Why Meryl Streep Matters
- Charlie Biscotto
- Jan 9, 2017
- 4 min read
Donald Trump's Twitter feuds follow a typical pattern. Person X (this time, Meryl Streep) criticizes Trump. Trump responds. People opposed to Trump stand up for Person X. A Person Y (this time, Ezra Klein) calls the whole thing a distraction from bigger problems (this time, Trump's threeway bromance with Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin and his Cabinet nominees ethical conflicts). I want to stress, the so-called bigger problems are very big, and I strongly encourage you to read the linked articles about them. But Trump's tendency to attack all dissent lies at the heart of so many potential problems for his presidency, and Meryl Streep was right to call it out.
There's something almost too meta about all of it. Streep's speech itself focused on Trump's propensity for bullying and his mocking of Serge Kovaleski, a reporter for the New York Times with arthrogryposis, which the Washington Post's Callum Borchers shows was definitely a mocking of arthrogryposis. Trump still protests that he was not doing so, but the most ardent defense of his action came from Ann Coulter, who insisted that he was doing a "standard retard" and mocking an entire class of disabled people instead of just one individual with disabilities. That claim is also disproven by Borchers with photographic and video evidence, unless you believe that in the heart of a man with a long and public history of bullying and antagonization is something softer and sweeter.
So, we've known that Donald Trump is a bully. He's vindictive. He can't let any perceived slight go unchallenged. Even as Streep was speaking, my Facebook feed filled with friends placing bets on how long it would take for Trump's Twitter response (about eight hours, it turned out).
Why is Trump's bullying a problem? It was said best by Hamilton's Brandon Dixon to vice president-elect Mike Pence back in November:
We, sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us. All of us.
The response back then from Trump, of course, was to counter-punch.
The statement by Dixon expressed a desire to be defended and respected despite policy disagreements. Donald Trump, as with any marginally negative news he receives, called it "harassment."
This is why I object when Meghan McCain says that things like Meryl Streep's speech are the reason Trump won and, worse, why he'll be re-elected. Presumably she means that Donald Trump gets points with so-called real Americans when he goes to war with "Hollywood," the "foreign," and the "press." Because Hollywood stars, immigrants, and members of the media are Americans too, and Donald Trump is their president, whether any of us like it or not. If supporting our fellow Americans who take issue with Donald Trump is the cause of Trump's re-election, perhaps the problem lies with Trump's voters who enable this behavior.
Think back to the response when Barack Obama made a poorly-phrased point about people in small-town America being "bitter" and "cling[ing] to guns and religion." Think back to the response when Hillary Clinton called half of Donald Trump's supporters "deplorables." Never mind the fact that the same people who criticized the quotes then embraced both of them as rallying cries. And never mind the fact that around half of all Donald Trump supporters actually do believe that black people are more "violent" and "criminal" than white people. Imagine if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had actively attacked individual, say, coal miners or, even better, any of the myriad racist and sexist trolls who showed up on their Twitter feeds.
Instead, Barack Obama passed healthcare legislation that disproportionately benefited people who voted against him. Hillary Clinton proposed tax reform that would disproportionately benefit people who voted against her. You can question whether or not they're the best policy ideas, but you could never question that they were making decisions they believed would benefit all Americans when they developed their policies.
Do you feel comfortable making the same statement about Donald Trump? A man who was the gall to not only fight back against Meryl Streep, but call her underrated? If you've ever seen a Meryl Streep movie, you know that statement is completely unmoored from reality.
Sure. Insulting Meryl Streep's undeniable acting ability is a small offense in the grand scheme of consequences that Donald Trump's actions have had and will have in the next four years. But it's part of the same pattern of behavior he's displayed against a Gold Star family, a former beauty queen, and, yes, a disabled reporter. The economic consequences of Donald Trump's Twitter wars are part of this same pattern as well.
If Donald Trump wants people to lay off, it's now his responsibility to show that he has an interest in governing on behalf of all Americans. That includes Serge Kovaleski, Brandon Dixon, Khizr Khan, Alicia Machado, and Meryl Streep, regardless of whom they supported in the 2016 election. Until he shows himself capable of rising to that responsibility, we should celebrate anyone who calls him out on it, especially someone with the eloquence and position of power that Meryl Streep can lend.