And in the breath before the condemnation, he equates Lee and Washington/Jefferson as slaveholders, which aligns entirely with the groups he condemns in the next breath. This is what I mean by palimpsest. You read the condemnation and hear just that. The condemned group hears their talking point and the earlier equivocation and celebrates him as an ally, condemnation be damned. The left reads the earlier equivocations (in the quote, and the preceding events) and the talking point and discounts the condemnation as insincere. You can argue that your understanding of his utterance is his true meaning, but other groups can hear, and plausibly defend, the message they want to hear too.
> The left reads the earlier equivocations (in the quote, and the preceding events) and the talking point and discounts the condemnation as insincere.
The left did not hear or read the condemnation at all, as we have established. Rather, they continue to be presented with curated sounds bites crafted to bolster a very particular narrative.
It really will serve you to listen carefully to what your fellow Americans, including your President, are actually saying. You don't have to agree, but you will have a better idea of what's happening. It will not serve you to consume third-hand think-pieces discussing what they really meant by that "dogwhistle".
Refusing to hear the dogwhistles is much motivated listening as refusing to hear his condemnations of the far-right groups in that quote. Every listener has the privilege to infer the meaning and mind of their interlocutor given his utterances, and every speaker bears the responsibility of crafting their utterances to make their intended meaning understood by as clearly as possible by their audience. Yes, some listeners might interrogate an utterance in vain, looking for hidden meanings that just aren't there. But accepting the facile meaning of an utterance with total credulity is equally a losing strategy.
