A Tale Told by an Idiot

Standing before thousands of supporters who frequently broke into chants of 'USA! USA! USA!' on Wednesday night, Donald Trump explained why the United States cannot trust illegal immigrants or refugees from war-torn Middle Eastern countries by reading a poem about a 'tender-hearted woman' who cared for a half-frozen snake and nursed him back to health.

'But instead of saying thank you, that snake gave her a vicious bite,' Trump said, dramatically extending his arm in front of him as if it were the snake. "'I saved you," cried the woman. "And you bit me. Heavens why? You know your bite is poisonous, and now I'm going to die." "Oh, shut up, silly woman," said the reptile with a grin. You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.'" -- Jenna Johnson, Washington Post

By Akhilleus

The story Trumpy tells his adoring audience of cheering simpletons, is an old one, usually told in a much different version involving a scorpion. Trump could have changed it to a snake because he's not sure of what a scorpion is, but I think there was a different reason for the switch.

Trump's story involves a nice, but obviously outlandishly naive woman who takes in a nearly frozen snake and cares for it and nurses it back to health. When it recovers its strength, the snake bites the woman, killing her. Before she dies she asks the snake why he did that since she had been so kind to him and saved his life. In Trump's version, the snake is evil. He tells the woman to shut up and grins at her as she dies saying "Silly woman, you knew I was a snake when you took me in!" Bwah-hah-hah-hah.

This, of course is Trump's rationale for never helping other people, especially ones who don't look like you.

The less juvenile version is the story of the scorpion and the frog. You all have heard this no doubt, but the quick version has a scorpion asking the frog to give him a lift across a rushing stream. The frog, thinking this might not be a great idea, he being a scorpion and all, demurs. The scorpion, sensing reluctance tries to reassure the frog by telling him not to worry, he wouldn't sting him because if he did, they would both drown. Of course, mid-stream, the frog is stung. He asks the scorpion why he did that, because now they will both drown. The scorpion's valediction is "I can't help it. That's my nature."

The stories are somewhat similar except the second is a much more interesting one in terms of how we are wed to our natures, even to the extent that we can allow our worst impulses to destroy us, and others along for the ride.

The first is a simple tale, "told by an idiot" to evoke a sense of outrage and a desire for vengeance since the snake, unlike the scorpion, slithers away unharmed. Also because the snake revels in the woman's death and finds it funny. There is also the feeling that the narrator agrees with the snake's conclusion that the woman was stupid for trying to help someone else, a tale that encompasses many values that are near and dear to Trump: outrage at victimization, hatred of "the other". a desire for vengeance, and a need to humiliate those who aren't "tough" or as "smart" as he is at being able to smoke out an enemy.

But, I guess he can't help being such a cynical, hateful, paranoid asswipe.

That's his nature.

CW Note: As it turns out, there is a Muslim version of "The Scorpion & the Frog," and it seems to be the only one that also incorporates a snake: "An Arab variant is found in a Sufi source that illustrates divine providence with the tale of a scorpion that crosses the Nile on a frog's back in order to save a sleeping drunkard from being bitten by a snake." No doubt Trump, who is easily confused (Tim Kaine, Tom Kean), misremembered one of the ancient stories his old nanny read to little Donnie. Of course, Trump gleaned entirely the wrong lesson from the story. But that's his nature.

Comments

[Victoria]

In a way, Trump is simply describing himself to the audience - which is doing a favor for those who can hear. His lack of empathy might, just might, have enough of an "eewww" factor that maybe a few people in the audience will reconsider their choice of candidates.
One can hope.

[Cakers]

I am not uncomfortable with HRC so I guess I'm just stupid.

[Marie Burns]

@cakers: If your comment refers to one I made on another page, then you misunderstood it. If you did participate in & advocate for the decision to have Chelsea recite the names of children's books her parents read to her as evidence of her mother's fitness for president, then, yes, you made a stupid decision, even more stupid than the Clintons' because at least they had the excuse of being blinded by their love for their daughter.

(This, in turn, reminds us of one of Hillary's biggest weaknesses: her penchant for hiring yes-men who don't dare cross her stupid decisions. This is a repeat mistake [see 2008 campaign; e-mails!] that she will make as president, too, & she may make them where it matters.)

Although I don't consider Hillary a legacy candidate since she worked for the job from the git-go, many voters see her as riding on Bill's coattails. Chelsea is clearly a legacy, & she's a rather shallow, dimwitted one at that. To feature her in an extended speaking role on Clinton's big night is just a reminder to undecided voters that the Clinton ladies have had tremendous advantages those voters don't have.

If Chelsea were a forceful or compelling speaker or had an actually uplifting message -- instead of that pile of saccharine she heaped up -- then there might have been a justification for her high-profile billing (although even in that case, a brief introduction would have been preferable). As it is, it would be better if she just waved & smiled because her "ideas," as conveyed by her speechwriters, were even more useless than the Trump kids'.

I defy you to meet a voter who says, "I was going to vote for A, but when I heard B's son/daughter give a big speech in which s/he revealed her dad/mom was a doting parent, I switched my vote to B."

Marie

[Cakers]

I apologize if I misunderstood, but it wouldn't be the first time you intimated that people who support HRC are stupid.

[Marie Burns]

@cakers: I've never thought it was stupid to support Hillary; a better argument could be made that it was stupid to support Bernie. Hillary is a known entity; I know the kind of dumb mistakes she's going to make. With Bernie, all I really had to go on was his pragmatism as mayor of Burlington.

There were a lot of polls that showed Bernie doing better against Trump than Hillary. I didn't believe them. The only reason he was doing better was that voters didn't know who he was; when Republicans got through painting him as a crazed socialist -- something they're still trying to do with Hillary, to less effect among people who aren't idiots -- I think it likely he would have ended up in George McGovern territory in the general election.

Supporting Hillary was a smarter calculation. I supported Bernie because I thought he had by far the more moral argument, and certainly the more consistently liberal track record (except on guns). I'm not at all sorry Hillary won the nomination; I think the Democratic primaries turned out as they should have: Bernie forced Hillary out of her cozy one-percenter comfort zone, and she will have more support from the Democratic infrastructure in the general election than Bernie would have. I think she's win; Bernie was always a crapshoot. In the end, supporters of Hillary -- a surer bet -- were, since it is essential to bury Trump, are more "patriotic" than Bernie supporters.

Marie

[joynone]

Marie: I have tried to explain to my very-pro Hillary in-laws that I am lukewarm toward her because, like you, I think she has made some extremely poor decisions (I would add accepting huge speaking fees to your list). And I, too, cringed during Chelsea's speech, so much that I turned her off after "Goodnight Moon." I will vote for her, however; the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.