There is no question that President Trump has done a 180 on military intervention in the Middle East. You can see the tweet record here.
It is reasonable, I think, to call this hypocrisy or inconsistency. That’s why we have those terms. They’re shorthand for saying, “you have changed your viewÂ without signaling any reasons for having done so.” Part of what this evaluation points out, in other words, is that it’s time for reasons. After all, there’s been a change, and we normally expect there to be something to justify the change.
So this is a discussion we ought to have and “hypocrite” or “inconsistent” are terms we need to use. Â But that’s just me. Here’s Josh Marshall from TPM.
Donald Trump has said all manner of contradictory things about Syria and unilateral airstrikes. He said Obama shouldn’t attack in 2013 and insisted he needed congressional authorization to do so. Now he is contradicting both points. But whether or not Trump is hypocritical is not a terribly important point at the moment. Whether he’s changed his position isn’t that important. But the rapidity and totality with which he’s done so is important. There are compelling arguments on both sides of the intervention question. But impulsive, reactive, unconsidered actions seldom generate happy results.
Another way to put this is that while I agree it’s silly for the now to focus on calling Trump a hypocrite, the man’s mercurial and inconstant nature makes his manner of coming to the decision as important as the decision itself. That tells us whether he’ll have the same worldview tomorrow, whether this is part of any larger plan. There are arguments for intervention and restraint. But given what we know of Trump, it is highly uncertain that this is part of either approach. It may simply be blowing some stuff up.
Which is another way of saying his hypocrisy raises questions.Â This is why we have Â meta-linguistic terminology. And the important thing about the metalanguage Â is that it makes our analytical work easier. We don’t need to build new theories every time we encounter a problem.
2 thoughts on “With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do”
Hi John, is there another way to take the Marshall line that runs that use of the meta-vocabulary is empty when one’s audience doesn’t have self-awareness? There is the problem of inconsistent claims and so on, but that’s a problem for us, not for the one making them…
Yes, I think–but we run up against the presumption of maturity. If I presume anything else, then I’m patronizing or insulting my interlocutor.
Comments are closed.