Today’s WOTD is “perseveration.” No, not perseverance, which is sticking with something through thick and thin regardless of all obstacles. Perseveration, by contrast, is a neurobehavioral term refering to speech patterns of the psychiatrically impaired. Often seen in the early stages of dementia, it is characterized by repetitive reference to pet themes or phrases as a way to compensate for cognitive decline.
You can see how the two terms are related: Both can look to an outside observer like a stubborn refusal to veer off a preferred topic. The key difference is that in the first case, the perseverator gets stuck and can’t help himself. In the second case, he’s consciously soldiering on in service of a higher goal or ideal.
********
Prof. Richard A. Friedman, director of the psycho-pharmacology clinic at Weill Cornell Medical College is worried about Donald Trump. You can read the article, here. And the counter-point to his argument is here. The long and short of it comes down to whether you see perseveration or perseverance in Trump’s debate performance. Partisans on each side draw differening conclusions based on the exact same behavioral data. Far be it from me to try settling this dispute: Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
I will offer the following observation, however. When moderator David Muir brought up a Trump quote that sounded somewhat conciliatory about his election denialism from 2020 – “It was close, we missed by a whisker” – Trump responded to Muir that he had just been “being sarcastic.” Muir replied that he didn’t sense that sarcasm in listening to the quote the first time, but hey, let’s give the guy the benefit of the doubt, right?
Trump previously used the same tactic in the 2016 election when it seemed he was legitimizing those who might attempt to assasinate Hillary Clinton. “I was just being sarcastic.” Hillary was rightfully appalled, but somehow her objections got buried in the avalanche of partisan back-and-forth. Nobody even remembers it now. Well, nobody but Hillary and me, I guess.
********
What all this has to do with perseverance v. perseveration is this: The guy knows exactly what he’s doing, is not afraid to either repetitively and brazenly lie, or sequentially change his story to suit his perferred narrative of the moment. Add to that he is supremely adept at hammering away at his opponents’ rhetorical weak spots. So how can we possibly know if cognitive decline or some other psychiatric factor has come into play? We won’t. And what’s more, we can’t.
That’s what makes candidate Trump’s tactics and behavior doubly scary. To cite his support of dictators and strong men – as Kamala Harris rightfully did during the debate – can either be a sign of Trump’s innate fascism, or just a sign that he does not give a bloody rip about how he appears in front of an audience. And if worse ever comes to worst? He can always claim the “sarcasm” defense, whether or not it leads to WWIII.
Same goes for cognitive decline and the use of word salad rhetorical techniques. A wink and a nod are all that’s necessary for the MAGA faithful to say, “There… see? He was in command of his faculties all along. And those weak-kneed Kamala/Marxist-wannabes were just overreacting – as usual.”
********
About the best we can do in response is exemplified by this David Sedaris quote that comes via Anne Lamott. You’re welcome to order whatever you like off the electoral menu. As for me? I know what I’ll be having, and also what I’m not willing to swallow.
Bonus Cartoons & Such
All that being said, please understand that DJT is still leading this race. How so, I hear you ask? In every race for POTUS in which he’s run previously, his actual performance on election day exceeded pre-election polling by 2-3%. But how can that be? I call it “The Trump Effect.” Most people retain some modicum of personal decency and civic propriety regardless of who they ultimately intend to vote for on Election Day, whether or not that candidate is a raving lunatic. But many are loathe to admit such a thing to pollsters – or indeed, to anyone other than their priest or therapist. So, 2-3% of likely Trump voters either don’t answer, or answer flat out untruthfully. After all, who will ever find out?
Now, the other thing to understand is that 43/50 states are not in play in this election, but are solidly either red or blue already. It’s only the seven “swing” states which will determine the outcome of the 2024 presidential race: PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA and NC. There is only one of these 7 swing states in which Harris is up +3 or more at the moment, and that is in WI. In all the rest, the current margin is 1% or less. Deets are here.
Given the “Trump Effect,” it doesn’t take a math wizard to see who has the clearest path to victory. I wish it weren’t so. But facts – as they say – are facts. Not to say things can’t or won’t change before Nov. 5th. But the forecast is mostly cloudy at best. Sad but true.
Last word to H.L. Mencken
<Trump> is not the first president to have his rhetorical style criticized. President Warren G. Harding’s way of speaking was lampooned in 1921 by the newspaper columnist H.L. Mencken, who called it “Gamalielese,” after the 29th president’s middle name, Gamaliel. “It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it,” Mr. Mencken wrote. “It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash.”
Mr. Trump, who was the 45th president and is running to be the 47th, elaborated on his own oratorical technique on Friday. “What you do,” he said, “is you get off a subject, to mention another little tidbit. Then you get back onto the subject, and you go through this, and you do it for two hours, and you don’t even mis-pronounce one word.”