Sometimes, among business associates, you work together for common cause even though your politics may differ greatly. Your working philosophy to navigate business differences may align well with folks who disagree with you on political issues. So you manage by avoiding the issue entirely, or you only touch on politics occasionally by finding some common ground.
During the presidential campaign of 2016, common ground among generally reasonable people often took the form - "If only we did not have such a terrible choice" without mention of the names of the candidates. The implication was clear. The speaker might as well have been saying "You and I agree that both candidates are terrible, but we may differ. I will vote for Trump, holding my nose. You will probably vote for Clinton, holding your nose."
The Trump voter was in denial that anyone who is reasonable could actually believe that Clinton was a good choice.
Post-election, everything changes, as it must. That projection of the Republican voter's feelings on to a Democratic voter has morphed with DJT as president in polite company into gently disparaging the daily POTUS tweets. The supposed common ground in this case takes the form - "You and I may differ in our politics, but we can both agree that the president has a bad habit every morning of tweeting whatever pops into his head, no matter how inflammatory or self-aggrandizing"
But the implication of that claim to a shared reality belies the fact that we are living at a time of two vastly different narratives to best describe that reality. Mentioning the daily tweets in casual conversation as if the only problem is this one bad habit, sort of like Obama's cigarette smoking, creates a frame that all he has to do is stop tweeting and everything will be fine.
But it's not fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment