by liberal japonicus
The dynamic duo at the Rest is Politics had a fascinating interview with Kevin Rudd, former Australia PM who just wrote a book that basically analyzed everything that has ever been put out with Xi Jinping’s name on it, entitled On Xi Jinping: How Xi’s Marxist Nationalism is Shaping China and the World. (available at your nearest dark web site)
I’m still working my way through it, but the conversation is pretty interesting, but the tastiest bit is when (imho) Rudd sends Rory Stewart to the burn unit. At least that is my take, especially when he refers to Stewart as ‘my Tory friend’. Perhaps some folks with better knowledge correct me if I’m reading too much into this, but I think he was referring to a whole string of Tory come-ons to China, including Cameron and Osborne’s Golden Age of UK-China relations, Gove’s touting of pork exports to China as a benefit of Brexit, culminating with Liz Truss’ 2014 Conservative Conference speech. (God, that never gets old)
I don’t think that Stewart is consciously chasing headlines, but it just goes to show how a rewards system can really mess up one’s perspective.
And as an ironic counterpoint, the next episode has Rory Stewart talking about wearing a MAGA hat and going to Trump rally, where he swoons over Trump’s ability to hold his audience (seriously!)
https://youtu.be/xun5TXH0bIw?si=4m2nRTHzVLeyLkTA
Interesting that Rory demands Rudd to denounce Trump, but makes no similar demand on himself.
I have to admit that my resistance to listening to or watching podcasts means there’s no chance I’ll spend an hour listening to this! But (bearing that in mind) I would have thought that the reason Rudd calls Stewart “my Tory friend” is that he was a Tory MP and cabinet member. Although interestingly, I have heard Labour politicians saying how when Stewart was first thinking of going into politics he was open to joining either party (!), and that they much regretted not making a better pitch for him. But, as for RS not denouncing Trump, I can’t see why Stewart needs to do so here, when I seem to remember he has made his views on Trump pretty clear over the years!
Sorry, but I think Stewart was being a knob and he’s taking advantage of the fact that Rudd had made some pretty clear comments on Trump before he became US ambassador and deleted them when he became ambassador, at the beginning of Trump’s term
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/07/australia-us-ambassador-kevin-rudd-deletes-posts-criticising-trump-after-election-win
Yes, Stewart has been clear in his criticism of Trump, but when dropped in a middle of MAGA rally, he puts on a red cap and swoons over Trump’s rhetorical ability.
And Rudd didn’t mention Stewart’s Tory bona fides until Stewart starts accusing him of being untruthful about Trump, so I tend to think it’s not simply an acknowledgement of his previous political incarnation, but rather a dig, especially since Stewart lost the whip and became independent, so he could have come back and said he’s no longer a Tory, but I suspect that was what Rudd was setting up, the Stewart would need to defend his own stands rather than taking potshots at Rudd.
lj, from what you say it looks like “my Tory friend” was a jibe. Apologies, that’s what comes of not having watched the podcast so not having the full context.
But on the question of blaming Stewart for “swooning” over Trump’s rhetorical ability, I do take issue. And the reason is this: I have myself been infuriated (even here) when people have called Trump “charming”, and I have explained ad nauseam how that word could never apply to him in English usage. But I have gradually had to concede (from hearing it repeated often enough, even in England and by people who hate him) that he does have a strange undeniable charisma, despite his loathsomeness, which many people are susceptible to (after all, charm has an alternative and magical meaning)
And on his rhetorical ability, I have equally to concede that he has fooled some of the people all of the time, and some of the people some of the time, and it’s not just their credulity in believing lies but is something to do with his presentation and the way he expresses things. God knows it’s not orthodox rhetorical ability, and nous will have to fill us in on whether it can even be called that, but (for example) even people who detest him sometimes say he is funny with good comic timing. So to me, acknowledging a truth is not only forgiveable but honorable, as long as one doesn’t let it cloud one’s overall moral judgement (which I don’t think Stewart has done).
(p.s. for nous: can rabble-rousing be considered a kind of rhetorical ability?)
I would say so, at least for some audiences.
The definition of rhetoric that I find most useful is one that Barry Brummett put forth in his book Rhetorical Dimensions of Popular Culture, where he was attempting to broaden the consideration of rhetoric to include not just the spoken and written (and embodied) word, but also the visual and aural dimensions of modern media (things like mise-en-scène and juxtaposition, among other things).
Spraytan is hopeless as an expository speaker, but he’s adept at appropriating the anger and frustration of others and link it to powerful imagery that is so grounded in the public imaginary and their ways of thinking and speaking that it passes for common sense and nature, rather than a public, social intervention.
His rhetoric is quotidian and implicational, even as his exposition is a trainwreck. His “weave” that he’s so proud of works – not by his having logic and purpose, but by his having chosen and linked enough powerful and attractive phrases together that his listeners assemble them together in a way that reinforces their own frustrations and desire to get what is rightfully theirs. They identify with him because they feel what he feels, and then assemble a version of him from his words that aligns with what they believe.
And I don’t think this would work on a national level without the constant intervention of the media trying to present his followers’ remixes of his “weave” as the actual intent and content of his communication. The media sanewashes Spraytan because they do not want to seem to condescend to his supporters who have remixed his reflexive self-promotion and aggrandizement into their own personal self-affirmations.
We could use a lot more “but he didn’t say that” pushback from the media.