|
|
So the preliminary round is history. And the winner was Pride.
One sure fire thing is unmistakable about the sin of pride: It infects all aspects of life, including: people whose automobile stickers say, “My child is an honor student,” people who brag about their money, people who criticize others for ignoring unasked for advice, those gorgeous women who pose nude, TV pundits and talk radio hosts, editorial writers, PR crisis communication “experts” and novice a.e.s, fresh from communications’ schools, who are certain that they know more than their clients and supervisors (they might be correct about the latter) and especially the political candidates who feel that only they have all the answers confounding the world.
The overly long primary season, which made reading Marcel Prousts’ seven volume Remembrance of Things Past seem like eating a bowl of ice cream, adorned with wet walnuts, hot fudge and marshmallow toppings, easily exposed the sin of pride at its worst.
Each of the GOP contenders was certain that they had the answers to what ails America. The one thing that they agreed upon was that Donald Trump didn’t know as much as they did and his becoming the GOP presidential nominee would never happen. And when it did happen they said it was a disaster for the GOP equaling the great flood of the biblical era. But their egotistical pride prevented candidates from doing what they said was best for America and derail Trump by coalescing around one candidate. These proud and lofty candidates talked and talked and talked, until as Isaiah prophesized, “…and they will be humbled,” and they were one-by one, as Trump was victorious
Pride was also evident during the Democrats primary saga. The eventual winner, Hillary Clinton, has been telling Americans that she has the answers for decades. But if there was a trophy for claiming to have all the answers without explaining how to achieve goals it would be awarded to Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose campaign slogan should have been, “Proud to Have Pride.” Like his Republican counterparts, even after it was evident that he could not be the convention’s nominee, he kept on emphasizing Clinton’s shortcomings, in his opinion, as senator and Secretary of State, resulting in providing attack ammunition for Trump.
Instead of urging his idealistic but unrealistic young supporters to rally around Clinton even when the math didn’t add up to a Sanders nomination, Sanders provided fodder for Republicans to use during the coming campaign, perhaps doing fatal damage to Clinton in November. In addition, he espoused a “my way is the only way’ approach that at a minimum matched Trump’s egotistic assertions. True, Sanders finally stopped his attacks and endorsed Clinton; whether his followers, who booed Sanders after his endorsement, will do the same remains to be seen.
Sens. Ted Cruz (and his choice for veep, Carly Fiorina), Sanders and Gov. John Kasich are, in my opinion, prime examples of over-prideful individuals. Despite repeating the same words to the same TV audiences over many weeks without convincing anyone but their true believers that they have the answers, for months they refused to accept the reality of the situation: the great majority of voters didn’t see them as they see themselves.
The two most prominent dissenters from “realpolitik” - Trump and Sanders - are, in my opinion, illusory-demagogues. Both play to their supporters’ emotions rather than providing detailed or even limited explanations about how they would accomplish their goals. The least bit of criticism from opponents was met by a barrage of attacks.
Because both Trump and Sanders couldn’t give direct answers to many reporter’s questions during the debates and rallies, they both resorted to perverse tactics: Trump making continuous provocative and crude statements and giving his vindictive imitation of a reporter with an illness; Sanders acting as if bombastic shouting would convince people that he was correct, facts or not, and saying critics didn’t see the big picture as only he can.
Both also had a common tactic: claiming that they were being treated unfairly by their parties and the media. And when criticized for some of his comments, Trump used two fall back lines. “They are very nasty. I’m only responding to their comments,” or “the media is distorting what I said...” But the only nasty comments I heard was from Trump. Sanders fall back tactic was to criticize everyone who disagreed with him as part of the “establishment,” as if someone who has been in government as he has since 1981 isn’t, while ignoring that liberal stalwarts of both parties before since and after FDR are part of the “establishment.”
Those of you who have read In The Garden of Beasts, the book by Erik Larson about Hitler’s rise to power, will see similarities of the Trump and Sanders campaigns: Playing to their supporters loutish instincts by encouraging, not denouncing their unruly behavior, denigrating any opposing viewpoints, maligning the character of all who oppose them, looking for scapegoats, and attacking the press. One important lesson can also be learned from the book.
What politicians say should not be dismissed as “just politics of the moment,” as was said of Hitler’s early days. Sometime what candidates say is what they mean. And the sad part is that the 24/7 cable channels couldn’t get enough of the claptrap: The shows let Trump alter their content by letting him call-in whenever he wanted to and reported on every Trump tweet like it was page one news, ignoring the veracity of the tweet or putting it in context.
Closely following the reporting of the long primary season again confirmed my opinion that for the most part the cable news’ political programming is not worth your eyesight. Tough questions or questioning statements of candidates or their representatives are few and far between. The shows provide talking point commercials for candidates or their reps, devoid of challenging questions from hosts. This is especially true of the cable reporters on the Trump beat, who never challenged his remarks at the time they were made, even when they knew they were false or exaggerations.
On May 31, I heard CNN afternoon anchor Brooke Baldwin say more than once it’s the medias job to ask tough questions. Her remark surprised me because I have never heard her ask a tough question, unlike her colleague Jake Tapper, MSNBC’s Tamron Hall, or Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly of Fox News But the mantle of pride, to date, in my opinion, should go to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who on July 25 said several times that “we’re going to litigate the leaked emails.” News to me that media opinion is now on par with attorney’s questioning in a court of law that could result in perjury charges.
(In my opinion, cable news TV programming is a modern form of yellow journalism. In an effort to increase viewers, programming and reporting is tailored to keep viewers by playing to emotions and by letting anyone express unsubstantiated opinions without the majority of anchors or reporters challenging the alleged facts. Listening to the “excited” voices of reporters when covering a controversy reminds me of what is taught in acting school in contrast to the mostly calm and factual reporting before the advent of cable TV.
In many cases questions are asked to create discord, even if just one person protests, instead of just getting information and reporting in a composed, dignified manor like reporters from major print publications when they are interviewed. In particular, MSNBC’s Steve Karnacki seems to relish rabblerousing reporting. Cable’s emphasis is on “he said, she said” journalism. The result is that serious political reporting has largely been drowned out resulting in less politically educated viewers.)
Perhaps the most inexcusable low point of cable TV political coverage to date occurred on June 9, when Rep. Darrell Issa told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that whether Clinton is indicted or not there is no doubt that she, Bill and Chelsea illegally enriched themselves. Instead of asking for proof, Blitzer just passed over the remark and went on to his next scripted question. Disgraceful journalism, to say the least.
Now I say it, now I didn’t, is Trump’s shtick. Sanders act was to get his true believers to disregard any opposing views in a modern day Charge of the Light Brigade campaign. What they both have in common is that the major part of their campaigns was to destroy the reputations of their opponents.
The sin of pride also is event in our presidents, past and present: George Bush was confident he had the answers when he launched the attack against Iraq that led to the present disastrous situation. Barak Obama still is certain that his policy toward the terrorists is correct, even though attacks in Europe are more frequent under his watch, the U.S. is under constant threat of attack and more soldiers are being sent to fight ISIS, despite Obama’s past statements to the contrary.
And no column about the sin of pride would be complete without mentioning pundits in both the electronic and print fields. They confidently continue with their prognostications despite being much more wrong than being correct, as do the know-it-alls in our business.
The lead up to the conventions also exposed politicians whose sins were not having any pride. Leading this pack were house speaker Paul Ryan and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, both of who gave a new meaning to double talk by continually saying, “I’ll vote for Trump but won’t endorse him.” Definitely not candidates for an updated Pulitzer Prize-wining Profiles of Courage edition of the JKF book, which profiled the courage and integrity of U.S. Senators.
But after all the rantings of politicians and pundits, it turns out that Sanders’ bequest was to give birth to an undemocratic, unmanageable horde, many of which defied him; Trump’s worst enemy was himself and Clinton’s worst enemy was herself.
Psychologists say that having too much pride can result in conceit and arrogance, resulting in traits that are unappealing. But in our PR world, as in the political and corporate universes, it is often those traits that propel people up the ladder. “Stay confident, even when you are wrong,” could be the pundit’s motto and should be printed on their business cards.
I certainly think that it is beneficial for a person to have pride. Pride is necessary for a person to strive for perfection. But too often the overly proud person is a conceited and arrogant individual.
Lao Tzu, the ancient Chinese philosopher said, “Accomplish but do not boast, accomplish without show, accomplish without arrogance, accomplish without grabbing, accomplish without forcing.” Living by those rules is pride at its best.
* * *
Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson-Marsteller. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations publications, consults on public relations projects and is on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at [email protected].
The ridiculously high prices Americans are paying at the supermarket might influence how—or if—they vote in November.
At a moment in history when there are so many conflicts among peoples here and abroad, let us put our differences aside and celebrate this wonderful season in a spirit of togetherness.
The news announcing the death of Henry Kissinger, the last of the prevaricating politicians and so-called statesmen who stole my future and that of thousands of other young Americans, got me thinking about Walter Cronkite.
Have a comment? Send it to 
No comments have been submitted for this story yet.