Trumpland translator: How a radio guy helped interpret rural Iowa to a flyover nation

[TBoneTX 45,540]

Quote

Trumpland translator: How a radio guy helped interpret rural Iowa to a flyover nation

Mike Kilen, mkilen@dmreg.com
Published 10:58 a.m. CT April 22, 2018

 

Rural Iowa is Trumpland, based on voting and perception, and opinion page editors, network TV desks and even literary book publishers have scrambled for voices of the flyover people after it dawned on them that they didn’t understand those folks.

Along comes Leonard, a small-town radio guy who totes his small microphone and recorder around Marion County to interview citizens for KNIA/KRLS radio, serving Knoxville and Pella.

On a recent morning, he was interviewing a high school senior in Knoxville about a student plant sale. He emerged from the high school office wearing his late middle-aged trousers held up by suspenders, striking an appearance that he says is made for radio.

It was the same morning that his opinion piece appeared in the Kansas City Star, when he awakened to 100 social media notifications that claimed he either was an idiot, deserved to die aside gays and feminists, or might be on to something.

He also has written for Salon and the New York Times, where a January 2017 essay on why rural America supported Trump bulged with nearly 2,600 comments.

He has appeared on national TV news shows, an example of the unlikely attention that comes to little old us because of the Iowa caucuses and the easily grasped stereotype of rural America that suits Iowa.

Marion Countians call him “Dr. Bob.” He holds a doctorate in anthropology without a showy intelligence, speaking with an airy tenor.

“It’s the study of humanity and why we do what we do,” explains Leonard, 64, of Knoxville.

In his role as Trumpland Translator, Ph.D., he studies rural conservatives in a county where 61 percent of voters chose Trump.

“Here in conservative rural America,” he wrote in a Kansas City Star essay last October, “Trump is ascendant."
---
Story continues here: 
https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/2018/04/22/trump-translator-bob-leonard-iowa-conservative-radio-politics-donald-trump/525185002/

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by TBoneTX

[TBoneTX 45,540]

Quite interesting, to me.  Thoughtful comments?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

This is the Lynchpin:

 

"In the end, he says, his conservative friends supported Trump because he spoke frankly, was entertaining and they hated Hillary Clinton more than anyone thought. Barring anything criminal, that won’t change"

 

Question: 

Why does Rural Americans think he is entertainment? I get that politics has ratings and television personalities, but this is a civic duty. Being entertaining is not an asset that I associate with public office, other than the odd speech.

 

Question: Does he speak frankly or does he bend conventions of speech and that scratches an itch for those who are looking for a break from "politically correct" speech?

 

Question: How is it that Fox news dominates the conversation in rural America and is that healthy for them or the country?

 

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Amica Nostra

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

they do not think he is entertainment, they think he is entertaining, aa not subtle difference. They are engaged by him, not amused by him. If he had used the word charismatic instead, you would not have commented on that part because it is a more common way to convey what the author intended (imho).

 

for me, he doesn't bend conventions of speech so much as he doesn't water down his wording to avoid offending someone using what is effectively a synonym that has been co-opted as a  mean spirited word.

 

fox domination in rural America is no worse than more liberal points of view dominating in more urban parts of the country, what is not good in both areas is the tenor of the voice and the left/right leanings of what should be unbiased reporting. Rather than tell me what to believe, well me the unbiased story and let me decide for myself.

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

19 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

they do not think he is entertainment, they think he is entertaining, aa not subtle difference. They are engaged by him, not amused by him. If he had used the word charismatic instead, you would not have commented on that part because it is a more common way to convey what the author intended (imho).

 

for me, he doesn't bend conventions of speech so much as he doesn't water down his wording to avoid offending someone using what is effectively a synonym that has been co-opted as a  mean spirited word.

 

fox domination in rural America is no worse than more liberal points of view dominating in more urban parts of the country, what is not good in both areas is the tenor of the voice and the left/right leanings of what should be unbiased reporting. Rather than tell me what to believe, well me the unbiased story and let me decide for myself.

 

I understand  the difference between entertaining and entertainment. My point is in choosing our countries leaders, their entertainment value should not be a major factor.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

7 minutes ago, Amica Nostra said:

I understand  the difference between entertaining and entertainment. My point is in choosing our countries leaders, their entertainment value should not be a major factor.

 

again, I believe it was a poor choice of wording and not the intent of the author, forget entertainment and substitute charisma or charismatic it changes the tone of the message dramatically. John F. Kennedy was entertaining, people liked to listen to him does not convey his charismatic nature.

 

Liking his message and voting accordingly does not mean the vote was based on entertainment value

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Randyandyuni

[smilesammich 10,727]

kind of a given, snake oil salesmen must have charisma.

 

but i've been listening to trump (not by choice) all this time and i've yet to pick up on his message. still don't know what that man stands for, but himself and money.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

do any of them have a message? that is not unique to trump

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

42 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

 

again, I believe it was a poor choice of wording and not the intent of the author, forget entertainment and substitute charisma or charismatic it changes the tone of the message dramatically. John F. Kennedy was entertaining, people liked to listen to him does not convey his charismatic nature.

 

Liking his message and voting accordingly does not mean the vote was based on entertainment value

 

I think Bob Leonard chose his words very precisely and accurately. Read the article to see if you agree. My question is: right, left or center, why is the entertainment value of a candidate driving our selection? Because when you see a Trump rally you realize that this is about entertainment, just another reality show.

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

do any of them have a message? that is not unique to trump

you said "Liking his message and voting accordingly does not mean the vote was based on entertainment value" so if there's no message - what's to like?

for what it's worth, i think hilary's message came down to 'i'm not trump'. personally i think a presidential candidate's message should be a summation of specific policy goals.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

I did read the article, I will step out of this morass.

 

Whether trump is evil incarnate or the 2nd coming people will continue to believe what they want and in the greater scheme it doesn't matter. I did not vote for Trump but I am more conservative than liberal. This was an election devoid of viable candidates. I find myself in neither the I love or I hate Trump categories.