
There are good reasons to criticize “the media.” They generally espouse collectivist values in the sense that they favor collective or political choices over individual choices. This bias likely corresponds to the vague beliefs of the majority of the population. Not surprisingly, the media give their customers what they want. (The financial press is less prone to popular biases because it sells something else than entertainment and confirmation bias; it sells information that has market value.)
President Trump, I think, uses a no less collectivist approach when he criticizes the media and calls them “enemy of the people.” He may prefer different collective choices than the typical journalist or intellectual, but they remain collective choices to be forced on unwilling minorities. Think of government trade deals imposed on any importer or consumer who would have preferred to make his own deals. The very expression “enemy of the people,” which Mr. Trump used again on Wednesday illustrates his collectivist approach: those who oppose the choices or values of the collectivity–in fact, of some politically powerful individuals in the collectivity–are enemies of the people.
Mr. Trump protests that only the “Fake News (Media) is the Enemy of the People.” In two tweets of October 29, he said:
CNN and others in the Fake News Business keep purposely and inaccurately reporting that I said the “Media is the Enemy of the People.” Wrong! I said that the “Fake News (Media) is the Enemy of the People,” a very big difference. When you give out false information – not good!
Check out tweets from last two days. I refer to Fake News Media when mentioning Enemy of the People – but dishonest reporters use only the word “Media.” The people of our Great Country are angry and disillusioned at receiving so much Fake News. They get it, and fully understand!
It still means that making “the people” angry turns one into an enemy of the people.
The historical connotation of the expression “enemy of the people” is a bit scary, as summarized in two interesting newspaper stories: “Why Trump’s ‘Enemy of the People’ Bluster Can’t Be Compared to Stalin’s Savage Rule,” by Will Englund, Washington Post, January 17, 2016; and “Trump Embraces ‘Enemy of the People,’ a Phrase With a Fraught History,” by Andrew Higgins, New York Times, February 26, 2017.
As far as we know, the expression originated in the late Roman Republic. A “hostis publicus,” who had usually committed an alleged act of treason, lost his Roman citizenship and could be killed. It is interesting to note that the original meaning of hostis was “foreigner.” The enemy of the people is like a foreign enemy. (See P. Jal, “‘Hostis (publicus)’ dans la littérature latine de la fin de la République,” Revue des Études Anciennes, 1963.)
The expression was later appropriated by French revolutionaries and especially by the Jacobins during the Terror. Enemies of the people were summarily condemned and quickly guillotined.
It was Lenin and later Stalin who, following the communist revolution of October 1917, best recycled the French revolutionaries’ “ennemi du peuple.” They used the expression to identify anybody who did not agree with the Soviet rulers and thus needed to be punished. A few years after Stalin’s death, his successor, Nikita Krushchev, condemned the label as an excuse for eliminating political competitors.
“It was a label that meant death,” says Mitchell A. Orenstein, professor of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He says:
This is the connotation for anyone who lived in the Soviet Union or knows anything about the Soviet Union, which Donald Trump obviously doesn’t—or he doesn’t care.
Yet, words have their importance.
READER COMMENTS
Alan Goldhammer
Nov 10 2018 at 4:15pm
A documented liar says XYZ is Fake News. Is this a true or false statement?
Mark Z
Nov 11 2018 at 2:36pm
A documented liar say Donald Trump is a terrible president. True or false?
Obviously, both your hypothetical statement and my hypothetical statement can both be true regardless of how dishonest the person saying them is.
Even habitual liars tell the truth more often than they lie. Find the biggest liar you know and ask him if he’s Atilla the Hun, and I expect you’ll get a truthful (or sarcastic and therefore implicitly truthful) answer.
Benjamin Cole
Nov 11 2018 at 12:23am
Trump as a Jacobin Stalinist! Scott Sumner went through a Trump as Schicklgruber phase.
By all means, blast away. It is not often such a Fat Target Deluxe comes onto the firing range. The blimp moored adjacent to gunnery school.
But if we mention Stalin in the same paragraph as Trump…how do we characterize President Xi of China?
Weir
Nov 11 2018 at 9:17am
“It still means that making ‘the people’ angry turns one into an enemy of the people.”
He used the word fake four times. One instance each of dishonest, false, and inaccurately.
Which suggests that people’s anger is secondary. It’s not because journalists have angered people. It’s because of the lying itself.
In other words, his emphasis wasn’t on people being made angry or disillusioned by that dishonesty. The key word was fake.
And fake is the appropriate word. Note that the Post and the Times allowed themselves to be scooped by those forensic, painstaking factcheckers at Buzzfeed.
Someone at Buzzfeed figured out that converting broadcast television into an internet gif is going to reduce the quality of the clip, and said so days ago.
But the Post and the Times still call it “doctored” footage. No corrections are forthcoming.
Which is odd, since Trump is Stalin. A grave and imminent threat. Democracy dies in darkness. He imperils the republic.
Shouldn’t the Post and the Times take this threat seriously? And therefore be completely rigorous and above reproach? Uphold the highest standards of journalistic fastidiousness? The republic is at stake. Therefore, journalists should raise, not lower, their standards. No?
Journalists see themselves as the pillars of society. Trump calls them the enemy of the people. Any fan of Ibsen’s plays will see the joke in that.
Otherwise you’re just letting yourself be played. And then the joke’s on you.
Note that SPQR means the Senate and people of Rome. And that America’s constitution reads “We the People,” not “The government.”
And perhaps the distinction has proved useful from time to time over the last two thousand years?
What if, when your explicit intended meaning is that “the people” do not exist, your implicit unintended meaning is that the king’s courtiers plainly do exist? The Roman Senate exists. Maybe when you say that “the third estate” does not exist, what you’re also saying is that the first and second estates should exist unchallenged, unopposed, unchecked?
Say to a Patriot in 1776 that “the people” do not exist. What he heard is that you’re a Loyalist.
Because this distinction does exist between court and country, between lord and serf, between the high-born and the people they dictate to. Or is there really nothing to le citoyen?
David
Nov 12 2018 at 8:18am
“It was Lenin and later Stalin who, following the communist revolution of October 2017”
I think that’s a mistype, but so hard to tell these days.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 12 2018 at 10:21am
Thanks, David. I’ll correct the typo. (A bit ahead of my time…)
Comments are closed.