Washington Post’s Editorial on Trump

Did you read the Washington Post editorial on Trump

DONALD J. TRUMP, until now a Republican problem, this week became a challenge the nation must confront and overcome. The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of America’s problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. Trump’s politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nation’s two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.

UPDATE: I’m in a long car trip reading all the fantastic editorials on Trump. I’ll keep adding them to this post. 

There’s no actual agenda being put in its place, just nostalgic spasms that, as David Frum has put it, are part George Wallace and part Henry Wallace. Trump’s policy agenda, such as it is, is mostly a series of vague and defensive recoils: build a wall, ban Muslims, withdraw from the world.

David Brooks:

This is less a party than a personality cult. Law and order is a strange theme for a candidate who radiates conflict and disorder. Some rich children are careless that way; they break things and other people have to clean up the mess.

Check out the Weekly Standand. Wow. If conservatives hate him, what’s going to happen? 

10 thoughts on “Washington Post’s Editorial on Trump

    1. That’s why I wonder what Trump is doing. If people with open books are taking money for charitable foundations, what is so bad on his taxes that Trump won’t release them?


  1. I suspect that Trump’s tax returns show quite a low taxable income, due to a combination of (i) aggressive tax positions and (ii) not being as rich as he pretends. Both of those would be embarrassing, and the explanation of one would reinforce the other (i.e., to say “I haven’t underreported my income, I really don’t make that much money” will be as bad as to say “I am really rich, but I have a lot of sneaky tricks to reduce my taxes”).


    1. I suspect that also, but those types of storms have been weathered by other. I’d think, except to Trump’s ego, they’d do less damage than the unprecedented non-disclosure.


  2. The National Review has also been interesting to follow. I’m reading the conservatives to remind myself that defeating Trump is really their job; people like me who were longtime Democrats have no credibility anyway. (I know this is no excuse to stay out of the fight, but after last week I’ve awakened every morning feeling horrible about it all.) Here are two recent ones:

    1) Jonah Goldberg writes:

    “The Trump movement in its glandular core is a movement about resentment and payback. It makes sense to conclude that at least some of its most ardent disciples are psychologically inclined to resentment and payback as well…. conservatism has become shot-through with a kind of vindictiveness that reflects poorly on everyone, friend and foe alike…

    I hate what I’ve learned about my side. I hate thinking the worst of people I once respected — sometimes unfairly and sometimes with adamantine certitude. I hate watching TV and seeing people slowly bend to the alleged new necessities. Every few minutes another e-mailer or Twitter follower claims that my only option is to board the bandwagon, get with the program, or see the writing on the wall — as if such hectoring is an argument rooted in some kind of principle other than the fascistic glorification of the mob and a new right-wing version of The Right Side of History.”


    2) Andrew C. McCarthy writes:
    “Trump gets that the power of caricature triumphs over fact and complexity in modern America. Just ask “Lyin’ Ted… Trump is more ill-suited for the presidency than anyone who has ever sought it . . . with the exception of Mrs. Clinton herself.

    It is a comfort that Trump will have some solid people around him, but the truth remains that he is uninformed on many topics, ill-informed on others, untrustworthy, and pathologically vindictive. I will never be able to say I want him to win — only that I’m certain I want Hillary Clinton to lose.”


    And here’s the old Kasich ad (which has been featured lately as if it’s new, but is nevertheless important):
    “In the ad, as reported on at the time by The Washington Post, retired Air Force Col. Tom Moe is seen addressing a crowd and invoking the words of German pastor Martin Niemöller after World War II in which he warned he never spoke up for Jews, Communists and trade unionists, but “then they came for me” and no one was left to speak up for him.

    “You might not care if Donald Trump says Muslims should register with their government, because you’re not one,” Moe says in the ad. “And you might not care if Donald Trump says he’s going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you’re not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump says it’s OK to rough up black protesters, because you’re not one. And you might not care if Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you’re not one. But think about this: If he keeps going, and he actually becomes president, he might just get around to you. And you better hope there’s someone left to help you.”



  3. I dropped into the squirrel hole (I’m thinking squirrels don’t have holes, but, ) of discussing vaccines with anti-vaxxers through facebook, with a friend (a member of my IRL community). The conversations with the Trump supporters (I haven’t had to have any of those) seem similar, and I have been reading a lot about how to talk to people whose worldview, access to conspiracy theories, and belief in facts are so very different from mine. It’s frustrating, to say the least. If someone were to say to me, anti-abortion causes are the most important part of my political philosophy and I believe Trump will be better for that cause than HIllary — I can understand (while still disagreeing) with their choice.

    But when someone says they trust Trump more? It belies the rationality of my worldview.


  4. It’s pretty clear that Trump is trying to both in the presidency and destroy the Republican Party, but I’m starting to wonder about which is his first priority.


  5. The only people in the race who I actually like are Kaine and Weld. She’s a plodding drudge, checking the boxes and reeking entitlement. He’s a nasty buffoon. Neither one seems to be thinking effectively about what will lift up the lower quintiles. Probably I vote Johnson-Weld and wait to see what happens. Both parties have dropped the ball badly. But my basil and my tomatoes are doing nicely.


Comments are closed.