Sean Spicer, who by most accounts is soon to be the public voice of Trumpism, complains recently that the media still aren't giving Trump "the respect he deserves."
But let's look at what Trump "deserves." It's easy to say that any human being unqualifiedly deserves respect (kudos, Aretha Franklin). OK, we can give Trump that one - he is clearly human. We know this because of his many human qualities, such as constant changes of opinion, a tendency to lie but to be unhappy when someone calls him on it; vanity, and selfishness.
And we respect people for things they have achieved, even if we may think that what they achieved is undesirable, or even reprehensible. Tycoons may amass fortunes by dealing ruthlessly with competitors or labor unions, so we might respect their accomplishment without applauding their means of achieving it. Again, Trump merits respect in this sense too - he's rich, and a lot of people respect that. He's famous, and many respect that. When Zsa Zsa Gabor died a month or so ago, someone commented that she was one of the first people who became famous without being famous FOR anything. Such celebrity, and the respect it brings, are common these days - Trump is a Zsa Zsa for the 21st century.
Respect for power? Absolutely. If you crave power yourself, others who have attained it may automatically garner your respect. So Trump respects Putin. And you have to respect someone who has control over you or who can make or break you. Mr. Spicer presumably respects Trump. As potential victims/beneficaries of Trump's decisions, American citizens need to respect him for his power to do them good or ill. In war and diplomacy, respect comes to powerful nations and their leaders in similar ways - for fear of what they can do. Putin respects Trump. For obvious reasons, this kind of power-based respect is often either weak, counterfeit, or temporary. When power is lost, so is respect. Put a question mark after "Putin respects Trump?"
Yet I think Spicer is really claiming something more for Trump. He wants acknowledgment of political legitimacy for someone who is a political bastard. Is it enough that Trump won the election? Leaving the popular vote aside (our system is not founded on that, so let's forget it), there are many questions about how the campaign was won. First are the ethics of his tactics, ranging from simple political "white lies," to serious misrepresentations, on through casting doubt on the fundamentals of the electoral system, and formulating his message to appeal to all the most anti-democratic elements of our political spectrum. Not to mention the issue of Russian meddling. Trump is trying desperately to swat down the Russian connection, but his efforts to blame it on the Democrats make him less legitimate, and his bald dismissal that it "didn't affect the outcome" is unprovable at best, and irrelevant to the real issue.
Even if Republican operatives and voters have no difficulty seeing Trump as legit, the political opposition will very naturally have difficulty in doing so. Meanwhile those whose job it is to remain neutral and objective (i.e., the media, including those many elements that favor Trump) must continue to withhold "respect." Mr. Spicer's job, beginning January 20, will be to create the grounds on which that respect could be built, to convincingly explain away all the doubts. If he is wise, the task must seem both Herculean and Sisyphean; if he expects "respect" in this case just to pop out full-blown, he's unwise.
A person must earn my respect through word and deed. Trump has done nothing to earn my respect ... and a great deal to earn my disdain. As for the media, it's not their job to "respect" anyone. It's their job to report the truth, something for which Trump has no respect.
Posted by: PiedType | January 09, 2017 at 10:53 AM