Donald Trump's Shakespearean Muse

Donald Trump's Shakespearean Muse

Man, I really should have paid better attention in high school English.
50
views

Like many of my peers, I have been endlessly and perversely entertained by the antics of Donald Trump this election season. Donny Small-Hands has always had a ridiculous public persona, but recently he has swung for the fences in not only offending people, but also bringing hate speech onto the world stage. Because he is such a strange enigma, everyone's been looking for an analogue to explain Trump and his rise in terms we can wrap our head around.

So far, the classic move has been a comparison to Adolf Hitler. While that is apt at times, Hitler also holds a unique status as the worst individual in our shared consciousness. To say, "Trump Is Hitler" is to say, "Trump is a monster I cannot ever understand", and end the thought process there.

Personally, I think we need to view Trump through the lens of a less stigmatized character in order to understand how he got to be the GOP frontrunner. That someone is, of course, Prince Hal from Shakespeare's King Henry IV Part I.

For those of who haven't read or seen this play (which is understandable; Henry V is a lot sexier), the basic plot is pretty simple: there's a storm of rebellion brewing in England against the King, and revolution seems like it will break out any minute. Meanwhile, the King's strange son, Prince Hal, spends his time hanging with the cleverest barflys you'll ever meet, shirking his duties in the name of good times. To put it simply, he's not someone you'd want at your family picnic, let alone the guy who should be next in line to the throne.

At first, the prince's rash actions seem to be just juvenile rebellion, Hal's way of pissing off his dad. But in the second scene of the first act, Shakespeare reveals that there's something more sinister lurking underneath the surface. Here's a link to the text if you'd like to read it, but John Gielgud plays the character best in Orson Welles' Chimes At Midnight:


Because Chimes is Welles' conglomeration of Henry IV Part I and Part II, we actually see a lot of Prince Hal palling around with Falstaff, played by Welles himself. It's all fun and games because, well, why not? But if you skip to 4 and a half minutes in, you get to see a dull sociopathic glint in the eyes of the future king. This man has been working hard to "make offence a skill", but it's all been because he wants to look better in comparison "when this loose behavior I throw off."

"Hal rightly recognizes the value of being seen as fresh and new", writes Jennifer Drouin, and I'm inclined to think Trump saw that same value last week when he chose to change his campaign strategy. "I will be so presidential," Trump said on NBC's Today Show, "you will be so bored." In another interview with the Wall Street Journal, he noted that he will be "more effective and more disciplined" in the future.

Trump knows that, if his campaign continues the way it has, he may win the GOP nomination but never the bipartisan vote (to our credit, 65% of Americans surveyed still view him as unfavorable.) I predict that these recent statements are Trump's way of beginning the turn to moderate that we've all seen coming for months.

What Trump may not have accounted for is, the stakes are a lot higher for him than they were for Prince Hal.

By constantly saying "what we all want to say", Trump has not only become popular, but made hate socially acceptable. "Make America Great Again" is not just a radical statement anymore; it's a figurehead for racists, misogynists, and bigots of all denominations to rally around and make that which is not Great into the Other. Even if the man does swing back and "imitate the sun" on a personal and political level, the effects of his early campaign will never fade away.

Like many of his business decisions, it appears Trump has gambled big and lost. And we're the one's who will be paying for it.

Cover Image Credit: Ronald Grant Archive

Popular Right Now

5 Perks Of Having A Long-Distance Best Friend

The best kind of long-distance relationship.
284771
views

Sometimes, people get annoyed when girls refer to multiple people as their "best friend," but they don't understand. We have different types of best friends. There's the going out together best friend, the see each other everyday best friend and the constant, low maintenance best friend.

While I'm lucky enough to have two out of the three at the same school as me, my "low maintenance" best friend goes to college six hours from Baton Rouge.

This type of friend is special because no matter how long you go without talking or seeing each other, you're always insanely close. Even though I miss her daily, having a long-distance best friend has its perks. Here are just a few of them...

1. Getting to see each other is a special event.

Sometimes when you see someone all the time, you take that person and their friendship for granted. When you don't get to see one of your favorite people very often, the times when you're together are truly appreciated.

2. You always have someone to give unbiased advice.

This person knows you best, but they probably don't know the people you're telling them about, so they can give you better advice than anyone else.

3. You always have someone to text and FaceTime.

While there may be hundreds of miles between you, they're also just a phone call away. You know they'll always be there for you even when they can't physically be there.

4. You can plan fun trips to visit each other.

When you can visit each other, you get to meet the people you've heard so much about and experience all the places they love. You get to have your own college experience and, sometimes, theirs, too.

5. You know they will always be a part of your life.

If you can survive going to school in different states, you've both proven that your friendship will last forever. You both care enough to make time for the other in the midst of exams, social events, and homework.

The long-distance best friend is a forever friend. While I wish I could see mine more, I wouldn't trade her for anything.

Cover Image Credit: Just For Laughs-Chicago

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Ilhan Omar Is at Best Foolhardy and at Worst, Yes, Anti-Semitic

Her latest statements seem to lack substance, motivation, or direction.

164
views

I find the case of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) to be a curious one.

Specifically, I am referring to the recent controversy over select comments of hers that have generated accusations of anti-Semitism. In all honesty, prior to doing research for this article, I was prepared to come to her defense.

When her comments consisted primarily of "Israeli hypnosis" and monied interest, I thought her wording poor, though not too egregiously deviated from that of most politicians in the current climate of bad behavior. After all, Israeli PACs surely do have a monied interest in the orientation of United States policy in the Middle East. Besides, if President Trump can hypothesize about killing someone in broad daylight and receive no official sanction, I don't see the need for the House of Representatives to hand down reprimand to Rep. Omar for simply saying that Israel may have dealt wrongly, regardless of the veracity of that position.

And yet, seemingly discontent that she had not drawn enough ire, Omar continued firing. She questioned the purported dual loyalty of those Americans who support the state of Israel, while also making claim that the beloved former President Obama is actually not all that different from the reviled current President Trump.

In short, the initial (mostly) innocuous statements about the United States' relation with Israel have been supplanted by increasingly bizarre (and unnecessary) postulations.

Those latest two controversies I find most egregious. Questioning the loyalty of an American citizen for espousing support for a heavily persecuted world religion and in defense of a refuge for practitioners of that self-same religion that has existed as an independent state since 1948, seems, in really no uncertain terms, anti-Semitic.

After all, is it not her own party that so adamantly supports persecuted Palestinians in the very same region? Is it not she and fellow Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) (who is not without her own streak of anti-Semitic controversy) that have rejected challenges to their own loyalty in being ethnically Somali and Palestinian respectively? Is her claim not akin to the "racist" demands that Obama produce proof of his birth in the United States, and the more concrete racism that asserted he truly was not? And (if you care to reach back so far) can her statement not be equated to suggestions that President John F. Kennedy would be beholden to the Vatican as the first (and to date only) Catholic to hold the presidency?

From what I can discern amongst her commentary, in Omar's mind, the rules that apply to her framework on race, ethnicity, religion, and culture as sacred idols above reproach do not extend to her Jewish contemporaries.

Oh, and may I remind you that over 70% of Jewish Americans voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016.

And yet, beyond even this hypocrisy, is the strange disdain Omar suddenly seems to hold for Barack Obama. Even as a non-Democrat, while I can find reason for this, it is still largely perplexing.

To begin with, I recognize that Ilhan Omar is not your prototypical Democrat. She would scoff at being termed a moderate, and likely would do the same to being labeled a traditional liberal. While she doesn't identify as an outright democratic socialist, one would have to be totally clueless to avoid putting her in the company of those who do, such as Tlaib or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

As such, she's bound to have some critical evaluations of President Obama, despite the lionizing that the Democratic establishment has and continues to engage in. Two points still stick out to me as obvious incongruities in her statement, however.

First, Obama and Trump are nothing alike. Again, this coming from someone who does not regularly support either, I can at least attempt to claim objectivity. While Obama might not have been faithful to all the demands of the far-left during his presidency, his position on the political spectrum was far from the extreme bent that Trump has ventured into.

Secondly, there is the style of the two men to consider. While Obama had his share of goofs and gaffes (I still think it somewhat juvenile that he often refused to say "radical Islamic terrorism" when referring to Islamist extremists) he pales in comparison to Trump. Every week Trump has his foot caught in a new bear trap. Obama is enormously tame in comparison.

And in addition to all of that, one must beg the question of Omar's timing. With Republicans emboldened by her controversies and House Democratic leadership attempting to soothe the masses, why would Omar strike out at what's largely a popular figure for those that support her most? There seemed no motivation for the commentary and no salient reasoning to back it up, save that Omar wanted to speak her mind.

Such tactlessness is something that'll get you politically killed.

I do not believe Barack Obama was a great president, but that's not entirely important. I don't live in Ilhan Omar's district; her constituents believe Obama was a great president, and that should at least factor into her considerations. Or maybe she did weigh the negative value of such backlash and decided it wouldn't matter? 2019 isn't an election year, after all. Yet, even if that's the case, what's to gain by pissing off your superiors when they're already pissed off at you?

You need to pick your battles wisely in order to win the war, and I'm highly doubtful Omar will win any wars by pitching scorched-earth tactics over such minute concerns.

Her attitude reminds me not only of that of some of her colleagues engaging obtusely and unwisely over subjects that could best be shrugged off (see the AOC media controversies), but also some of my own acquaintances. They believe not only in the myth of their own infallibility, but the opposition bogeyman conjured by their status in a minority or marginalized group. As the logic goes, "I'm a member of x group, and being so gives me the right to decimate anyone who has any inclination to stand against me in any capacity, tit for tat." So much for civility.

I initially came here to defend Rep. Ilhan Omar, and I still do hold to that in certain cases. The opposition to some of her positions is unwarranted. She is allotted the freedom of speech, as are all Americans.

And yet, in certain other cases she has conducted herself brashly, and, one could argue, anti-Semitically.

All I can say is that I am content living adjacent to Minneapolis, not in it. You'd be hard-pressed to find me advocating for leadership that makes manifest in such impolitic fashion.

Related Content

Facebook Comments