At Politico Jeff Greenfield asks a provocative question—what if Trump is succeeding?
Let us assume for the moment that Donald Trump is an “idiot†and a “f—-ing moron†who hasn’t got a clue about the substance of legislation. (These judgments, if multiple news reports are accurate, come from the president’s current chief of staff, his former secretary of state and any number of Republican legislators, respectively). Let us draw from countless accounts of his conduct going back decades that the president is mendacious, graceless and a misogynist on steroids, whose character, temperament, historical cluelessness and utter incapacity for self-reflection make him by any measure the most unfit occupant of the White House ever.
Now: If you accepted these assumptions, how hard would it be to grant the president any credit for … anything? Could you embrace the old adage that “even a stopped clock is right twice a day� Or would your wholesale revulsion at the president’s conduct simply make it impossible to accept even the possibility that he may have done something, anything, right?
I have another one. Would the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Democratic leadership have reacted in the same way to any person other than Hillary Clinton, particularly a political outsider, who won the election in 2016?
Their worldview is predicated upon authority, and that authority is predicated upon precedent. There is no objective basis.
If one precedent is faulty, the entire structure can be questioned. This is why they resist, and there can be no compromise. If President Trump is a little right, they are completely wrong.
The Trump haters, #NeverTrump crowd, and The Resistance are the intractable group. No matter how wrong they are they will never concede anything. At best, they will admit that “Trump may be right, but he is a boor, uncouth, racist, etc.” The subjective trumps the objective.
What drives them insane is that his supporters will only concede that he may be wrong about some things.
To answer your question, I think they would have acted differently. They wouldn’t have been nice or even fair, but I don’t think the level of vitriol would be the same.
I think you are correct Andy. The vitriol has to do with the fact he’s turning their world upside down. Cornered animals and all that.
Ted Cruz / Scott Walker would have been pretty close (for different reasons).
A lot of the vitriol is because Trump doesn’t understand the rules. He pushes back.
That’s the basic contradiction. Anyone who doesn’t push back is going to get bulldozed.
I think a lot of the criticism stems from Trump breaking norms – he doesn’t act like normal politicians are supposed to act.
Twitter is a perfect example – he tweets with the self-awareness and consideration of a 13-year-old. A regular politician will ensure the message is considered and try to avoid letting the press make too many assumptions. In an extreme example, like HRC, her tweets were composed by a committee of staffers. Trump, by contrast, doesn’t involve his staff in his tweets at all – he doesn’t care about the rules. Journalists and the DC political elite still haven’t figured it out.
Considering the DOJ wiretapped the President and his fixer/lawyer talking and just so happened to obtain an warrant on Michael Cohen after, you are right, Trump is about to be bulldozed.
He is the Monster from the Id
isn’t he?
Lol, I’d forgotten about that – probably not far from reality.
And you’ve gotten to the heart of what we like about him. I.E. Fighter, not a Quitter. Doesn’t need media approval, Hollywood approval, Grammys, Nobels.
If the swamp manages to drive him out, I will be a one issue voter for the rest of my days.
“What if Trump is succeeding” in English would read “What if Trump were succeeding.”
“A lot of the vitriol is because Trump doesn’t understand the rules. He pushes back.
That’s the basic contradiction. Anyone who doesn’t push back is going to get bulldozed.â€
I think that would be a bingo. And so they are threatened and both flummoxed and angry. So resort to scorched earth.
I don’t thkats productive, in a real policy sense, or politically. If you hate Trump, make the case on policy. Yes, he’s a boor and a cad. Give me something more insightful.
This is how what they would have called a non-Trump Republican President:
Jeb Bush = Hitler
Ben Carson = Black Hitler
Chris Christie = Fat Hitler
Ted Cruz = Hitler Hitler
Carly Fiorina = Eva Braun
I think you get the picture.
Hmmmm? As I read this question, you’re wondering if affluent Democrats and upper-crust newspapers would have reacted to ANY other winning Republican presidential candidate as they do to Donald Trump.
Probably not. In their day, Romans did not pretend that Domitian and Commodus were cut from the same cloth as Marcus Aurelius or Trajan or Augustus. Why should we?
TB- And conservatives called Obama Hitler. So, they all get called Hitler. (Obama created a lot of cognitive dissonance for conservatives. Fortunately, they never worried too much about consistency. They alternated between calling him a wussy, and authoritarian Hitler.)
Steve
@steve
I think you got the wrong guy. I never mentioned Hitler.
It is possible that Obama was called Hitler, but I do not know of any instances. We have to go back to Bush the Younger, and if you recall Bush=Hitler was common during those years.