I think the current political animal has to have talents like a stand-up comedian. They have to deliver their material, and they have to woo their audience.They don’t actually have to have a correct argument. This is nothing new: the Greek states are founded on rhetoric. But is rhetoric a good thing? The original Greek democracy sentenced its opposition to death (not just Socrates), entered into costly wars with all its neighbours, and in the end the return of the tyrants was welcome. This did not work then. It does not work now. We can do better.
Suppose you took the words of someone who could move the masses as Il Trumpissimo is doing, then replace the accent with another accent. What happens? If the argument is what convinces you, then the speech will convince in in any accent. Yes, a really silly accent won’t help, but it would not do that much harm either. If your conviction disappears when you change the accent, then you were being lead by something that was not the substance of the argument, but the presentation of the argument. To be fair, we ought to do the same for all political speeches. Render all political speeches through some real-time accent bender, with settings chosen by the opposition. If you have a fair argument, it will survive this. If you haven’t, then I suspect it won’t.
Okay, this is a gedankenexperient more than a practical proposal, but I do feel the truth lies in this direction. If we can take the personalities out of the political process, by this or by other means, then we shall be the better for it.
As I understand your suggestion: since The Donald has been xenophobic, using an accent derived from a racial stereotype wouldn’t really work. the new accent might change the focus of the rhetoric, but would still have strong emotional pull.
However, The Donald has not campaigned as a culture warrior (“Caitlyn Jenner can use any bathroom she wants at Trump tower”) so drawing on a dated gay stereotype is a way to introduce the different “accent” in a way where the choice of the new accent is not itself a rhetorically biased choice.
Huh, so he finally did back off from it. Even after doubling, nay, quintupling down on it.
NYT quote of the day: “The clarification raised new questions about the Republican presidential nominee’s ability to communicate clearly to the American public.”
Remember when Reagan made that oh-so-hilarious “the bombing begins in five minutes” joke and the Russian military went on high alert? And Reagan was WAY better at this than Trump.
Also, a fey, whiny, effeminate voice emphasizes how hysterical and emotionally overblown his speech patterns are. I’m a gay guy and don’t take any offense at his Liberace voice.
Although my favorite voice he’s done is a cockney thug accent.
I’m a bit younger than you but I also remember a time when speaking a certain way would make some think violence was necessary. And that’s why I think it’s funny that the joke has been turned back on itself; this is a way of making fun of Trump’s homophobia.
And I do think he has thrown a few bones to the anti-LGBT crowd in his audience. He’s not been as loud about it as, say, Santorum or even Rubio, but he’s said he’ll appoint judges to overturn last year’s marriage decision, he’s speaking to the Family Research Council, which is listed as a hate group by the SPLC because of its misinformation campaigns, and his choice of Pence as VP seemed designed to alienate LGBT people and their straight allies.
It’s not a specific contemporary joke - other than it’s enlighteningly-funny to hear Trump’s words with such an opposite-side-of-the-coin inflection.
And it’s not mocking gay men - as lots of straight men speak in this manner.
See Marcus Bachman (husband of Michelle Bachman) for just one example (wink).
Also, more seriously, many straight Southern gentlemen have spoken this way… especially showbizzy men - a current, easily found guy is a reality tv star named Chrisley - married to a woman, has kids, talks of his hetero-prowess, the full nine-yards… he totally speaks like Sassy Trump.
And as another commenter pointed out - This started out as a straight-up Liberace impersonation… it’s now morphed into ‘sassy’ probably because most people these days don’t recognize a LIberace impression.
Also, yes, the harmful, bigotry-based, caricature-version of the fey-gay-man is pretty much gone in today’s zeitgeist - especially in reference to Millennials. They probably don’t even really know that trope and it makes no sense to them as a ‘gay putdown’ because they have life-experience with actual out gay men as regular people of all stripes. (the fey-gay is probably on par with ditzy-socialite or stoner-dude tropes to them - something silly that’s not aimed to belittle an entire group like it used to be)
And a white man doing a caricature-ish comedic impression of a white man is FAR different than a white man doing caricature-comedic-impressions of men of any other ethnicity - so the Steppin Fetchit and Frito Bandito comparisons are off base here.
I do know what your concern is… but I hope you see that is, thankfully, not what’s going on here.
I don’t know your time and place - but for most of Liberace’s career most people in America did not think of him as queer. Flamboyant, fancy, and clever… yes… but not queer… because they knew they would not like an actual queer.
And Sammy Davis Jr could only walk into places other black men were forbidden if he was with Frank and/or Dean. He was allowed on stage some places blacks were banned but only as a performer - He was not allowed to be a customer by himself.
I am delighted to hear that “fey gay” is now on par with “stoner dude.” That’s wonderful.
I hope that someday, if not in my lifetime, Steppin Fetchit and Frito Bandito can also become so harmless. But yeah, we’re not there yet, so I for one don’t go there.
(note to modern readers: the following paragraph describes a world thankfully past. It does not reflect my view, nor, I hope, any caring being’s view)
About our differing perceptions of Liberace despite our clearly sharing this cultural history. I think your description of Liberace and how he was perceived is more accurate than my original post. I had the good fortune to be in a social micro-environment where homosexuality seen as a “disability” rather than an “offense” or a “threat.” That is, homosexuals were an “other,” but that they were still fundamentally humans to be treated respectfully. So seeing Liberace as “queer” was ok – Mom, who adored Liberace, didn’t care that he was gay any more than Dad cared that Ray Charles was blind. That was absolutely an aberrant view for the time and place I came from.
THANK YOU for taking the time to help me understand the present moment – and the past.
