A very good friend of many years posed a series of questions to me recently. He applauded my in-depth research and dispassionate consideration of issues, but then pointedly asked why I take the media to task for its bias and exaggeration but why I didn’t subject the Trump agenda to the same level of scrutiny? Why didn’t I see the same “threats to democracy” so many others do? How could I be so complacent with everything that’s going on? These were thoughtful (if somewhat slanted) observations that deserve a response. Here it is.
First, I would answer by asking, “what is the source of your outrage?” If you’re outraged because you disagree with Trump’s policies, you made a category error. Policies need to be argued, neither hated nor cheered. If you’re outraged by Trump’s vulgarity, coarseness, and willingness to shred the restraints of good manners (personally and politically), I totally understand. But is Trump unique in this regard? Only for those who haven’t studied history, as I have detailed with Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, just to cite recent leaders. What is different about Trump is he embodies the whole package, and more importantly, he revels in it, seeking your agreement that he is indeed unique and unprecedented. Your outrage is exactly what he seeks, and you willingly work with him on it. You have to own that, as he is clear about it himself (Musk, too, as it is for all people who enjoy “trolling”)! But what if your outrage stems from the clear and present danger Trump poses to the American experiment? That would seem a self-evident justification for outrage. But whence does that assessment come?
Setting aside my well-worn point that what we have in America is a republic, not a democracy (it’s not germane to this argument, generally, but I’ll never miss a chance to re-state it), this assessment comes from various political leaders, press types, and expert influencers. They work in a mutually reinforcing cycle: Trump acts, political opponents observe that what he has done is “unprecedented” or “illegal” or “unconstitutional.” Media types flog this language in headlines. They then engage experts who comment on how Trump’s actions are not only all those things, they are also a “threat to democracy.” Rinse & repeat.
This cycle assured us Trump’s “Muslim ban” was unconstitutional. That Trump’s lawyers’ argument for Presidential immunity was “without precedent” and “staggering.” That deportations to El Salvador are beyond the pale. That withholding federal funds from universities or not spending amounts appropriated by Congress are systemic challenges. And on and on. What these cases have in common is hyperbole. Some were accepted by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS); one may not like that, and one certainly does not have to agree with them. But one cannot simply continue to claim unconstitutionality in the face of a recent SCOTUS decision. Others are still up for debate, so what the talking heads should be saying is, “in my opinion” or “if I were in SCOTUS,” not just “it is unconstitutional.” The difference is important, because millions of Americans don’t understand that claims by such politicians, media, and expert influencers are not final. They are debatable opinions. And no, they are not the ones who ultimately make the decision, which is important.
What about those clear, unarguable cases? Like the deportations? Like the visa violations? As I demonstrated in earlier posts, when you ignore the national media and dig into the facts of the stories, they become far less clear, far more ambiguous. Tariffs are another great example. We’re clearly experiencing a major international economic dislocation sparked by the Trump administration’s tariff policies. Foreign governments are up in arms, because they liked the trading system the US developed, and now it is changing. Markets love stability, and the system is changing, so they are punishing everyone until some stability is achieved. When will a new equilibrium be established? No one knows, and neither does anyone know whether it will be more or less favorable to the United States. If you are a member of the MAGA faithful, you take Trump’s word that it will be great; if you are part of the resistance, you pronounce TEOTWAKI*. I prefer to watch and see what happens. I’ll hedge my bets, stay flexible, and adjust. I do know one thing for sure: the United States could not continue on the trade path it was on.
“Is there anything you’re willing to criticize about the administration and its policies?” I can hear my progressive friends cry. Let me count the ways:
- Needless demeaning of opponents, real or imagined (Canada, anyone?)
- Refusal to do the hard math regarding federal revenue and spending (National debt)
- Inability to admit a mistake under any circumstances
- Insistence on the brilliance and correctness of whatever the President says and does, even when he directly contradicts what he said or did yesterday (or five minutes ago!)
- Characterizing all opposition as traitorous or anti- American
- Describing any spending with which one doesn’t agree as “fraud, waste, and abuse.”
- Messaging profound economic changes in policies that inflame (rather than temper) market uncertainty.
- Unnecessarily cruel and demeaning trolling on social media (the crying immigrant case)
And that list is just off the top of my head. And does anybody doubt the media is over-producing critique of the administration? I consume more national media than almost anybody I know, and it is non-stop critique, not to mention social media. I prefer to consider and comment, and argue if necessary. I don’t see any value in the types of “shares” I see filled with vulgarity, photoshop, and obvious lies. Many social media “friends” do, sadly. They share such things, oddly unaware they are contributing to the overall decline in the social construct. Tell me what you think, and more importantly, why!
I could make similar lists of objectionable policies for the Biden administration, the Obama administration, the “W.” Bush administration, and the Clinton administration, just to name a few. Partisans on both sides impute a golden age to whatever recent President represented their “side” and “hell” to that of their opponents. Neither is true. The United States is in a mess, not because of Trump, but because of a series of policy decisions by all those leaders, including Donald J. Trump. Getting out of the mess won’t be easy, and won’t be painless . . . for all of us. But we have a choice: deny there is a problem and continue down the path to certain failure, or take the medicine and attempt to correct it. Note there is nothing certain in Trump’s (or anyone else’s) prescriptions for what ails us: they may be wrong, or they may not work. But I guarantee you denying the problems won’t either.
Coming next, Part II: The Role of Disruption
*The End of the World as we know it
So far, so.good.., which makes me nervous! Waiting for the other shoe to drop because I’m “with ya” on this…
Pat, Always enjoy your take on things. I consciously avoid FB commentary, choosing not to comment, or share. I have found myself more and more hitting the “not interested” choice on even some friends rants and posts.
Frankly, I think you have set up straw men to disparage people who have real concerns about what Trump and his minions are actually doing. You seem to conflate dislike of Trump himself with the real policies that are being implemented. You also snark that people who do not like Trump’s policies see a golden age in Bush, Obama, or Biden. Another foolish straw man (or straw people) that do not really exist. I liked Biden, but also accepted that he had limitations and that it was not a golden age.
American institutions are being destroyed with as meat cleaver by DOGE, scientific research is being withdrawn or in complete stasis, which is destroying research, Universities are under attack with funds withdrawn (NB: those funds are for contracted work under competitive research, i.e., contracts not gifts), our foreign allies are treated as enemies and the tariffs that are on and then off and then on are incoherent (and unnecessary since tarifs with our best allies were pretty low to begin with and some, like Korea, had tariff treaties signed by Trump during his first administration that he now disavows). Trump’s arguments against diversity, which is never really defined, is an attempt to write out of American history and society any other group than white men (even white women do not even count along with any minorities—see what has occurred at DoD and at the the libraries of the Service academies) You also argue that digging into deportations facts that the arguments in those cases are ambiguous. I have previously noted that I think you are wrong and courts have so far sided against Trump.
If you want to support Trump and his policies and his minions, hey, that is your call. But we all do not have to agree with your weak arguments. I would also make one final statement: while the US has problems, I do not think it is a “mess,” as you think and that we have to suffer to fix it. We have met our problems before and have worked to solve them.
I’m glad you don’t think there was a Biden Golden Age. Do you deny there are some who do? Go back and read the press (and social media) as he was passing the “IRA” act. And of course Obama-mania is a well-established fact. Maybe nobody likes W.
Certainly you know that nothing has been decided yet by SCOTUS about deportations. Not a single case has been heard for its merits. Everything has been procedural, and even there, the Justices didn’t deny the President employing the Alien enemies act, just demanded some form of due process. And of course the infamous “Maryland Man” may eventually be returned, but just long enough to establish his identity and then swiftly and legally deported to Mexico!
I’m glad you provided your view on DEI (“an attempt to write out of American history and society any other group than white men”). Exhibit one in how an 80-20 issue can still have people saying extreme things. And you know that the DOD web page removals were done by a computer, right? Then fixed.
Anyway, your walk off comment was classic: “If you want to support Trump . . . “. You don’t have to agree with my characterization that the country is a mess. But don’t assume that if I don’t join you in the Resistance, I support Trump. I support America.
Two points:
1) Dod Web pages were removed at the direction of the SECDEF. Much was done by word search–about 26,000 items– apparently. It is still unclear how much, aside from the ones that people noticed like the Tuskegee airmen, have been restored. A Dod press release stated that: “In alignment with President Trump’s Executive Orders and Secretary Hegseth’s directives, this memorandum mandates a digital content refresh across all DoD public platforms. By March 5, 2025, all Components must remove and archive DoD news articles, photos, and videos promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), including content related to critical race theory, gender ideology, and identity-based programs. The Defense Media Activity (DMA) will support systematic content removal from DVIDS and AFPIMS platforms, but Components remain responsible for ensuring compliance across all digital properties. A blanket public acknowledgment of content removal should be posted on social media and other platforms.”
Identity-based programs include information on female nurses in Vietnam, the desegregation of the Armed Forces, the first women in the Ranger school, etc., etc. I do not see the takedown of the images and articles as a glitch. Most of the lost material is gone forever. It is the purpose to make the military seem as though it is composed only of white men. This also goes back to the problem that there is no one definition of DEI, but Hegseth has stated that the word “diversity” does not belong in the Pentagon. This a refutation of the 23 years I spent working directly for DoD.
2) While there may be some who see the Biden years as the Golden Age, my guess they were relatively few. There may be more now who view Biden more positively solely in relation to the chaos antics and literal lies of Trump ( e.g., claiming that he won the 2020 election, lying about the amount of aid provided to Ukraine (forgetting that most of it went to US arms producers) , even not acknowledging the photoshopped ringer of Garcia at a press gaggle in the White House, to name a few. However, you must admit there are those who see Trump as almost God-like and believe that he can literally do no wrong–this surpasses any positive feelings that Biden engendered. Just listen to the recent cabinet level people kissing the ring (and backside body parts) at a publicized meeting in the past week.
The SecDef did indeed issue such guidance, under the direction of the President. You’re savvy enough to know no human being went page-by-page through the DOD websites. Someone created a script with some keywords. When the script found a keyword, it annotated the existing web page with the letters “DEI” in the address, making it a “404 error”. The tell here was the Enola Gay case, which got caught up just because of the keyword. If/when someone complained, or if they ever planned to review the removed web pages, they could be restored. Nothing is lost. The pages still exist, they just aren’t available to the public until DOD decides to restore an address for them. Much of this happened at the root level, meaning ANYTHING listed under a DEI heading (and much was, as this was favored under the Biden administration) was removed in bulk, but if it needs to be restored, it will be so one at a time. It was a crude, mass way to correct the problem, but neither egregious nor permanent.
Yes, I agree Trump demands obsequious support from his cabinet. So Biden insisted no one comment on his age or infirmity (including the press) and he was nice about it (unless you crossed him, then he went thermonuclear). But that was, what? No big deal?
First, your definition about egregious is different from mine.
Second, your comment about Biden is a classic case of whataboutism. I will go the same route: if you are talking about infirmity, just listen to Trump try to make sense. He does not, but since he is only semi coherent he gets a pass?
If missing web pages meets your definition of egregious, I imagine you’ve been enraged since 1991.
I am willing to bet you’ve not watched a complete Trump rally, perhaps not even a full interview. No one who has done so thinks he’s incoherent. When he doesn’t want to answer, or when he wants to say something but think better of it (yes, it does happen), he rambles, or “weaves” as he and his supporters call it. Even if you read the text, you can see the weave in action. It hints at what he wants to say, assuming the listener will fill in the gaps.It leaves him open to claim he never committed to something, because the words are so vague. It’s an interesting technique, and few can get away with it. McWhorter and NPR have a sound take on it, and it’s not incoherent: https://www.npr.org/2024/09/13/nx-s1-5107714/breaking-down-former-president-donald-trumps-rambling-linguistic-style
As to whataboutism, I believe it is excusing one side’s behavior based on the other side’s behavior. But I said Trump’s cabinet was obsequious, I didn;t defend it. What I don’t understand is how anyone can focus on an obviously public performative thing like a Trump cabinet meeting, but have been silent through the entire hidin’ Biden phenomenon.
Give me a break. 26,000 pages excised fromDoD is an encyclopedia or more. It is not just a few missing web pages. This whole sordid episode of denying the existence of a range of people (minorities, women, etc.) on DoD is emblematic of Trump’s distorted and bizarre understanding of DEI. I am an American and I think it was dreadful.
We differ on essentials. What Trump calls weaving, I call bizarre behavior. If Biden had done that regularly you would demanded invocation of the 25th Amendment.
On cabinet meetings, I never saw the obsequiousness and the lies (see Bondi’ s comments) under Biden. It was as if the White House was located in North Korea and Trump was the “Dear Leader.” This is a cult.
My real objection is not to Trump’s personality but to his policies and the cuts to the govt that Doge, under his aegis, have made to various institutions, particularly to American science. Sure govt can operate better, but the way to do it is through careful analysis (see what Gore did under Clinton), not through meat cleavers killing research and agencies Doge did not understand or in many cases misunderstood or, more likely, did not want to understand.
If that is your understanding of good governance, so be it.
An excellent example of the point I have been making. You start from outrage about Trump’s behavior (or words) then pivot to “policies.” And the whole point of this series is about the underlying issues, which people who continue to focus on Trump are missing. Thanks for being an exemplar!
If you don’t understand how pervasive and corrupt DEI was, then no, you won’t understand why it had to be completely eradicated. Whatever needs to be added back is fine, but all DEI had to go. And I don’t see the damage from thousands of missing web pages.
I ask again, since I apparently wasn’t clear: which is worse, making your cabinet fawn over you in public at a meeting, or making them lie about your mental acuity. Seems obvious to me.
The point this is all leading to (again, not about Trump) is half-measures will not succeed anymore. You (and I to some extent) don’t prefer the meat cleaver, but it’s what we have now.
You have understood nothing that I gave said and indeed misinterpreted most of my comments. Your livid hatred of DEI, which is never defined and is interpreted in so many disparate ways in so many places all over America (and is not even present in most of America) has made you blind to the destruction of various institutions and an attack on an American science, culture, and the Constitution.
If all you can talk about is Biden in a red-hot manner, you are not looking at what is happening with the Trump administration domestically, internationally, and economically. I give up……
I hate neither Biden nor DEI. The former has proven to be what I expected (sadly) and history will record it so. The latter is a very dangerous concept that has made its way insidiously into all levels of education. You need only research briefly, as I did, to find it. That needs to be corrected.
This is a series of blog posts about large changes that have little or nothing to do with Trump. Some people refuse to accept this line of reasoning; that’s fine. It’s an argument. But to insist we debate Trump’s unique threat we all hold dear is not what I’m trying to do. You’re welcome to do so, and you have much company in that endeavor. Just not here.