Never mind Bannon and Breitbart. Trump himself was once upon a time called a Jew-lover. It is highly improbable that Trump himself is anti-Semitic. He says so, of course, in his characteristic way: “No one is less anti-Semitic than I.” and his daughter Ivanka, his son- in- law and his grandchildren are Jewish. Truth be told, the question that led to his denials never came up. Instead, he was asked if he knew why there has been a spurt in attacks on the Jewish population.
The spike in attacks is undeniable. A number of Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated and swastikas have been painted on walls and cars. When the editor of a Jewish periodical asked very politely, bending over backward to be deferential, why this could be happening, he was told to sit down. The journalist, wearing a kippah or yarmulke, was told that he had lied when professing to ask a simple question.
There have been racist ad ethnic attacks of all sorts since Trump’s campaign began and rumor has it that Trump has given permission for this–consciously or unconsciously– or has inspired imitation because of his attacks on handicapped persons, Mexican-Americans, Muslims and women. The unstated assumption is that bigotry tends to generalize. But that may not necessarily be so.
Many of the historic examples of hate crimes or victimization have seemed on the surface to be limited. The lynch mob turns on the African American and not on another group. (Not really true; the Klan targeted Blacks, Irish and Jews. ) In “The Lottery,” that terrifying story by Shirley Jackson, once the mob has found a victim to satisfy its blood lust, it is sated at least for a while. And even in Greek tragedy, there is catharsis and an end to the attack, at least until the next cycle begins.
Now there is some research that sheds light on what may be happening. Studies of venting online, called e-venting, show that there is no catharsis. Instead the venting of hatred leads to more aggression, more angry feelings. It seems also that venting hatred is not really good for the initiator. It “brings out the worst in us,” as one candidate for the DNC said recently of the president.
The research has been on e-venting, not quite the same as the acting out we have seen, but it does suggest a possible pathway for the translation of example to action. At the Trump rallies, the crowd is egged on into attack mode. During the campaign the targets were varied: Hilary Clinton and the media were constant victims. Since taking office, Trump has stepped up his attacks on the media, to the exclusion of many other objects of his anger. If this attack mode leaves the crowd shouting hatred at the target more angry rather than sated, there is a possible link to the statistical spike in hate crimes associated with his rallies.
It is ironic that a bitter attack on the media, seen in person or on television, could leave a crowd more ready to overthrow gravestones in a Jewish cemetery. At present the research needs further confirmation, but it looks as if that is so. It would leave Mr. Trump in the position of venting on an imagined enemy while the effects of that attack circle round to hurt the ones he loves- his daughter and her family. He could be truly an American tragic hero, like the protagonist of All My Sons, or the media scion murmuring “Rosebud,” because his career has hurt his daughter. Creon in Antigone, realizes that his anger has killed his own child and the Montagues and Capulets find that hatred cones back to its source. But there is a difference: the hero of those stories has a moment of awareness when he realizes what he has done. No such moment for Trump.
Nevertheless.blog 