A laundering political trope: They're not like this — yes, they're like this, but in different words

A common trope:

Try to understand those people on the other political side. Why are they the way they are? Not for gauche irrational motivations, but for the dressed-up polite-company version of the exact same thing, which we've rephrased to sound rational.

Here, the NYT is applying this trope to asisst the image of Trump supporters...

And of course we get the obligatory laundering of Trump voters. The message in these op-eds is always the same: Democrats can never do anything right, Republicans can never do anything wrong and centrists can never address any issue on the merits.

[image or embed]

— Michael Hobbes (@michaelhobbes.bsky.social) Jul 27, 2024 at 7:48 AM

"not because they believe Mr. Trump's florid demagogy…but because they [believe Mr. Trump's florid demagogy.]"

— Scott (@smadin.net) Jul 27, 2024 at 7:50 AM

...and this trope is also commonly used to make the anti-trans movement sound reasonable.

Try to understand them. They don't hate trans people or wish to see them discriminated against or made unsafe, they just are [working for a society in which trans people will be generally oppressed].

There's mere repetition, but there's also plausible deniability, aka normalization.

Jason Sattler, "Trump's superpower is plausible deniability," Jul 27, 2024:

"You could say that repetition is Donald Trump’s superpower. And it’s definitely a strength. Anyone could do it. Anyone could do it. Anyone could do it! But we just don't. And I think you get why.

* * *

But there’s an even more potent and invidious power...

* * *

Someone who does talk about it is Ian Haney López, who wrote the book Dog Whistle Politics, where I learned about this strategy that has propelled Republicans into generations of political success. It’s called “plausible deniability,” which I think most people think of or discuss as “normalization.”

Sattler then quotes Haney López:

"What Trump understands is that if he can provoke the press, provoke the Democrats into calling him a racist, that actually helps him because he is telling a story to his base in which they are not racist, they are acting out of high principle, they're trying to defend country and community and family. But one of the core claims that's being made on the right is that demands for racial justice demands for integration demands for affirmative action demands for diversity, equity, inclusion, that those aren't actually animated by a sense of justice, but rather they're motivated by a sense of revenge and a sense of hatred of white people.

And in this telling the right is constantly saying to white voters, "People are racist against you. They blame you for things that you weren't responsible for. And they also think that you're racist just because you're white and that's racism against you."

In that context, Trump and J. D. Vance understand that there's this kind of complicated triple move that they can make. They can say something outrageous: “It's an invasion. They're poisoning the blood of the country.” That's move number one. Move number two, wait for people on the left to say, "Hey, invasion and caravan and blood of the nation. That's racist language.” And then they respond to that by saying, “I never mentioned race. I was just talking about immigrants. I was just talking about protecting our country and securing our border.” That's move number two. “I didn't, no racism here, nothing to see here.” And then comes move number three. Then they go on to say, “But, hey, wait a minute. You just accused me of racism. And that's the real racism."

In short: Say or do genuinely terrible things, and normalize it among your supporters as some manifestation of their true beliefs. Wait to be justly criticized. Say that your opponents are the truly terrible ones because they have deeply insulted everyone who agrees with you.

So when Trump "wears makeup and a wig like a clown," Sattler says, that very "clownishness itself is part of the plausible deniability. Even his fiercest critics feed that power by assuming there must be some harmless explanation for his laser focus on dividing and conquering America. There’s not."

Literally or seriously?

I feel this is connected to the "literally or seriously?" discourse.

I left this online comment on July 7, 2024:

"When Trump says he wants to be a dictator, that he'll jail everyone who stands in his way, that popularity in the form of TV ratings matters more to him than anything else, etc., we're told not to take him literally because he's "just joking."

But when he pretends not to know or support the people who are working to make his dictatorship a reality, we're told we have to take him literally and believe him.

The messaging from Trumpworld about when we have to believe Trump's words is dependent on whether our doing so would be advantageous to Trump.

If Trump's phrasing is ugly and can be used against him, we're asked to hear it, fear it, and forget it — to absorb the message in our psyche and yet to erase our conscious awareness of who said it so it won't affect Trump's public image and no one will hold him personally accountable for it.

But if Trump's phrasing is a carefully phrased lie to make him look good, we're asked to swallow it, amplify it as if it were true, and to assert our confidence in his benevolent intentions because he's told us directly what he believes.

Both communications are strategic. Either he reports his true intentions and demands we do the cover-up work for him, or he lies about his intentions and demands we believe what he said."