The last two essays were kind of throwback, as I pointed out. Plus, while they weren’t all over the place, which is very unlike me, I know, at least I had fun. Anyway, you don’t need to read those to realize how it went for Joe Biden and for Donald Trump. It was fair to say that Trump won that debate between them. He just kept going, saying basically whatever. He even stopped to point out that while he is in favor of something, in that case it was women’s abortion rights, he’s going to say whatever it is that he thinks the audience wants him to say, because he wants to be the president. Biden did his own thing, with some initial hiccups, but, well, it just wasn’t enough. He was playing nice, even when he got angry. That’s clearly not how you beat Trump.
Anyway, this essay isn’t about that debate. I won’t go through it again, not even in more detail. This time I want to look at something that happened after the debate. Oh, and no, I don’t mean the assassination attempt. I mean the panel hosted by the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ). It was broadcasted or at least syndicated by multiple media outlets, but I’m looking at the one by ABC News.
To give you a bit of context, Trump was there. There were also three black women who acted as the moderators: Rachel Scott, indicated as the ABC News Senior Congressional Correspondent, Kadia Goba, Semafor journalist, and Harris Faulkner, Fox News newscaster and host. The panel lasted for about half an hour, even though it was supposed to run for an hour, as noted initially by Scott.
To summarize the whole thing, let’s just say that if Trump did well one-on-one against Biden, this format didn’t work for him, at all. He was there, alone, basically being interviewed by three different interviewers. In a way, you’d think he’d appreciate having no one else there to answer questions, but I’d say that it made things difficult for him. There was no one else there he could blame or divert attention to. Oh, and these women, they did not ask easy questions, nor easy follow-up questions.
To be clear, Trump did his thing. That’s for sure. He didn’t care about what the moderators’ objections, nor about any fact checking that was going on behind the scenes, as provided by PolitiFact. He just kept going. He was, once again, playing the game to the hilt.
What I didn’t see coming was how defensive he was and how much he actually struggled. He was introduced as a former US president and as the Republican Party presidential nominee by Scott. Plus, he was addressed as sir, by Scott. I think he expected some friendly chat, you know, like free publicity. It really annoyed him that Scott went straight to business, calling him out on various issues that concern the black population, as well as other minority groups. He expressed his dislike of the way she started the panel discussion, scolding her for lack of good manners and also discredited her employer, despite being properly introduced, despite having shaken hands with Scott and despite Scott introducing herself and her employer at the same time.
After some stalling by Trump, getting lost in the weeds, arguing over why the panel was late, Scott wanted to know what he thinks of his opponent, vice president Kamala Harris, following Biden’s withdrawal from the race. Scott had to rephrase the question after Trump feigned ignorance over what counts as a diversity hire. So, she wanted to know if Trump thought whether Harris was chosen to run against him as the Democratic Party candidate because she’s black. Things got pretty heated at this point.
Right, Trump opted to stall, once more. He pondered Harris’ heritage, only to state that, well, she’s not really black, is she, that she’s really Indian (as her mother is from India), isn’t she, and that this being black is a relatively recent thing for her. Scott reminded him that there’s never been any confusion about this. He responded that that either is fine by him, nothing wrong about being black or Indian, but then went on to add that she doesn’t, that she just picks whatever identity happens to suit her interests the best.
This already leads us to the weirdest thing about the panel: him being there, talking to three black women. He clearly didn’t want to answer that question, but, simply by being there, alone, with the three moderators, he had to. Why is he there then? Well, because he wants more black voters. That’s why. What else could it be? The problem he is facing is that he’s white and his opponent is black, or, if we want to be subtle about this, he is considered white, as white as white can be, to be honest, while his opponent is considered black, regardless of her mixed background, as pointed out by Scott. The best thing he thinks he can do is to argue that his opponent is, in fact, not black.
Now, I don’t know about you, but something tells me that was a bad, bad idea. He actually said no to Scott’s question, by which he clearly meant that Harris was not chosen to run against him just because she’s black. He could have stopped there. That would have been a good, good idea. It could have prompted Scott to ask a tough follow-up question, sure, but we don’t know that. So, for whatever reason, he comes up with long-winded story about her not really being black. Why? I have no idea.
So, if I had been Trump (yes, a weird thing to say, I know), I would have just said no, I don’t think Harris was picked to run against him because she’s black, nor that she’s like a diversity hire. Then I would have pointed out that she’s a capable politician and what not, you know the type of stuff people say about other people just to be polite, only to then point out that, well, be that as it may, I’m still better than my opponent, followed by elaborating why I’m still better than my opponent.
Did Trump do that? No. No. No. Absolute not. He went for some silly story about Harris not being black. Now, to be fair, there’s a logic to it. He thinks that if black people think Harris is not black, then it’s more likely that they vote for him instead of Harris. That said, he’s banking on that his audience, in this case the black voters, believe that Harris is not black. What did the audience there think? What did Scott think? Well, the audience simply laughed at this attempt to present Harris as not really black, and it was simply pointed out that no one thinks that she isn’t black.
Let’s just say that things weren’t going great for Trump. Scott reiterated her question about whether Harris was chosen for this as a diversity hire. Trump wasn’t willing to answer the question, which was only smart, and went for I don’t know, yes-no-maybe type of answer. Again, that would have been fine, even if Scott would have asked some tough follow-up question. Now, as he had managed to corner himself in front of black voters, the people who he was trying to get to vote for him, he had to do something. What he did was to praise one of the moderators, Faulkner, a black woman, like Harris, saying that she’s “a fantastic person” and “that they had a great interview”. Now, I don’t know Faulkner, nor her work, but I reckon he only said that to give the impression that he thinks that there are plenty of good, knowledgeable and hard-working black people and that he gets along with them just fine. On top of this, I reckon he wanted to say this also to highlight that Scott is doing her job poorly and that, therefore, you should ignore her.
Just as he thought he was in the clear, having turned the attention to Faulkner, who was, let’s say, the least of his problems in that panel discussion, he got himself into trouble again. Faulkner wanted to know why Trump was there? Again, a very simple question. He could have said anything. He could have said that he is there to address anything that concerns the black population. That would have been a fine answer. He might have been asked to elaborate, yes, but then he could have added that he is doing his best to make sure that black workers and entrepreneurs make it in life. What did he say then? Well, he did his usual thing and started talking about illegal immigration. That wasn’t really the issue though. That would still have been fine. It would have been a bit weird, yes, because it has little to do with the black population, but it would have been okay. The thing is, however, that he went to say that the illegal immigrants will take “black jobs”, which prompted the audience to laugh at him, once more. Scott interrupted him, asking him to clarify what does he mean by “a black job”. He was once again cornered, just because he had to come up with some silly story about illegal immigrants instead of promptly answering the question. He now had to define what’s “a black job” anyway and the best he could do is to call it, well, any job, really.
But what was so laughable and, frankly, offensive about that? Why did people object to that? Well, by saying that immigrants are just marching in and taking black jobs, instead of just jobs, he implied that black people have jobs that just about anyone can do. Of course, you also need to know that he’s known for his disparaging comments about the illegal immigrants. Without getting lost in the weeds, and to be polite about it, let’s just say that he reckons that black people are non-skilled workers.
The thing is, once again, that he didn’t need to say any of that. People understood that, by saying what he said, he implied that black people have jobs that don’t need skill, nor education, and he said that in front of a skilled and educated black audience. This is not to say that the issue may not concern many black people, but it just came out wrong, as they say. He tried to expand on that, saying a bit of this and a bit of that, you know, his usual stuff about illegal immigration, but, well, the damage was already done.
Faulkner even reminded him that, as you might expect, black communities are not all the same, like carbon copies of one another, to which Trump simply agreed, without any commentary. Once Faulkner was done, as she continued with the same topic, Trump wasn’t willing to cooperate. Instead, he, once more, complained about how difficult it is to have a discussion when the audio equipment isn’t working properly. He first sidestepped her question, what his plan is for the black communities, only to state that young Americans, including your black Americans, can no longer afford the American dream. This wasn’t an answer, more like okay, right, so Faulkner asks him to get to the point by repeating the question, not once, but twice. He was that close to answering the question, blaming inflation first, which creates this expectation of him getting to the point, but, alas, he ended up talking about something irrelevant, blaming Biden for the inflation and then the Democrats for replacing Biden. Goba interjected, but, well, Trump just went on, and on, talking about how inflation is bad for the black communities, as well as for other communities.
So, summarize that, the journalists wanted to know what he’ll do to improve the lives of the black communities. Instead of answering their questions, he did his best to avoid saying anything, really. It’s, of course, implied that if people vote for him, he’ll do things to improve their lives. That’s why he is there, to sway the voters.
As this wasn’t going anywhere, Goba asked him something else. We are now dealing with police matters and the idea of giving police officers immunity from prosecution. Trump found it difficult to defend this position, because, well, it would indeed give police officers immunity from prosecution. So, he settled with assessing the immunity, case by case, which, by the way, isn’t the same as immunity from prosecution. I don’t know US federal law, nor laws of the states, but something tells me that this is already handled, case by case, so that mistakes are taken into account, as mentioned in the discussion.
Goba then challenged him to explain how this, giving a free pass to police, meshes with his opposition of prosecutors, basically implying that Trump is inconsistent because it serves his own interests. Instead of addressing that inconsistency in his own arguments, he started talking about how he is unfairly treated, how the prosecutors are after for political reasons.
As this the discussion just wasn’t going anywhere, as it hadn’t for a while by now, Scott asked him about his Vice-Presidential candidate, J. D. Vance., and his views on people who do not have children. Trump replied with a yes/no answer, this time simply saying no, that he was not aware of such views. Again, finding it difficult to defend his running mate’s views, he ended up talking about different kinds of people and families, like to each their own.
As that was not really informative, of much anything, Scott wanted to know what Trump thinks of Vance’s idea that people who do not have children should have less say in society, as in have fewer votes than people who have children. Trump once again ignored the question and told the audience these platitudes about how people are different and how their trajectories in life are different, while they are not inherently better or worse than someone else or someone’s trajectory in life.
As there was all this bobbing and weaving, Scott wanted to know if this is also Trump’s view of how things ought to be. He finally gets to the point by rejecting this idea with a simple no. Then again, he then went on a tangent, to talk about illegal immigrants taking the jobs away from Americans and argued that by allowing more and more illegal immigrants to the country, the Americans are going to lose their voice. Scott reminded him that you do need to be a citizen to vote, but that didn’t stop him from saying the exact opposite.
I have no idea what that has to do with the question about whether it is a good idea to give people with children more voting power than people with no children. Then again, that’s the point. He didn’t really want to answer the question, nor talk about it. Why? Because one way or another, he is going to upset a lot of voters. He did kind of disavow the views of his running mate already by rejecting that idea though. I guess he had to concede that point. But he then went on a tangent, perhaps to bamboozle the audience to think of something else.
The panel members stayed on this topic, albeit it was more of Trump just praising Vance, as you’d expect, really. What was, perhaps, odd was that after praising his running mate, he added that, well, the vice president isn’t even that important. To be fair, the US Vice President isn’t that important. He’s also right that people are, indeed, voting for the president, not for the vice president or, rather, it’s unlikely that people choose who they vote for based on who’s also running. That said, this seems more like him trying to move on from this topic, to avoid having to comment on Vance’s views.
Now, he may have wanted that, but Goba asked him again to comment on the issue of families and children, whether his party is heavy handed on matters such as abortion. After attempting to shift the attention away from his own party, he framed the issue of abortion as something that should be handled at the state level instead of the federal level. I’m not entirely sure why he felt the need to explain all that though. He could have simply said, as he eventually did, that he isn’t entirely against abortions, there being certain exceptions.
So, why did he mention that this is better suited to be handled at the state level than at the federal level? Well, while I can’t be sure, as I’m not an expert on this matter, I’d say that it’s because there’s a lot of distrust of the federal government among his likely voters. If you ask me, he probably doesn’t care, one way or another. I don’t think it’s something that concerns him that much.
I think it’s still worth pointing out how arguing that certain issues that concern basically half of the US population should be handled at the state level instead of at the federal level should raise some eyebrows. While I don’t doubt that it makes sense to handle certain matters at the state level than at the federal level, I’m not sure this really has much to do with healthcare.
If you look at the map, it shouldn’t surprise you where abortion is legal and where it’s illegal in the US, now that it’s a state level matter. It’s mainly illegal in the former Confederate States and, conversely, mainly legal in the other states. Back then, the member states of the Confederate emphasized that they seceded from the US because they believed in state sovereignty. While it may seem like it was therefore a local matter, it was presented exactly the other way around, as noted by Arthur Bestor (165) in ‘State Sovereignty and Slavery: A Reinterpretation of Proslavery Constitutional Doctrine, 1846–1860’. To be more specific, the advocates of slavery argued that the federal level guarantees or, rather, ought to guarantee it by default and that its prohibition was not possible at the federal level, only at the local level, as Bestor (165) points out. Now, this is exactly what the deal with abortion is currently. The states that have prohibited it, and/or sought to undermine it in the past, posit the pro-life stance as the rule at the federal level, while the exception to it, abortion, is the local exception. This way the states that object to abortion can prevent it from being deemed illegal in their jurisdictions, while simultaneously promoting their views elsewhere. As the right to abortion that may exist in other states is, in their view, merely the exception to the rule, it is something to be overturned, whereas their legal position cannot be overturned as it is the rule, not the exception. I think Bestor (165-166) summarizes this particularly well in reference to slavery:
“Within their borders, the slaveholding states were invoking a sovereign’s immunity from all external control. Beyond their borders, however, they were demanding – as sovereigns – the strictest respect for whatever rights they chose to place beneath the protective mantle of their sovereignty.”
So, strangely enough, the most fervent anti-federalists are actually the most fervent federalists in disguise. This became even more clear once things didn’t go their way. Once they had established the Confederate, state sovereignty was no longer a thing, as noted by Bestor (176). This suddenly became a federal matter, because appeals to local autonomy or state sovereignty could challenge the pro-slavery stance, as discussed by him (177-178).
His (166-167) comment about the importance of the judicial branch is also particularly revealing here:
“Only the federal judiciary could be trusted to defend slavery in an active way. The idea that the Supreme Court could not make – and was not, in fact, making – national policy about slavery was a transparent fiction.”
Now, how do you think we got here, how the federal protection of abortion right was abolished? It was not the Congress, the Senate, nor the President that did that. It was the Supreme Court that did that. I’ll let Bestor (167) continue as he is so to the point here:
“But it was a useful fiction, from the southern point of view, for it meant that the court was under no obligation to reflect the views of popular majorities.”
Indeed. It was not the popular majority that changed things. It was the Supreme Court. So, strangely enough, if you know how to work the angles, to get the right people in, you can do politics through the courts, as he (167) points out:
“Policy would be made for the nation, but not by the nation.”
Now, to be clear, it’s not that there isn’t federal legislation that pertains to this, but rather that now it is interpreted in a different way. You could still handle this through federal legislation, as in by the nation, not just for the nation, but that, of course, requires changes in the federal legislation and that’s not easy if you have to amend the constitution. That’s how slavery was abolished, by the nation, for the nation.
Is Trump really even against abortion? Nah, I don’t think he is. He clearly said so in the discussion. I’d say the reason that he did what he did with the Supreme Court Nominations was to appeal to his voters. That way policy could be done without having to deal with usual order of things, you know, through Congress and Senate.
Things got difficult to follow after the abortion topic. There was this back and forth, overlapping speech, until Scott asked him to explain his stance on presidential pardons. Scott wanted to know if he was willing to pardon the people who were responsible for breaching the Capitol following the previous elections. Instead of answering the question, he wanted everyone to know how bad it is to deface public property. Come on. I know it’s expensive to clean it or replace it, but it’s just stuff.
Scott did get him to answer the question. That said, Trump was, once again, being slippery with his answer. He said that, yes, he’d pardon those responsible, inasmuch as they were innocent. Scott had none of that and immediately pointed out that they were, in fact, convicted. Trump countered this by noting that, ah, but maybe the courts were too tough on them. So, in the end, he is willing to pardon them, according to his own criteria.
What was and probably still is strange about this is how he isn’t willing to condemn those who attacked the Capitol, on the grounds that others are not condemning the actions of those who rioted in Minneapolis, Seattle and Washington, D.C.. I mean, those aren’t mutually exclusive. Ah, but see, it’s not in his best interest to do any of that. If he did that, he’d risk losing support.
To give Trump credit, he did tell what he’d do if he’ll win. He said that this and that would happen, which is fine, but thing is that he didn’t explain how he’d do any of that. Like, okay, there’s inflation, but what are you going to about it? That’s not explained at all.
It’s just I’m gonna do this and then I’m gonna do that. Right. So, you’re just gonna do all that. You don’t think anyone else hasn’t tried, like any of that? Okay, even if he might be able to pull that off, I mean he might, but, as an eligible voter, unlike me, you gotta ask yourself, how is he going to pull that off?
At this point of the discussion, the Trump team pulled the plug. The discussion is over, I wouldn’t say happily for Trump, but at least it’s over. Oh, and it being over, now he is all polite, thanking everyone and what not.
To summarize what I saw, I still don’t get it. Like why did he even accept the invitation? How did he think that it would go? Did he really think three journalists, doing their job, would just chill and be all chummy with him? Did he think that a (largely) black audience is just gonna roll with whatever he has to say? I don’t get it. I know he has to cater for other audiences as well, yes, but like what did he seek to gain from all this? It makes no sense, which is why I believe his team opted to end the discussion at the halfway mark. Oh, and it was his team that did that, not him. He looked surprised when Scott pointed that out.
How would I explain what I saw in Gricean terms? Well, he sure ain’t cooperative. Firstly, when it comes to the maxim of quality, he clearly struggled. Did he say anything that can be verified? Maybe, but even that’s a charitable interpretation. Secondly, when it comes to the maxims of quantity and relation, yeah, let’s just say that he says little of relevance and too much of irrelevance. That’s his trademark. He is very, very good at not answering the question. The thing is, however, that these three journalists, they were not having it. He clearly struggled because they did not let him just go on and on about something that had nothing to do with the question, nor the topic. It was in this sense this panel discussion was very different from his debate with Biden. Thirdly, when it comes to the maxim of manner, while I wouldn’t say that he is ambiguous, I can’t say he is clear, concise, nor orderly. Like what is a black job anyway? Oh, and I’m so glad he got called out on that.
I think it’s also worth adding here that examining this in Gricean terms has its limitations. Like I pointed out in the previous essay, when it comes to the maxim of quality, you need to understand that that he is a bullshit artist (emphasis on the artistry, like he’s talented, you gotta give that, like it or not). When you call him out on this, you need to be aware of the audience. In this case, the journalists were able to challenge him successfully. Why? Because they were able to get audience believe in them and not in Trump. His thing is also to not play ball. He just does his thing, not because he wants to mean, for example, but because the only thing he cares about is winning the elections. This also means that doesn’t really care about his voters either, because, well, they are merely a means to an end for him.
The other thing that Gricean pragmatics doesn’t do you any good when it comes to people like him has to do with politeness. He is not polite. Okay, he can be polite, and he occasionally even flatters people, but, again, that’s just something he does to use you for his own interests. In other words, he is polite when it suits him.
References
- ABC News (2024). FULL INTERVIEW: Donald Trump takes questions from NABJ panel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3eCCbVr3EU
- Bestor, A. (1961). State Sovereignty and Slavery: A Reinterpretation of Proslavery Constitutional Doctrine, 1846-1860. Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, 54 (2), 117–118.
- Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
- Grice, H. P. ([1975] 1989). Logic and Conversation. In H. P. Grice, Studies in the Way of Words (pp. 22–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.