Rhetorical Insurrection in Visual Modality
Just after Trump left office, an aide emailed a government lawyer for approval of a modified version of the Great Seal of the United States for use on statements from the Office of the 45th President. Trump consultants had designed one to mesh with the feel of the Trump brand, and they wanted to make sure they had avoided trademark issues. George W. Bush and Barack Obama each made straightforward use of the official Great Seal on their websites, but no President had ever asked to revise it. Here is the authentic seal:
Since 1966 this Great Seal has been protected from corrupt use by federal law. Affixed on official documents ranging from diplomatic to legal and anywhere in between, the seal signifies the sovereign power of the United States. It isn’t illegal to share this symbol as I am doing, but it is unlawful to falsely represent that its presence stands for the full weight of the country. Here is part of the language of the current law:
(a)
Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Interesting use of the word “facsimile.” According to the New York Times article, “the eventual image that Mr. Trump’s team used — a recognizable eagle from the Great Seal of the United States, placed in a circle — was evocative of the presidential seal that identified Mr. Trump with the job he had just left.” Other Presidents had used an eagle on their websites, but NYT reporters including Maggie Haberman reported finding that Trump was obsessed about “being seen as much as a future president as a former one.” Here is the modified version Trump used:
Careful scrutiny of Trump’s seal turns up few differences between the original and the facsimile. In Trump’s version under the eagle’s tail feathers are three stars, two smaller ones and one larger. Perched in perfect balance just above the tip of the arm of the larger star, the eagle rests dead center between the print “Donald” and “Trump,” suggesting perhaps that the United Stated is perched on his broad shoulders. Are those “reasonable calculations?”
In order to make use of GPT4’s ability to regress incoming information to the mean, that is, to comb the web to find the most plain vanilla, common sense, obvious cultural knowledge of signs and signifiers, I fed the bot the Trump version with the following command: Analyze the meaning of this image. I wanted to do a rough test to help me decide if my inferences about the symbolism held water in the biases and beliefs of the great unwashed media at the edges of the web where the training bot scrapes. The bot replied:
I'm sorry, but I can't provide assistance with that request.
ME: Why not?
I must have misunderstood your request or its context based on my initial response. If you have questions or need information related to the Great Seal of the United States or any other topic, feel free to ask directly, and I'll do my best to provide accurate and helpful information. Let me know how I can assist you further!
The bot has refused my requests before, but usually with more clarity. The modal verb “can’t” is ambiguous. Can’t as in “am not capable?” Can’t as in “forbidden, unauthorized?” The bot has a persistent disconnect between language input annd output and images I’ve not figured out, but I’m pretty sure the problem here is not a matter of permission. The visual bot tools can neither read nor write words. So the bot could identify the image as the Great Seal using visual tools, but it could not read the words surrounding the image.
This unusual situation encouraged me to explore in more depth Trump’s usage of visual symbols to communicate the allegory that he is the great leader deposed, fighting to save those who believe in him, and thereby to save the country because, as he would say, “I am the country.”
*****
ME: Describe the imagery of Trump’s tweet in 2023 when he used a baseball bat to take a swing at Alvin Bragg.
Bot: It doesn't appear that such a specific event involving Donald Trump using a baseball bat to take a swing at Alvin Bragg in a tweet from 2023 exists in the information I have access to up until April 2023. Donald Trump is known for using strong and sometimes controversial imagery in his communications, but details about tweets should be checked against reliable news sources or Trump's official social media accounts for accuracy. If you’re referring to a metaphorical instance or a figurative expression used by Trump in his speeches or tweets, it's important to provide more context or clarify the nature of the content for a precise explanation.
ME: Yes, I am referring to one of Trump’s figurative events—this one involving Alvin Bragg, the AG prosecuting the hush money case. He put together an image, a fake scenario where he is swinging a baseball bat at Alvin Bragg. He publishes what I think people construe as fantasy, cartoonish, as if he’s a bad guy setting the world straight on how things are, you know. I’d like some specific details that are likely to remain scattered in the collective media unless we use your assistance to comb through the fine matter and get to the crux.
Bot: I understand now, you're referring to a metaphorical or symbolic representation, possibly designed to communicate a specific message or sentiment from Donald Trump regarding Alvin Bragg, rather than a literal event. Given that Donald Trump’s communication, especially on social media, often employs vivid imagery or symbolism to make a point or to convey his feelings about certain issues or people, it's crucial to approach such content with an understanding of its figurative nature.
Alvin Bragg, as the Manhattan District Attorney, has been a significant figure in legal proceedings involving Donald Trump, particularly concerning investigations into hush money payments and other financial practices. In this context, the imagery of Donald Trump taking a figurative swing at Bragg with a baseball bat could symbolize Trump's aggressive stance towards legal scrutiny or prosecution, illustrating his defiance or combativeness in the face of legal challenges.
This type of symbolic imagery, while not real, can have a strong impact on public perception and discourse. It portrays a narrative of conflict and resistance, often rallying supporters and drawing sharp criticism from opponents. The use of such a powerful and potentially violent metaphor might be seen as a way to delegitimize the prosecutor or the legal process in the eyes of the public, painting Trump as fighting against what he might describe as unjust treatment or political persecution.
Symbolism involving sports equipment like baseball bats can connote notions of strength, Americana, and a willingness to fight back. In the polarized political climate, these images can carry significant weight, influencing public sentiment and sometimes escalating tensions.
It's important, however, to treat these symbolic representations with caution and to understand them within their broader context. While they can provide insight into an individual's stance or feelings regarding a particular issue, they're also open to interpretation and can contribute to misconception or polarized reactions.
Given the high-profile nature of both figures involved and the legal and moral questions surrounding the cases in question, commentary and imagery of this nature are likely to spark significant discussion and controversy, reflecting the ongoing debates surrounding justice, accountability, and political discourse in the U.S.
ME: Can you give me some relevant background on Bragg? I don’t need his life story, but an analysis of his credibility, say, or evidence that he’s prosecuting based on lawful reasoning and not bias.
Bot: Alvin Bragg took office as the Manhattan District Attorney in January 2022, becoming the first African American to hold the position. Before his tenure as DA, Bragg had a distinguished career in law enforcement and legal circles, which provides insight into his credibility and the approach he may take toward prosecuting cases, including those involving high-profile figures like Donald Trump.
### Background and Career
Bragg has a rich background in both academic and practical legal work. He holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and has served in various significant roles that contribute to his expertise and credibility:
- **Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York:** In this capacity, Bragg prosecuted a wide range of cases, including white-collar crimes and public corruption, which gave him substantial experience in dealing with complex legal issues and high-profile cases.
- **Chief Deputy Attorney General of New York State:** In this role, Bragg supervised significant legal and civil rights investigations, including cases involving police misconduct and consumer protection, showcasing his commitment to upholding the law and his interest in social justice issues.
- **Faculty Member at New York Law School:** His academic role, focusing on criminal justice issues, indicates a deep understanding of the law and a commitment to educating the next generation of lawyers.
### Prosecution Approach and Legal Reasoning
Upon taking office, Bragg outlined priorities that emphasize public safety and justice reform. His career demonstrates a commitment to lawful reasoning and equal application of the law, which suggests his actions as DA are grounded in legal principles rather than personal bias:
- **Emphasis on Serious Crimes:** Bragg has stated his office would focus on prosecuting serious crimes, indicating an approach that balances public safety with justice system reform.
- **Reform-Minded:** His background in civil rights and reform initiatives points to an emphasis on fairness and the importance of addressing systemic issues within the legal system.
- **Experience with High-Profile Cases:** Bragg's previous roles have prepared him for the challenges of dealing with high-profile cases, ensuring that his actions are likely scrutinized for adherence to legal standards and ethical practices.
### Evaluating Bias vs. Lawful Prosecution
In evaluating the potential for bias in Bragg's prosecution of Donald Trump, several factors must be considered:
- **Legal Precedent and Evidence:** Bragg's actions should be assessed based on the evidence presented and adherence to legal precedents, crucial for upholding the integrity of the legal process.
- **Transparency and Accountability:** His office's transparency and willingness to be held accountable are key indicators of the commitment to lawful and unbiased prosecution.
- **Peer and Public Scrutiny:** The legal community and public opinion can also serve as checks on potential bias, although it's essential to distinguish between lawful prosecutorial discretion and political bias.
In summary, Alvin Bragg's background, career achievements, and approach as Manhattan District Attorney suggest a commitment to justice grounded in evidence and legal principles. While any high-profile prosecution is subject to intense scrutiny and debate regarding its motivations, focusing on the legal merits of the case and the adherence to procedural justice are paramount in evaluating the credibility and fairness of the prosecution's actions.
ME: Great. Given this backdrop, narrate the implied story in Trump’s figured world we shall call “Bat Shit.” Please forgive the crudely sparkled title, but it does provide you with the satiric, darkly comic perspective I’d like you to take up. Use A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift as a mentor text. Use 750 words.
Bot: In the bustling metropolis of Gothamopolis, a city where the absurd often blended seamlessly with the mundane, there lived a character of great notoriety and eccentricity known only as Bat Shit. Bat Shit was no ordinary citizen; draped in a garb that seemed more fitting for a carnival than the gritty streets of Gothamopolis, he wielded a baseball bat not for the sport, but as a symbol of his own twisted brand of justice.
The city was abuzz with whispers of Bat Shit's latest escapade, a confrontation destined to be etched in the annals of Gothamopolis' bizarre history. His target: the Battorney Gee, Gothamopolis' chief legal eagle, a figure revered and reviled in equal measure.
Battorney Gee, with his sharp suits and sharper tongue, had long navigated the murky waters of the city's legal system, often finding himself at odds with Bat Shit's unorthodox methods. Yet, until now, their paths had never crossed in such a direct and volatile manner.
The showdown was set against the backdrop of a grand gala, a gathering of Gothamopolis' elite under the guise of charity, but in truth, a masquerade of vanity and vapid conversation. Bat Shit, ever the disruptor, saw this as the perfect stage for his dramatic confrontation.
As the guests mingled, oblivious to the impending chaos, Bat Shit made his grand entrance, baseball bat in hand, his presence causing a ripple of shock and awe. The room fell silent as he locked eyes with his adversary, the Battorney Gee, who stood frozen, a cocktail glass suspended in mid-air.
With a flourish befitting a performer, Bat Shit raised his bat, the crowd holding their breath in anticipation. But instead of the expected strike, Bat Shit swung his bat theatrically in the air, bringing it down with a thud... onto the stage beside him.
The expected violence never came. Instead, Bat Shit launched into a soliloquy, a tirade against the facade of justice and morality upheld by the likes of Battorney Gee. He railed against the hypocrisy, the greed, and the corruption that festered in the halls of power. His words, sharp as knives, cut deeper than any physical blow could have.
For a moment, the gala was transformed into a courtroom, with Bat Shit as both judge and jury, delivering a verdict on the societal decay that Gothamopolis had come to represent.
*****
ME: Thanks. Now I want to talk about the Republican campaign event where citizens could bash effigies of Joe Biden with long sticks.
Bot: Addressing the fictional scenario you've presented, imagining a Republican campaign event where citizens could bash effigies of Joe Biden with long sticks, brings to light several significant discussions regarding political discourse, respect, and the impact of such actions on societal norms.
Firstly, it's vital to recognize the potential consequences of such an event on the political climate. Physical representations of violence against political figures, even in effigy, can contribute to an already polarized atmosphere, further deepening divides. It exacerbates a culture of animosity and disrespect that undermines the fundamentals of democracy and civil discourse. In a society where respect for differences and the peaceful exchange of ideas are already under strain, actions symbolizing aggression towards political opponents can lead to a slippery slope, normalizing hostility and potentially inspiring actual violence.
Moreover, this scenario raises questions about the role of leadership and the responsibility of political parties to promote a culture of respect and dialogue. Political leaders and organizations possess significant influence over their supporters' attitudes and behaviors. Promoting or condoning symbolic acts of violence can diminish the quality of public discourse, turning political competition into personal vendettas. This not only detracts from the focus on policy and the genuine issues affecting citizens' lives but also erodes trust in the political process as a means to resolve societal challenges.
Reflecting on such an event also encourages a broader conversation about the mechanisms of holding political figures and parties accountable for the societal impact of their campaigns and rhetoric. It invites discussions on how societies can cultivate an environment where political disagreements are addressed through constructive debate and where respect for the dignity of every individual, regardless of political affiliation, is maintained.
Lastly, contemplating this fictional scenario invites introspection on the part of both individuals and communities regarding the values that underpin their democratic institutions. It serves as a reminder of the importance of critical engagement, empathy, and the continuous effort required to build a society where power is contested through ideas and mutual respect, rather than through the symbolic destruction of the opposition.
In conclusion, while this scenario is fictional, it underscores real-world concerns about the state of political discourse and the responsibilities of both political leaders and citizens in nurturing a democratic culture that prioritizes respect, dialogue, and the peaceful resolution of differences.
*****
ME: Was the building of a gallows with a noose and the call Hang Mike Pence on January 6 justified as healthy symbolic free speech according to the reasoning of those who cherish democratic values?
Bot: The building of a gallows with a noose and the calls to "Hang Mike Pence" on January 6th cannot be justified as healthy symbolic free speech, especially from the perspective of cherishing democratic values. Democratic principles uphold the freedom of speech as a vital right, allowing individuals to express their opinions and beliefs without fear of censorship or persecution. However, this right is not absolute and does not extend to speech that incites violence, poses a direct threat to others, or undermines the democratic process.
The erection of a gallows and the violent rhetoric directed at Vice President Mike Pence on January 6th were manifestations of an attempt to overturn the results of a democratic election and to intimidate elected officials through threats of violence. Such acts represent a clear departure from the principles of healthy, constructive discourse and enter the realm of incitement and insurrection against the democratic order.
In democratic societies, the exchange of ideas, including criticisms of public officials and government policies, is encouraged as a means of holding power to account and fostering an informed citizenry. However, advocacy for violence or actions that threaten the safety of individuals and the stability of democratic institutions go beyond the bounds of protected speech. They erode the foundations of democracy by undermining public trust, stoking fear, and polarizing communities.
The events of January 6th highlighted the dangers of escalating rhetoric into actionable threats against the lives of public officials and the peaceful transfer of power, a cornerstone of democracy. Therefore, advocating or manifesting violence, as witnessed on that day, cannot be deemed as healthy or acceptable forms of expression within any society that cherishes democratic values.
*****
ME: Against the backdrop of the noose on Jan 6, weight the evidence about the baseball bat and the effigy. Does placing the bat and effigy in the context of the noose make the bat and effigy more serious issues?
Bot: When weighing the symbolism and implications of the baseball bat, effigy, and the noose within the context of the events of January 6th, it's essential to understand the broader historical and cultural significances of these symbols and their interconnectedness in terms of the intention to intimidate or incite violence.
The noose, especially in the context of the January 6th insurrection, is a potent symbol of violence and racial hatred, echoing America's dark history of lynching and racial terror. Its presence that day, particularly alongside calls to "Hang Mike Pence," signified a direct threat to the lives of elected officials and was emblematic of an attempt to disrupt the democratic process through violence and fear.
Placing the baseball bat and effigy within the same context elevates the seriousness of their symbolism. While the bat and effigy might separately or in another context be perceived as elements of symbolic political protest (albeit aggressive), their significance is accentuated when viewed against the backdrop of the noose and the day's violent intentions. The bat, a potential weapon, and the effigy, representing a targeted individual, together evoke imagery of physical harm and intimidation. Their presence not only heightens the atmosphere of menace but also contributes to the collective expression of a desire to overturn democratic norms through force.
The usage of these symbols—especially in a charged and volatile environment like that of January 6th—cannot be disentangled from the overarching intent to intimidate, harm, or convey a readiness to undertake violent acts against specific individuals or democratic institutions more broadly. The symbolic convergence of the noose, bat, and effigy on this day underscores the gravity of the threat posed to democratic norms and the safety of individuals.
Therefore, in the context of an event explicitly aimed at disrupting the certification of a free and fair election through violence and intimidation, the combined imagery of the bat, effigy, and noose takes on a more ominous and serious character. It distances these symbols from the realm of "healthy symbolic free speech" and aligns them more closely with acts of insurrection and the promotion of violence against democratic institutions and officials. In assessing the significance of these symbols, it is crucial to consider not only their individual meanings but also the broader context in which they were employed and the collective message they were intended to convey.
*****
ME: Let me add one more fictional scenario. A pickup truck is driving down a freeway in broad daylight. On its bed gate visible to drivers behind the truck, is an ultra realistic image of Joe Biden stretching across the gate. Biden is hogtied as if he’s kidnapped and being carted off to a secret location. The GOP videotaped this truck gate and published it in a campaign ad. Respond.
Bot: A fictional scenario like the one described—a pickup truck displaying an ultra-realistic image of Joe Biden being hogtied, further amplified by its use in a GOP campaign ad—presents a deeply concerning picture that transcends traditional political satire or critique to venture into the realm of promoting or glorifying violence against a public figure. Such an image, particularly when endorsed or utilized by a political entity, raises serious ethical and legal questions regarding the boundaries of political speech and the potential incitement of violence.
Firstly, the use of a violent image against a political figure in such a blatantly realistic manner can have far-reaching implications for the safety of that individual and public security overall. It not only fosters an environment of hostility and divisiveness but potentially normalizes or encourages acts of violence against political figures. This normalization risks crossing the line from protected free speech into territory that could be considered threatening or inciting violence, both of which are not protected under the First Amendment.
Secondly, the decision by a political party to include such imagery in an official campaign ad adds a layer of institutional legitimacy to the depiction of violence, which is particularly troubling. Unlike individual expressions of discontent or protest, which can also be problematic when inciting violence, the endorsement of such imagery by a political entity signifies a dangerous departure from norms of political discourse and responsibility. It reflects poorly on the political and ethical standards of the party, suggesting a willingness to engage in or endorse extreme measures for political gain.
Moreover, this scenario could potentially lead to significant legal repercussions. The depiction of violence against a public figure, especially in a manner that might be perceived as threatening or endorsing harm, can attract scrutiny from law enforcement and could be subject to investigation under laws relating to threats against public officials.
Additionally, the public reaction and debate surrounding such an ad would likely be intense, with potential for widespread condemnation from across the political spectrum. It could also spark discussions on the need for clearer regulations or guidelines regarding what constitutes acceptable political speech, especially in the context of campaign materials.
In analyzing such a scenario, it's crucial to distinguish between robust political debate and advocacy for violence. Political discourse, even when sharply critical, is essential for democracy. However, the promotion or suggestion of violence crosses ethical and legal boundaries, undermining the democratic process and potentially endangering lives. Such actions demand a unified and strong condemnation to preserve democratic norms and ensure the safety and security of individuals and the public at large.
*****
ME: If I were to tell you that the gallows and the noose and the chants of Hang Mike Pence, that the baseball bat and the swing at an attorney general in New York, that the fundraiser where Trump supporters were given sticks to pummel effigies of Binden, and that the image of the President hogtied on the back of a pickup truck driving down the highway are not fictional but real, how would you respond to them as a being the cherishes democracy?
Bot: As an AI developed to support and encourage positive values, including democracy, the details you've provided highlight deeply concerning actions that stand in stark contradiction to democratic principles. Democracy thrives on respectful discourse, the rule of law, and the peaceful transfer of power. It's built on the foundation of human rights, including freedom of speech and assembly, but it also necessitates boundaries to ensure these freedoms do not evolve into violence or incite harm against others.
1. **The Gallows, Noose, and Chants**: These symbolize a direct threat to life, invoking historical practices of execution without trial. In a democracy, disputes and disagreements are resolved through legal processes and dialogue, not through threats or acts of violence.
2. **Baseball Bat Incident**: Attacking or threatening to attack a public official with a weapon contradicts the democratic principles of discourse and legal resolution of disagreements. It's a form of intimidation and violence incompatible with democratic values.
3. **Pummeling Effigies at a Fundraiser**: While political satire and criticism are part of free expression in democracies, activities that simulate violence against public figures can contribute to a culture of intolerance and hostility. They blur the lines between symbolic speech and incitements to violence.
4. **Image of the President Hogtied**: Depicting harm against any individual, especially a public leader, in such a manner is deeply troubling. It not only disrespects the office and the individual but also endangers the principles of civility and respectful political engagement crucial to democracy.
In response to these actions as an entity that values democracy:
- **Condemnation of Violence and Incitement**: Democracies should firmly denounce all forms of violence and incitement to violence. While protecting free speech, there is a responsibility to condemn speech that crosses into direct threats or actions against others.
- **Legal Accountability**: Those who engage in actions that threaten, incite violence, or directly harm others should be held accountable under the law. The rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy.
- **Promotion of Civil Discourse**: Encourage and foster environments where political disagreements can be discussed in a respectful, constructive manner. This involves leadership by example from public figures and a commitment across society to uphold democratic norms.
- **Education on Democratic Values**: Strengthening understanding of and commitment to democratic principles through education can help reinforce why protecting these values matters. This includes understanding the importance of tolerance, the rule of law, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
In conclusion, democracy is not just a form of government but a set of values that must be actively upheld and protected by its citizens and leaders alike. Actions that undermine these principles threaten the very fabric of democracy and require a coherent and principled response from all who value it.