I was scanning one of those silly Internet pop-ups for celebrity IQ’s. Undoubtedly the guesses of some fake theorist. Trump had a score of 158. Genius and far superior to mine. So what? IQ is not the measure of anyone.
Title from the opinion section of the Washington Times on June 29, 2017: “Mad genius of Trump drives schoolmarms of political press crazy“. I liked that mad headline but didn’t get it. Schoolmarms. Term of the past or from the Wild Wild West. Maybe that’s the visualization of Trump, the gunslinger shooting from the hip with the disapproving uptight schoolmarms (who probably have some hidden life, not so uptight). I read the article.
In response to the President’s tweets taunting Joe and Mika who I didn’t even know and care not a whit if they were offended (Maybe that doesn’t sound very understanding of people’s feelings. But their business requires a thick skin. Like the President of the United States. There will always be your detractors. And all this gunslinging, whoops, mudslinging is getting off-track of business), Charles Hurt offers:
“It is all so delicious. Mercilessly inventive. Joyously vicious. Like an entire season of pro wrestling drama, all sewn up into two little Twitter messages.”
And then he poked fun at we Puritans who thought the Tweets crude and un-Presidential by making comparison to another President. Ha! Did we consider the relationship (He uses molest.) of ex-President Clinton with an intern Presidential? (He never names Clinton. Was there another President involved with an intern?) “No.” And even less Presidential when Clinton resorted to semantics in saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”. Is this really about two siblings (two Presidents) trying to make excuses by saying, “Well, he started it”? Hurt adds that no one has disproved the facts of what Trump said? Is that what it’s about? Whether he spoke the truth? How low is low IQ? And exactly what does he mean by psycho? And was it important for me to know this woman had a face lift or the pair was trying to get into some rich people’s party? Maybe it’s OK for a commoner such as myself to say those things because there aren’t millions of people reading my tweets. But for the ‘top dog’ (Hurt’s analogy) to tweet mudslinging remarks is graceless. Undoubtedly he doesn’t care about being graceless or offensive or becoming a statesman. Perhaps he will be an example of the Warren Harding effect in Blink. So without any restraint, off goes 140 characters (give or take) to the world of followers. I’m saying there’s a double standard to expect the President to rise above slings and arrows, and come on. The world of business and politicians is about double standards (Chris Christie). And the President should be on the high road of that standard. I know! Nice people don’t win.
It was the words “mad genius” in the same sentence as Trump that really drew me into the article. Is he a mad genius with these tweets that get people riled up? Is there a purpose in what seems like childish tantrums? Suppose he is manipulating both his detractors and fans, pitting them against each other. There are those manipulators who are that good that you don’t even see what they’re doing. Eventually, you ask; “How the hell did I get here?” Then you begin to see, but you can’t figure the game. Then—too late. So more frightening to think “mad genius” than to consider that our President is a thin-skinned man who can’t take criticism or just a man who speaks before he thinks. Honesty? Rashness? Didn’t really mean it? Just a gunslinger. You know how we love the Old West. His actions and statements have gathered tight to his bosom his fans and sycophants (Michael Cohen) rushing to his defense and even offering excuses to his opposition ranting against his fitness. Perhaps he is contemptuous of us all as pawns in some ‘deliciously inventive mercilessly vicious drama’.
Gladwell, Malcolm. (2005) blink. New York, NY: Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company.