject just wants to spare you further embarrassment. Adams closes with his standard reminder that he endorsed Clinton, because anti-Trump sentiment is very high in California, where he lives, but also because he is a "top one-percenter" and
Trump is the only candidate who has the persuasion skills to increase tax rates on the rich, so #imwithher, for selfish reasons.
Could this be an example of Poe's Law in practice? On one hand, Adams is certainly a narcissist, although clearly more intelligent than Trump. He may just be suffering from cognitive dissonance, unable to accept the idea that Trump's powers of persuasion, and by extension his own, are not as potent as he predicted. On the other hand, if indeed Adams is a trained hypnotist, he must be aware that people who are highly susceptible to hypnosis comprise only about 10% of the population. We rabid anti-Trumpers, of course, fall at the other end of the spectrum.