Flak Over Target?

Several have pointed out something I entirely missed upon first hearing President Trump had dumped on AOC’s “squad” of four sour socialist women. Namely, that he essentially forced Nancy Pelosi to defend and support these very unpopular members of her caucus, whom Pelosi (like most others) experiences as a giant pain in the backside.

It’s unclear if Trump does this judo-like trolling intentionally, as a matter of deep calculation. Alternatively, perhaps it is intuitive, a natural and unplanned outcome of his seemingly impulsive actions.

I am aware of evidence supporting either view. Trump certainly makes his shtick look impulsive. On the other hand, reports that he replays his TV interviews with the audio muted suggests quite the opposite of impulsiveness, sounding much more like Scott Adams’ “master persuader” honing his craft.

Intuitive talent or carefully calculated strategizing? Perhaps like FDR we’ll have to await the acuity of hindsight to reach any conclusion. My current hunch is that he’s playing high-risk 3-D chess, I hope I’m right.

Stephen Green, a guest blogger at Instapundit, opines in his Vodkapundit column for PJMedia the following:

Trump's tweets have always been tailored to generate a gut response. The trick -- and I admit it took me months longer than it should have to take this to heart -- is to allow yourself a brief cooling down period, consider his target audience and their gut response. Instead of luxuriating in an outraged #Resist or a chest-thumping #MAGA insta-reaction, ask yourself what was the purpose of Trump's tweet, and did he achieve it. Do that, and you'll find that while Trump takes a lot of flak for his tweets, it's almost always because he's directly over his target.

The man practically tweeted himself into the most powerful position in the world, and his seemingly ill-measured tweets deserve a more measured response than he got today from some of his supporters.

I guess Green takes the "carefully calculated" view, eh?