So, a point was made on @CNN earlier about the language the President uses and the language used by the bomber and the synagogue shooter. I am putting aside my #NeverTrump hat and putting on my scholar robes to say that they have a point, but so do Trump's defenders. /1
I was trained in "Sovietology," which is, in part, the analysis of political communication. We looked for patterns and words and constructions that would provide clues to how Moscow's leaders think. We were trained to notice the introduction or spread of a new term or phrase. /2
There is no doubt in my mind - none -that Sayoc and Bowers were picking up terms from the President's language and from the State-TV Fox crazy-sphere. Bowers noting "invasion" for the caravan is a tell. There are concurrences of timing and phrasing that are not accidents. /3
Having done that kind of textual analysis for years, it's impossible to write these off as accidents. The President and Fox drop these terms, reinforce them to each other, the internet fever swamps run with them, and they get to the MAGA regulars, including the nuttiest ones. /4
This is not just communication from Trumpian elites to the rank-and-file, it's intra-elite communication. The Fox guys and Trump team test out material on each other, and figure out what works, what resonates. That's not that all unusual in political comms anywhere. /5
What's different here is that the Trumposphere doesn't care what's true or false, or whether it speaks to a range of voters. They care about what works in terms of firing up the base, and they don't seem to think much about whether "the base" includes dangerous nuts. /6
With all that said, were Bowers and Sayoc "radicalized" by Trump? Not really, imo. These are guys who had problems a long time before Trump. They were looking for something or someone to give them permission to blow, just like Dylann Roof or Tim McVeigh. They found it. /7
This does not mean that Trump owns Bowers or Sayoc, no more than whoever put up a racist website owns Dylann Roof, or an ISIS website owns John Walker Lindh. These guys were going to find what they needed to do what they wanted to do.
/8
/8
Weirdly enough, the conservatives "whatabouting" the shooter who liked Sanders have a point. Hodgkinson, who also had a history of problems, shows that a person dedicated to killing someone will find a reason in almost anything, since Sanders wasn't encouraging violence. BUT. /9
Despite the fact that we accept that the world is full of crappy propaganda - and that some people could find a message to kill on a cereal box - what we *don't* expect is for white-hot crazy-making messages to come from the WH team on a daily base. That *is* different. /10
While you can't pin Bowers or Sayoc on Trump, I think it's fair to say POTUS and his enablers are *reckless.* Anyone else would have known - as we all did - that the rhetoric was getting too hot, and throttled back at least some of it. Instead, even now they keep flooring it. /11
At this point (to come back to where I started), even Trump's team cannot deny that these guys are picking up terms and cues in Trump's tweets, rallies, speeches and the Fox-driven swamps. A responsible, mature WH would exercise self-control and do something about it. /12
Instead, they're going to deny something that is, to anyone with any training in political communication, obvious. And that's where this becomes a political and moral question, and I'll stop there, because that's where my analytical patience ends. /13x
