Sanewashing, le mot circule de plus en plus dans les commentaires des politistes américains. Il est en concurrence avec un autre mot, sanitizing. Ils s’appliquent en particulier au traitement des messages que diffuse Donald Trump.
Les médias n’étaient pas en reste pour parler de l’âge du capitaine Joe. Ceux qui le combattent – dont Donald Trump faisait partie – avaient commencé leur campagne de dénigrement il y a bien longtemps. Ceux qui sont plutôt orientés vers les démocrates avaient effleuré le sujet et exercé une forte pression après le débat pour qu’il laisse sa place à quelqu’un d’autre. L’intéressé a finalement pris la décision courageuse de mettre le pays avant ses propres ambitions. Depuis, le candidat républicain est désormais dans la place du vétéran et pourtant peu de commentateurs jouent cette carte-là. Comme l’explique Mary Trump, la nièce de l’ex-président : “The difference of course is that Biden is aging while Donald Trump is dementing”
De son côté, Donald Trump ne s’en est d’ailleurs pas remis, car il avait axé toute sa campagne depuis deux ans sur ce sujet. “They threw him out of a campaign like a dog. We don’t even know, is he our president? But we have a president… …that doesn’t know he’s alive”. Il ne s’en est clairement pas remis et ne sait pas comment aborder cette nouvelle campagne. À tel point que Kamala Harris a été obligée de lui rappeler lors du débat que “Well, first of all, it’s important to remind the former president you’re not running against Joe Biden, you’re running against me“.
Pour en revenir au sanewashing et sanitizing, un exemple de cette pratique est donné dans un récent article du New York Times qui rapporte une prestation de Donald Trump devant l’Economic Club of New York. Dans son discours introductif, Donald Trump fait du Donald Trump, c’est-à-dire qu’il ne peut s’empêcher d’attaquer, d’insulter, d’invectiver. C’est alors qu’est intervenu le temps des questions. Une personne de l’assistance lui a demandé quelle politique il comptait mener pour l’enfance (childcare).
La réponse de l’ex-président est exactement la suivante.
“Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is. Couldn’t, you know, there’s something, you have to have it – in this country you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to — but they’ll get used to it very quickly – and it’s not gonna stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Uh, those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care. We’re gonna have – I, I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with, uh, the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just, uh, that I just told you about. We’re gonna be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care, uh, is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in. We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people, but we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about Make America Great Again, we have to do it because right now we’re a failing nation, so we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you”.
On n’en fera pas une analyse et pour le dire simplement, cette réponse n’a ni queue ni tête.
Et pourtant, dans son article intitulé Trump Calls for an Efficiency Commission, an Idea Pushed by Elon Musk, le New York Times s’est crû obligé de rendre intelligible ce qui est incompréhensible et n’a pas de sens en indiquant que “Mr. Trump said he would commit to legislation but did not offer a specific plan“ et que “his other economic policies, including tariffs, would “take care” of child care”.
“I defy anybody who was actually trying to follow the thread of that gibberish to tell me what it means. Nobody can. The only phrase that has any logical consistency, “childcare is childcare,” also happens to be the only thing Donald said that’s true—childcare is, after all, childcare. The rest of it is just disjointed riffing coupled with his greatest hits and catch phrases” explique Mary Trump (Translating the Crazy – Corporate media turns a blind eye).
Évidemment, cette pratique de recyclage de discours incohérent et inepte lorsque les propos du candidat dépassent toutes les limites de l’entendement. C’est par exemple l’affaire des migrants haïtiens qui volent et mangent des animaux de compagnies. Lors du débat présidentiel contre Kamala Harris, Donald Trump a déclaré le plus sérieusement du monde :
“What they have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country. And look at what’s happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don’t want to talk — not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don’t want to talk about it because they’re so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame. As far as rallies are concerned, as far — the reason they go is they like what I say. They want to bring our country back. They want to make America great again. It’s a very simple phrase. Make America great again. She’s destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn’t have a chance of success. Not only success. We’ll end up being Venezuela on steroids”.
L’un des deux modérateurs a été obligé d’expliquer que cela est faux : “I just want to clarify here, you bring up Springfield, Ohio. And ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community”.
Ce qui n’a pas empêché Donald Trump de s’enfoncer un peu plus dans son affirmation : “The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that’s a good thing to say for a city manager”.
Mais comme l’explique Yuval Noah Harari dans une interview à propos de son dernier livre Nexus : l’important n’est pas dire la vérité ou quelque chose sy’ rapprochant, mais de mettre quelque chose sur la table pour parler d’un sujet – l’immigration – pour lequel Donald Trump a un net avantage dans les sondages par rapport à sa concurrente démocrate. Plus l’on parlera d’immigration, plus il maximise ses chances de gagner.
Dans une logique plus que bizarre, J.D. Vance, interrogé sur le sujet, confirme cette explication, affirme que cela n’a pas d’importance de savoir si cela est vrai ou faux et demande à la journaliste de lui prouver que cela n’était pas arrivé.