Mix Marcusian Repressive Tolerence with Alinski’s Rules for Radicals and you get the modern American intolerant illiberal and highly anti democratic left.
The Elitists’ Trump Excuse
His critics may be more corrupting to democracy and decency than he is.
William McGurnApril 23, 2018 6:55 p.m. ET
President Trump gives a thumbs up as he boards Air Force One upon departure from West Palm Beach, Fla., April 22. Photo: kevin lamarque/Reuters
By
William McGurn
Let us stipulate that Donald Trump is unique. From his allusion to his privates during a GOP debate to the public berating of his attorney general to the nicknames he uses to disparage opponents, Mr. Trump tramples on the expected norms for a president.
Some detect in Mr. Trump’s brand of vituperation an assault on the values and virtues that democracy requires to thrive. In this line of thinking, Mr. Trump is morally unfit for the Oval Office. Some speak even more darkly. In her new book, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says the world today has become a “petri dish” for fascism, calls Mr. Trump “the least democratic president of modern history” and notes that Mussolini, too, promised to “drain the swamp.”
There is, however, a flip side to Mr. Trump’s speech and behavior. It has to do with the willingness of those who know better (or ought to know better) to look the other way so long as Mr. Trump is the target. So which is more damaging to the American body politic—the schoolyard taunts and threats of Mr. Trump, or the anti-Trump opportunism of “polite” society?
The election and its aftermath have been an education in how the smart set responds when the American people refuse the judgment of their self-styled betters. In its most honest form, it is the “Resist!” movement. In the more genteel version, it turns out to mean not just opposing Mr. Trump’s policies, which people can reasonably do, but throwing fairness and principle to the wind so long as it might help bring down the 45th president. Consider:
• In the thick of the 2016 election, the New York Times ran a front-page article in which it advertised that the particular dangers posed by Mr. Trump’s candidacy meant that the long-held norm of journalism—objectivity—might have to give way to a more oppositional approach.
• Good liberals once found the idea of spying on American citizens without just cause unconscionable. But when the target is a former Trump campaign associate, it becomes OK to get a warrant based on an unverified dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
• James Clapper, President Obama’s director of national intelligence, revised procedures to make it easier for executive branch officials to “unmask” the names of Americans in intelligence reports and share the information among themselves, making leaks all but inevitable. The illegal leak of Mike Flynn’s name in connection with a phone conversation with Russia’s ambassador was one result. But again, it doesn’t matter because he was a Trump transition official.
• When Sally Yates was acting attorney general and President Trump issued an executive order on immigration she objected to, Ms. Yates ordered the entire Justice Department not to obey, despite a finding from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel that the order was lawful. She was applauded in her insubordination by Andrew Weissmann, then a Justice attorney, who now serves on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. But it’s all for a good cause, right?
• In the middle of a #MeToo moment ostensibly all about more respect for women, the president’s press secretary, Sarah Sanders, has been derided as everything from a “summer whore” to “a slightly chunky soccer mom.” Though the columnist who wrote the latter has since apologized, the accomplished Mrs. Sanders must wonder what happened to “when they go low, we go high?”
• The pardon power enjoyed by the president is among the most unfettered in the Constitution. But because the president is Mr. Trump, and the pardon for controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has opted for lawlessness: appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the pardon’s legitimacy, in clear violation of the separation of powers.
Meanwhile, week after week, the same people who accuse Mr. Trump of lacking depth and nuance toss off allusions to Hilter, Stalin and a parade of murderous dictators. Channeling Mrs. Clinton, they insist that anyone who would chose Mr. Trump over her—or God forbid, agree to serve in a Trump administration—isn’t just wrong but forever morally tainted.
The people aren’t stupid. The 63 million Americans who voted for Mr. Trump—some as an unappealing but better alternative to Mrs. Clinton, but many with gusto—recognize that what is going on here is a concerted effort to overturn the results of a legitimate presidential election. Is it really unreasonable to ask whether this might be as much of a threat to American democracy as anything Mr. Trump has said or done?
To point to the double standard isn’t in any way to justify Mr. Trump’s more boorish displays. It is, however, to say that the standard ought to work both ways: Whatever the president’s sins, they are no excuse for not asking whether the double standards of his critics in polite society might be just as corrupting to American democracy—and why it is that Donald Trump’s “betters” are so often so much worse.
Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.
Appeared in the April 24, 2018, print edition.
The Elitists’ Trump Excuse
His critics may be more corrupting to democracy and decency than he is.
William McGurnApril 23, 2018 6:55 p.m. ET
President Trump gives a thumbs up as he boards Air Force One upon departure from West Palm Beach, Fla., April 22. Photo: kevin lamarque/Reuters
By
William McGurn
Let us stipulate that Donald Trump is unique. From his allusion to his privates during a GOP debate to the public berating of his attorney general to the nicknames he uses to disparage opponents, Mr. Trump tramples on the expected norms for a president.
Some detect in Mr. Trump’s brand of vituperation an assault on the values and virtues that democracy requires to thrive. In this line of thinking, Mr. Trump is morally unfit for the Oval Office. Some speak even more darkly. In her new book, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says the world today has become a “petri dish” for fascism, calls Mr. Trump “the least democratic president of modern history” and notes that Mussolini, too, promised to “drain the swamp.”
There is, however, a flip side to Mr. Trump’s speech and behavior. It has to do with the willingness of those who know better (or ought to know better) to look the other way so long as Mr. Trump is the target. So which is more damaging to the American body politic—the schoolyard taunts and threats of Mr. Trump, or the anti-Trump opportunism of “polite” society?
The election and its aftermath have been an education in how the smart set responds when the American people refuse the judgment of their self-styled betters. In its most honest form, it is the “Resist!” movement. In the more genteel version, it turns out to mean not just opposing Mr. Trump’s policies, which people can reasonably do, but throwing fairness and principle to the wind so long as it might help bring down the 45th president. Consider:
• In the thick of the 2016 election, the New York Times ran a front-page article in which it advertised that the particular dangers posed by Mr. Trump’s candidacy meant that the long-held norm of journalism—objectivity—might have to give way to a more oppositional approach.
• Good liberals once found the idea of spying on American citizens without just cause unconscionable. But when the target is a former Trump campaign associate, it becomes OK to get a warrant based on an unverified dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
• James Clapper, President Obama’s director of national intelligence, revised procedures to make it easier for executive branch officials to “unmask” the names of Americans in intelligence reports and share the information among themselves, making leaks all but inevitable. The illegal leak of Mike Flynn’s name in connection with a phone conversation with Russia’s ambassador was one result. But again, it doesn’t matter because he was a Trump transition official.
• When Sally Yates was acting attorney general and President Trump issued an executive order on immigration she objected to, Ms. Yates ordered the entire Justice Department not to obey, despite a finding from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel that the order was lawful. She was applauded in her insubordination by Andrew Weissmann, then a Justice attorney, who now serves on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. But it’s all for a good cause, right?
• In the middle of a #MeToo moment ostensibly all about more respect for women, the president’s press secretary, Sarah Sanders, has been derided as everything from a “summer whore” to “a slightly chunky soccer mom.” Though the columnist who wrote the latter has since apologized, the accomplished Mrs. Sanders must wonder what happened to “when they go low, we go high?”
• The pardon power enjoyed by the president is among the most unfettered in the Constitution. But because the president is Mr. Trump, and the pardon for controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has opted for lawlessness: appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the pardon’s legitimacy, in clear violation of the separation of powers.
Meanwhile, week after week, the same people who accuse Mr. Trump of lacking depth and nuance toss off allusions to Hilter, Stalin and a parade of murderous dictators. Channeling Mrs. Clinton, they insist that anyone who would chose Mr. Trump over her—or God forbid, agree to serve in a Trump administration—isn’t just wrong but forever morally tainted.
The people aren’t stupid. The 63 million Americans who voted for Mr. Trump—some as an unappealing but better alternative to Mrs. Clinton, but many with gusto—recognize that what is going on here is a concerted effort to overturn the results of a legitimate presidential election. Is it really unreasonable to ask whether this might be as much of a threat to American democracy as anything Mr. Trump has said or done?
To point to the double standard isn’t in any way to justify Mr. Trump’s more boorish displays. It is, however, to say that the standard ought to work both ways: Whatever the president’s sins, they are no excuse for not asking whether the double standards of his critics in polite society might be just as corrupting to American democracy—and why it is that Donald Trump’s “betters” are so often so much worse.
Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.
Appeared in the April 24, 2018, print edition.
