Update: Morbidly obese mangina Dan Futrelle has wept copious tears over my post and has his panties knotted so tight, his scrotum may never recover. Luckily, nothing of value was lost. Do click through. I love imagining Dan thrashing and gnashing as he sees hits coming through.
One of the most interesting commentators on the US election is Dilbert creator Scott Adams – he was following me on my old account on Twitter, although we never spoke to one another. Adams had increased my interest in the art of persuasion, and I’ve been reading his own book, too. It’s quite interesting. When I’m finished, perhaps I’ll post a review. He is certainly an extraordinary person.
From the beginning, Adams has identified Trump as being a Master Persuader, and predicted that Trump would win the GOP nomination handily, which he did. Now that Clinton’s team has switched to persuasion over policy, Adams is a little twitchy about Trump’s ability to take the Oval Office in November. Adams would like to see Trump tone down a bit, and seem less scary, which is the persuasion word Clinton is trying, and succeeding, at sticking to him. Trump is scary. Trump needs to be less scary.
Instead, he has hired the head of Breitbart’s news division as campaign CEO. Stephen K. Bannon is apparently a ‘bare-knuckled fighter’ who is fully in support of Trump’s combative style, and Trump himself appears to be completely unwilling to be less scary, as Adams advises, and prefers instead to keep being himself, on the grounds that it worked in the primaries.
But what if there’s another reason?
Under what circumstances would Trump’s aggressive style be appropriate? Trump has just started getting intelligence briefings, so he can hit the ground running in the event he wins, and the mainstream media has lost no time in claiming that Trump asked repeatedly about why he couldn’t use nukes. Personally, I would like to think the President would think very carefully and ask a whole lot of questions before going for the nuclear option, but the media is fully behind Clinton and will aid and abet her in any way to make certain the ‘scary’ label sticks to Trump. Lefty wingnuts are scared of nuclear anything on principle, so it’s an effective message.
I don’t think Trump will nuke Mecca or anywhere else, for the simple reason that it won’t be effective. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives and ended the war decisively, because it brought Japan to its knees. Nuking Mecca won’t bring the Islamic world to its knees – quite the opposite. Trump isn’t going to do it for that reason. If nuking Mecca stood a chance of being effective, I’d be fully in support of the measure.
But it won’t work.
What if the attack went in the other direction, though? What if Trump is getting credible information that a terror attack – a big one- is going to happen on US soil? Let’s say the dreaded dirty bomb is here, but no one is quite certain where. Detonating it ignites the global jihad radical Islam wants, and it puts Trump in the White House for certain.
If it’s America that comes under attack, the aggressive, bold, confident and bellicose candidate is going to win. Clinton and Obama’s appeasement of Islam will kill them, under those circumstances. Once the body count gets high enough to make Joe Democrat blanch, Trump wins. He’s won’t be scary anymore – he’ll represent safety.
One thing is for certain – Trump does nothing without thinking the strategic implications through. His refusal to pivot, to seem less scary and crazy, is grounded in something solid. Let’s hope it’s something I’m overlooking, and not an imminent terror attack with a body count high enough to swing the majority. 2996 people died and over 6000 were injured in 9/11.
That’s too much persuasion.
Lots of love,