The liberal politics site Crooks & Liars posted a short video clip of a Fox News interview between Mike Wallace and vice president Mike Pence. The short exchange was about an incident that Bob Woodward wrote in his recently published book, Fear: Trump in the White House. In that September 2017 incident, president Trump’s Chief Economic Advisor Gary Cohn sees a letter on Trump’s desk, reads it and takes it. If Trump had signed the short letter, it would have withdrawn the US from an existing free-trade deal with South Korea. Apparently, Cohn thought doing that would have harmed US interests.
Wallace asked Pence, “do you have any doubt that happened”? The response Pence gave can be fairly called either (1) a rock solid example of what professor Berger was talking about when he spoke of the power of society and social role to dictate reality, or (2) intentional deceit.
Pence replied “I have every doubt that that happened. I really do.” Wallace showed Pence a copy of the letter, and it was what Woodward’s book said it was, i.e., a withdrawal from the trade agreement. Wallace let Pence continue to defend the president. In essence, Pence’s response to being shown the letter was to completely ignore it while continuing to defend Trump, e.g., “this is a president who puts people around the table, around the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office that bring him all of the options. . . . .” In other words, Pence acted as if the letter did not exist and that Cohen did not do what the Woodward book said he did.
Is Pence a sincere man who believes his own propaganda? If one carefully looks at Pence, one can reasonably believe that he is being sincere. He is a blind Christian social conservative ideologue. At this point, one can reasonably believe that in this incident Pence was incapable of mustering the moral effort to lie, or more specifically, to deceive. Personal observation of Pense so far indicates the man is vacuous and in a powerful thrall to Trump. If that assessment is basically correct, then Pence probably did believe everything he was saying about what a great president Trump is. And, he also believed that whatever Cohn did with the letter was something other than what Woodward said about the incident.
That view of Pence living the role of a rigid, blind ideologue arguably is more likely true than the alternative intentional deceit explanation. If that analysis is correct, then one can begin to see why there are at least two incompatible visions of Trump. One is positive enough to support him, and the other is negative enough to disapprove.
If professor Berger is right about society’s capacity to induce self-deceit as people live their roles in society, then one question asks which group is more self-deceived, Trump supporters or opponents. Each side will probably generally see the other as self-deceived. And, if Pence’s reaction to the evidence that Wallace showed him is typical, then facts do not seem to carry much weight for at least some supporters. Given that, how one can bridge the gulf in perceptions of reality between the two sides is not at all clear.
But, if nothing else, this is just another situation where two opposing points of view, or competing social roles, lead to incompatible realities. This is probably mostly why many (most?) Trump supporters cannot see the things that his opponents see, and vice versa.
B&B orig: 9/11/18
No comments:
Post a Comment