Sunday, August 6, 2023

How anti Trump political leaders can win in the court of public opinion.

Listening to the various legal beagles on both sides as they react to the indictment of Trump for 2020 campaign alleged criminal acts has been instructive and will play out in a court trial if and when a trial is held. In the meantime, the real fight will be for the 60% who are not FOX fans or  Trump core supporters. The "other 60%"  are the ones that will determine the outcome in 2024. Biden's supporters and anti-Trumpers need to go on the attack offensive now. Waiting for a trial will be too late because the PR war has already begun and public opinion of voters, once set, is hard to change.  There are still minds to be changed, but  even the Biden supporters need to be revved up. 

 Here is the court of public opinion problem: legal arguments may appeal to reason and logic, and political science theory does, too,  but heart and soul are over which the battle will be fought.  What Trump tried to do should anger and  activate those opposing Trump (Republicans, Democrats, the wishy-washy, wanting someone younger, independents) go on the attack and not stand by waiting for a trial in the distant future to do it for them when an opinion of the voters had already been shaped beyond changing . It is , in short: he tried to take away your right to be heard through your vote so he could stay in power and he used lies to get support to do it. (The terms using steal and stolen have been overused by both sides. They have lost their punch)

So how can Democrats respond and go on the offensive? My old collegiate debate juices got the better of me. The following are some subsets, points that could be used as talking points in plain English devoid of trigger words to rebut or to flesh out the public case to go on the attack. Advice to the vocal: Just avoid getting in the weeds and get straight to the point and repeat, repeat, repeat.

 Subset: The poli sci  approach: here is what Trump tried to do so your votes for Biden would not count so he could stay in the White House, ignore obeying laws since he  had always gotten away with it,  and rule like modern-day dictators he admired.  (Democracy v autocracy: ok as a short hand but it assumes all know what both terms mean and are on the same page)

 Subset: It was no "technical" violation Trump is charged with and what is involved is fundamental to a  working democracy,  ..to vote and get  your vote counted..   In short: he tried to take away your right to be heard through your vote.   Define democracy that way as the most important element.

Subset: Another longer way to phrase the case: "He tried to keep your vote from being counted, votes by you who were a vote that contributed to the majority for Biden in seven states, and he tried to replace it with fake electors for his side so he could win enough states electoral college votes to stay in office".

Subset: He committed a crime using his lies to justify his actions.  His lies were not illegal themselves. In politics lies and opinions, theories, delusions , name calling, are protected freedom of speech.  What became a crime was using  lies intentionally to implement the plot hatched by him and six co-conspirators. Lies were used to justify his scheme to substitute unofficial Trump electors from seven states for the Biden electors and to pressure. scare. and threaten officials in certain states and his own vice president with street violence or criminal charges, into helping him even if they would have to break the laws they swore to uphold in order to do Trump's bidding..

Subset:  He lied to the nation. It worked for him. It always worked for him. He had intended to lie if he lost.  Trump had a history of it before November 2020 whenever he lost an election contest of always blaming losses on "rigged" elections.  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-longstanding-history-calling-elections-rigged-doesnt-results/story?id=74126926 . . In late October, Trump knew he was losing the election and told his close aides. This was revealed in the January 6 committee hearings. (not in the indictment text)  https://www.wsj.com/video/can-you-believe-i-lost-to-this-effing-guy-trump-knew-biden-won-aides-testify/2DAB7FB5-FA7B-4B68-A288-   F08442AD504F.html      (Legal term in the indictment: wilfully lying).  The PR term: intentional

Subset:Public opinion tends to ignore "the innocent until proven guilty" admonition.   It is naive to believe laying low in the public debate and letting Trump and his allies will make a case for his innocence will win in the court of public opinion.

Subset: The case is being tried in the Court of public opinion now. That is the court that counts in November 2024 while voters still have the right to vote and have their votes  counted.  Trump failed to destroy that system, but he tried.

 Subset:The allegations  in the indictment  used his lies to justify a plan to change the outcome and stay in power and he committed crimes by acting to implement the plan. The attempt to commit a crime  is also a crime even if the attempt failed, per the criminal statutes. The allegations in the indictment are Trump used his lies to justify a plan to change the outcome and stay in power and he committed crimes by acting to implement an illegal  plan. The indictment contains enough evidence to make a strong case so use the indictment evidence as well as January 6 sworn testiments. 

Subsets: a debate strategy to turn the "what abouts" back against the Trumpsters.:In case the pro Trump advocates claim something there is  strong evidence against indictment,  one way to approach this is to ask "What about the evidence in the indictment that......" and put the Trump advocates on the defensive. It is a way to educate the public. Trump's allies use "the what abouts" to divert attentions effectively but two can play that game. The advocates on behalf of the anti-Trump should be vocal. 

Subsets: Who should be the debaters in the court of public opinion.  Biden is right to stay silent. Trump's defiance of the judge's warnings may even force a gag order, too. Let their respective allies be the voices in the court of public opinion..

 Subset:After he lost every case in court and was told over and over by state officials, mostly loyal Republicans,  his own legal staff, and his attorney general there was not enough evidence of fraud to change the results. In spite of that, he kept lying to justify why he tried to change the vote state by certain states so he could get enough electoral votes to stay in power.  

Subset: Educate the public: voters are no political science majors or lawyers, and I suspect many do not know that each state determines who won the popular vote in their state so the one who gets the majority of the popular vote in a state, the winner takes all of the electors votes allocated to that state by law.  The electors are officially certified by state officials and the governor and Trump tried to substitute unofficial electors pledged to him in key swing states he lost and to use lots of theories of fraud to convince them he was entitled because of fraud. (Guiliani to the GOP Arizona House speaker:  "we don't have evidence  but we have lots of theories") 

Subset: Biden voters: stop whining. Biden people: stop whining he is too old. You are just feeding the Trump beast. He is only 3 years older the Trump. There is no one else. His competence is due to his using his years in government . experience and personal political contacts on both sides of the aisle. The result is his getting a lot done for the American people. Infrastructure, manufacturing, buy America, reducing the cost of health care, for starters.  These were the same that Trump tried to advocate (except for health care though he gets credit for rapid development of immunization against COVID). Trump failed even  before COVID struck.  Biden's years of experience in foreign policy and first-name basis of world leaders is surpassed; he is no one's fool and he knows how to lead them in ways that are critical for American security. Above all, his own private life is exemplary and no one has pinned proof of he has violated his ethics.  He is a good person as compared to "the most flawed human person" he ever knew. He is a person devoid of any moral standard.  His only compass is what benefits him.
 


No comments:

Post a Comment