The analysis gets off on the wrong foot with "In ways that were once unimaginable, President Trump has discarded the conventions and norms established by his predecessors. Will that change the institution permanently?"
"Discarded" implies active and possibly thoughtful action, which is not the case. "Instinctive" and "impulsive" would work better here. And "discarded the conventions and norms of his predecessors" is an incredibly roundabout way of saying that the man lies all the time, encourages hate groups, and insists on zero accountability for himself while blaming others when things go wrong, etc. Why be so kind to him?
"Will that change the institution permanently?" tells us the author is confident that the U.S. as a democratic republic will definitely survive this current situation intact and not be set back 50 years, that free and fair elections and confidence in our institutions - the Congress and the Courts, is in no way under threat. Only the institution of the presidency is being changed dramatically. If only it were so.
It gets worse from there, starting with "But there is one thing he almost never does. 'He very seldom asks how other presidents did this,' said John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff."
This is standard NYT fare. When discussing a president, pivot to a discussion of other presidents immediately. Baker uses Kelly's quote to do this work for him.
The article continues at length, describing how Mr. Trump is changing the presidency, citing many examples, using terms like "unconventional", and jumping back and forth between quoting "supporters of Mr. Trump" and "critics". Of note, the Times quotes the founder of "NewsMax", gently mentioning that he is a friend of Trump, without amplification on the quality and reputation of NewsMax. Before the 2016 election, would the Times have ever quoted NewsMax with such abandon?
And so Jimmy Carter is cited as "another outsider president". OK, true, but is there really any fair comparison with Carter? Isn't that completely misleading? Aren't the differences between Carter and Trump more striking - and more telling - than any similarity could ever be? That's the problem with false equivalence - creating the frame and squeezing the picture into that frame.
Baker normalizes Trump by carefully avoiding mention that the president's behavior fits the pattern of a deeply disordered narcissistic person who is covering up a lot - certainly his incompetence and fragile ego, and who deflects attention from the corruption inherent in maintaining his financial holdings as president. And are we really awaiting the results of the Russia investigation to understand that Trump is seriously compromised on Russia? Trump was never considered a normal business person throughout his career and there is nothing normal about him now. Why is it so difficult to tell the true story?
The article mentions that future presidents may feel more free to lie as if all presidents lack any character.
At the Times, describing reality in politics has become an exercise in creating false equivalencies.
Baker writes:
"Other presidents were not exactly pushovers. Theodore Roosevelt relished taking on tycoons of his era. Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon used government agencies to spy on those who angered them. Mr. Clinton pummeled his tormentor, the independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, and George W. Bush at times suggested opponents were soft on terrorism."
I would take issue with some of that. I do not recall Clinton saying much about Ken Starr, but I do recall there was nothing Clinton could do about Starr under the independent counsel law of that time, contrary to Trump's ability to fire Comey and to have Mueller fired if he chooses. Baker's invoking all those prior presidents is a distraction, similar to Trump's own twitter deflections to Hillary Clinton and Obama. What we need is reasoned and detailed analysis of Trump's actions in the interest of forcing accountability. Yet, even with his false comparisons, nowhere in this article does Baker mention that Trump, unlike other presidents, has experienced success avoiding accountability.
And what if the goal is to discredit Mueller no matter what he finds and can prove, knowing that the Republican controlled Congress will take no action?
One wonders what 2018 will bring and how the NYT might report it:
"President Trump ordered a nuclear strike on North Korea this morning, much like Harry Truman who also ordered the launch of nuclear weapons against an Asian foe. "
Or, "Trump's declaration of a national emergency and suspension of Congressional elections in 2018 is unprecedented. No other president, Democrat or Republican has taken such an action. Democratic critics argue that Trump's action is tantamount to a declaration of martial law, making the U.S. similar to a 'banana republic' but the president's supporters, especially in the Republican controlled Congress, deride such criticisms as partisan overreaction, saying that the president is protecting the homeland from unprecedented threats."
No comments:
Post a Comment