I was a democratic supporter because I thought Donald doesn't have the temperament to be a world leader. Yet Donald won the election by a good margin and swung many dicy states in his favour. What struck the chord with the public at large? Perhaps a part of it was the hope of Donald changing the trajectory of the financial prospects of a common American whereas with Hillary they could hope only the continuation of the current trajectory. But perhaps there was another subtle part at play.
Why did Donald's volatile temperament and inflammable words not swing the public opinion against him? The answer could be in the informal world we live in today. Remember when we were kids, our school teacher taught us extensive templates in which to write news reports, headlines, applications, letters, telegrams, etc.! But the communication media of today emphasise short, to-the-point, and direct language even at the expense of grammar and with complete disregard to whatever we were taught about syntax. People today have little time and energy for formality, for keeping two sides of their personality - a professional and a personal one. That's why you see people cheering to Barack Obama going to The Tonight Show and being himself. Deep within, who doesn't have thoughts and ideas that would make public scoff at them yet only few have the guts to come out in the open and put these in words. Donald did exactly that. He portrayed his true self. He didn't mince any words. He said what came to his mind. He said what he thought.
And this didn't happen suddenly. Barack Obama had already given a bridge from a typical formal behaviour to this completely informal behaviour. He was somewhere in between, folding sleeves while wearing a tie, appearing on prime time shows, recording an appearance with Jerry Seinfeld, orchestrating light moments with world leaders, etc. What Donald did was taking it further afar. He was completely informal. He didn't behave like a typical socially accepted 'leader'. He became one of them. Perhaps that's what stuck a chord with the public. What do you think?
Why did Donald's volatile temperament and inflammable words not swing the public opinion against him? The answer could be in the informal world we live in today. Remember when we were kids, our school teacher taught us extensive templates in which to write news reports, headlines, applications, letters, telegrams, etc.! But the communication media of today emphasise short, to-the-point, and direct language even at the expense of grammar and with complete disregard to whatever we were taught about syntax. People today have little time and energy for formality, for keeping two sides of their personality - a professional and a personal one. That's why you see people cheering to Barack Obama going to The Tonight Show and being himself. Deep within, who doesn't have thoughts and ideas that would make public scoff at them yet only few have the guts to come out in the open and put these in words. Donald did exactly that. He portrayed his true self. He didn't mince any words. He said what came to his mind. He said what he thought.
And this didn't happen suddenly. Barack Obama had already given a bridge from a typical formal behaviour to this completely informal behaviour. He was somewhere in between, folding sleeves while wearing a tie, appearing on prime time shows, recording an appearance with Jerry Seinfeld, orchestrating light moments with world leaders, etc. What Donald did was taking it further afar. He was completely informal. He didn't behave like a typical socially accepted 'leader'. He became one of them. Perhaps that's what stuck a chord with the public. What do you think?
