I’ll confess. I don’t subscribe to the New York Times, nor do I read a whole lot that it publishes. From my small sample, it seems the news side of The Old Gray Lady retains some shreds of credibility here and there — unlike, say, the Washington Post, which has fully beclowned itself (kudos to Jeff Bezos for his honest and desperately needed opinion piece earlier this week). In recent years the NYT news operation has stood up to some of the more dystopian, anti-intellectual demands of the hardest of the hard core progressive movement. It deserves credit for that. I’m not sure if folks like Bari Weiss would agree with that assessment — and I would likely defer to her judgment in the matter, given her direct experience. But this is my sense.
The opinion side is a different matter. The Times published a concise and direct, front-page editorial today, appearing, perhaps notably, in larger type. I think it is worth parsing and analyzing. I admire its brevity and direct style, and I agree with some of it. But I do think it warrants a critical eye.
Full disclosure: I will not be voting for either candidate on November 5, or any candidate on the ballot. The American people deserve better. Or do we simply get what we have richly earned in the past decade or so? I’m not sure. Either way, I will not be part of a deeply inadequate “binary choice” that involves two people who should be nowhere near the Oval Office.
With that, here’s the article:
Let’s look at it line by line.
Vote to End the Trump Era
Like the text, the headline is direct and succinct. But note the exact message. The Times wants to end the “Trump Era”, not simply elect Kamala Harris. It is not clear if this is a kind of grandiosity borne of semantic sloppiness, or if it implies an abrupt end to an important political movement.
It is easy to see Trump and his movement as the same entity — and in some respects that is a reasonable simplification, given Trump’s “unique” personality and position within the movement. However, Trump stumbled upon lightning in a bottle in 2015 for a reason, which is tied to much deeper changes in the economic and social fiber of American life over the past few decades. This is not the place for the requisite history lesson, but I will nevertheless assert that Trump’s movement represents the legitimate concerns and anxieties of a large segment of American society. Trump may be the highly unfortunate winner in the sweepstakes to represent those people, but the people and their concerns will not disappear with Trump’s eventual passing. It is naive and irresponsible to suggest that the concerns of those people can be addressed by an entrenched and sclerotic system that has ignored and abused them for decades in pursuit of global economic and political agendas. I can’t tell if the Times is suggesting that such people should simply grin and bear the dissolution of their political hope and power. But, if that is the case, it is just another indication of how elitist and out of touch it has become.
You already know Donald Trump.
We do and we don’t. I am not suggesting that the parts that we don’t know are necessarily worth knowing. From what I read, he does seem to have a few personal attributes that some find endearing. For example, he has great timing as a stand-up comedian. So there’s that. But, really, who cares? From all accounts, George W. Bush was well-liked by the White House staff, because he treated people with respect. Bill Clinton loved to talk with people too. But, again, who cares? I get it. My point is that what we “know” about Trump is likely skewed to some extent by media that universally and viscerally despise him, and that often intentionally misconstrue his hyperbolic jargon, and/or report most of it out of context (not that “in context” is a whole lot better in many cases).
But, on balance, I think we can give this statement some leeway and benefit of the doubt. Trump was president for four years. We know enough to have a rough idea of what we would be getting — a self-described “deal maker” who doesn’t know how to make domestic deals in Washington, or offer any kind of meaningful leadership on legislative priorities; a man whose worst instincts need to be tempered and redirected by more experienced staff; and, to his credit, a guy who kept us out of wars for four years. The rest is amplified noise.
He is unfit to lead.
Well, sort of. He is unfit in many respects. Trump is not the person you want leading the country in a time of crisis. On the other hand, despite some of the ridiculous things he said during the COVID-19 pandemic, his administration responded quickly and effectively with the vaccine program. I can’t honestly say that he had much to do with that, but the job did get done under his watch.
Calling him “unfit” focuses on what might be vs. what actually was. That is not an unreasonable framework, particularly given the fraught state of the world after four years of his successor. At the same time, many Americans would gladly take the pre-COVID Trump administration over the post-COVID Biden administration. Some of that is driven by partisan politics. Buy a lot of it reduces to undeniable facts related to a better economy and a demonstrably more peaceful world during his first administration.
Watch him.
Unfortunately, he can be difficult to avoid. At his worst, Trump is an anal sphincter of the worst degree, and we truly do deserve better. But there are sides of the guy that the press either does not cover, or twists to its own partisan ends. The guy who was making french fries at McDonald’s a couple weeks ago was an endearing character. The guy who rode in the trash truck a few days ago — and then gave a self-deprecating account of it at a subsequent rally — is a genuinely funny dude. I do agree with the Times here. We should closely watch all candidates who aspire to an office as important as this. On balance, Trump is not suitable for the office he seeks, but there is more to the man than the caricature the Times routinely offers.
Listen to those who know him best.
Again, it is important to get the whole story. On balance, I agree with what the Times is saying here. Dozens of very credible and accomplished people, who interacted with the man frequently on important matters, suggest that the country should reject him. But not everyone. Many people, including some whose tenure with Trump ended badly, are nevertheless endorsing him over the alternative.
Evaluations of Trump fall into two camps. In one camp are people who respect the dignity of the office and long-established processes above all. Those people, understandably, reject Trump with rigor. If you own a china closet, bulls are not your favorite pet. But there is a second camp of people who see the need for a new china closet.
Personally, I think the china closet is worth reforming and strengthening. And Trump probably isn’t the best person for that job. Let alone Elon Musk, whom he threatens to hire to clean house. But I suppose honest people can disagree on this.
He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy.
There are two parts to the claim. Trump did try to overturn an election. He should have been convicted of dereliction of duty in an impeachment trial, and none of us would be talking about this now. On that basis alone, I cannot vote for the guy, and I agree with the statement. But I cannot say whether Trump remains a threat to democracy, nor do I think such conjecture is worth much. First, the Times needs to define what it means by “threat to democracy”. Does it mean a repeat of January 6, 2021 in 2029? It is difficult to see how that could happen, since Trump could not run again if he wins the presidency this time, and he would have no way of changing that. So what do they mean, specifically? The original editorial links to a separate editorial that, presumably, makes the case. But it too is full of vague assertions …and more links. A pile of links that never link to anything substantial is not an argument. Clearly, Trump spews a lot of unfortunate and highly inappropriate bluster. But if we learned anything from his first term, it is that very little substance lurks within the hot air molecules of his trial balloons.
If we are talking about general lawlessness, then, to be fair, I think the Times should take a closer look at some of the initiatives of the Biden Administration as well. Lawlessness seems to be a part of most administrations in our lifetime.
He helped overturn Roe, with terrible consequences.
This is straight-up nonsense and horrendously unfortunate, empty and blindly partisan rhetoric.
Trump did help to overturn Roe; that much is true. And while Trump vastly overstates (and, yes, lies) about the supposed universal support for doing that, the truth is that many left-leaning judicial scholars did view Roe unfavorably as a legal decision. It was a poorly reasoned, incoherent and in many ways lawless decision. Regardless, if the Federal Government wants to reinstate the Roe regime, it can do so at any time by passing a law. That won’t happen because — hello New York Times, anyone home??? — the country is deeply divided on the issue.
It is also true that the Republicans in many states subsequently overplayed their hands, to their own political peril. The issue is slowly but surely resolving itself to some uncomfortable compromise that will vary slightly from state to state. It takes time, but it is happening That is precisely how Federalism is designed to work. What doesn’t work is one side forcing its deeply help convictions down the throats of its ideological and cultural adversaries.
Contrary to the Times, the consequences have not been “terrible” — unless you think that a very slight downtick in the national abortion rate is “terrible”.
Mr. Trump’s corruption and lawlessness go beyond elections: It’s his whole ethos.
Again, more links …to links. Maybe there’s something convincing buried in the whispers down the cyberspace lane, I don’t know. I will take their claims at face value.
Trump is a narcissist who seems to believe that loyalty to Trump is the greatest virtue a person can have. That more than anything is his “ethos”. In Trump’s mind, an action is not corrupt or lawless if it furthers these loyalty structures. Now, obviously, that is unacceptable in a president, or at least it should be. Trump raises loyalty to him over loyalty to oaths.
We also know that Trump has been a serial adulterer, reckless abuser of large business loans, and unscrupulous in his past dealings with subcontractors. All of which adds up to “this isn’t the kind of guy I want to know or elect”. I get it. But some people are willing to look the other way, and deem larger issues like “peace” and “low inflation” to be more important. I’m not one of them. But if we want to get into personal issues with ex-presidents — e.g., the Bill Clinton “ethos” — the discussion would become lengthy and, in some cases, unsavory. Lest anyone forget, JFK kept what amounted to a teenage sex slave in the White House, occasionally offering her services to staff. I don’t offer these as “whataboutist” arguments, but to point out that the landscape of presidential integrity is fraught, historically.
He lies without limit.
True. In fact, his lies and exaggerations are so frequent, and can be so egregious, one wonders if and when anyone should take anything he says seriously. Of course, the disturbing issue with that is the president has critically important discussions every day with foreign leaders, not to mention important negotiations with congressional leaders. It is difficult to imagine how any progress is possible when one side deals only in wildly vague and hyperbolic rhetoric. The Times is spot on with this charge.
If he’s re-elected, the G.O.P. won’t restrain him.
Not so fast. If he is re-elected, the GOP will have something that they have not had since Trump descended that escalator — a light at the end of the tunnel. The moment that Trump is elected, you can bet that factions will develop in the GOP to quietly strategize their play to seize control of Trump’s movement, and mold it to their own purposes. Contrary to popular belief, there is no true loyalty to Trump; loyalty and transaction-based pragmatism are not the same thing. The folks who most want to see Trump disappear from politics are ambitious folks in the GOP, whose paths to power have been blocked or metered since 2016. With Trump’s effective political career having a definite expiration date, the dynamics will change considerably.
The folks who least want to see Trump disappear are his adversaries in the Democratic Party, for whom Trump is the gift who keeps on giving. If that were not true, the Democrats would have drafted simpler and tighter articles of impeachment in 2021 that no reasonable Republican could have refuted. They didn’t do that for a reason.
Mr. Trump will use the government to go after opponents.
We don’t know that. But as long as conjecture and amateur psychoanalysis are fair game, here’s an alternate take:
Trump makes a lot of idle threats to suit his purposes. That doesn’t make it responsible or ethically acceptable. But Trump also has a huge ego and skewed self-image. He wants to be seen as benevolent and loved dictator, not executioner.
That aside, one cannot help but note the hypocrisy. For example, one might research the abuse / weaponization of the IRS in the Obama administration, and the quick exit to obscurity taken by at least one senior IRS official when such abuse surfaced for all to see. This doesn’t justify anything that Trump might do. But it does point out that corruption is corruption, and abuse of power is abuse of power, regardless of whether it is sanctioned by an articulate guy who looks great in a suit, or by an overweight mob boss who doesn’t understand the grammatical requirements of transitive verbs.
He will pursue a cruel policy of mass deportations.
Well, that’s what he claims he will do, for campaign purposes. But let’s be real here. If we know anything about Trump, it is that he doesn’t like to do hard work, and he doesn’t follow through on hard things (while often claiming that he did). Deporting 15 million people would be excruciatingly hard work, with horrendous visuals (also a Trump concern — the guy is a television personality more than anything, after all).
The smart money would be on his administration digging up fifty or so high-profile cases and then extrapolating (read: lying) about the balance via throwaway lines in speeches, hoping everyone forgets the promises. I find it difficult to believe that an administration run by Trump would be competent enough to pull off a mass deportation. Even if it were, by the time the resources were in place to do it, his term would run out and the program would almost certainly be discontinued. None of this excuses the shameless demagoguery. But, then again, the Harris campaign has its own issues in that category.
He will wreak havoc on the poor, the middle class and employers.
What? More links that dissolve into nothing. The true middle class (not professional class suburbia, which folks like editorial writers in New York City often confuse with the real middle class) loves Trump. People who work for a living tend to appreciate low inflation, low gas prices and no wars. As for employers, Trump’s tax carve-out for self-employed S Corporation owners ensured that many of them would happily look the other way.
Another Trump term will damage the climate, shatter alliances and strengthen autocrats.
This is a complex discussion, which I cannot treat adequately here. But I will give it a go.
First… the climate. Any claim that a politician can damage the climate serves no purpose other than to disqualify the person making such a statement. Climate is a macroscopic phenomenon that evolves over long periods of time. It is true that our environment will be better off when we can finally eliminate the burning of energy-dense carbon, and, over time, those benefits might factor into a changing climate in ways that are difficult to predict. It is also true that humanity faces a lot of potentially existential challenges. Change in climate over the long term might be one of them, or it might be something that simply demands adaptation.
What we know for sure, based on mountains of historical and geologic evidence, is that the climate changes on its own, without any input from humans. That is not an excuse for poor stewardship by humans. But it does mean that we don’t have the ability to “manage” the climate. Climate change affected human history a thousand years ago, five hundred years ago, a hundred years ago, and now. It is a fact of life. We will always be dealing with it, despite brief periods of relative stasis that mostly obscure historic reality. And, again, we do need to continue efforts to improve the environment. But climate cannot supersede more immediate challenges. Energy is a serious national security issue. Treating climate change as a more serious issue than our security and economic stability — as many influential members of the media do — is dangerously naive.
Second… alliances. I agree with the editorial. This is a concern. While I do think there is room for “out of box” thinking in this realm, Trump seems to reduce every international issue and negotiation to the gross transactionalism that governs his view of everything in life. He doesn’t seem to understand America’s role in assembling and leading the post WWII international order, and the critical benefits we accrue from the arrangement. And I agree that this ignorance could be dangerous, and is a serious argument against voting for him. That said, Trump did not exit NATO in his first term, and there is no reason to believe he would do so in his second term. Trump ended NAFTA, but he replaced it with a new agreement. He imposed tariffs on China — which the Biden administration chose to retain. As with almost everything that Trump touches, the impact of what he actually does is insignificant relative to his rhetoric.
Finally… autocrats. It is not clear how Trump would “strengthen” them, what that even means, or why it is bad in every case. Foreign policy is a dirty, difficult business. We don’t get to arrange the world exactly how we like it, or force a set of secular Western values on every culture that we don’t view favorably. Trumpist transactionalism and pragmatism can have a place at the table sometimes. Peace, stable markets, economic growth and health must be our priorities internationally. If that means that a country run by someone that we view as “autocratic” prospers in certain ways, why should we care? America cannot be the world’s lone idealist / evangelist for liberal democratic values. We can’t fix every society in every corner of the earth. Some people don’t want to be helped.
If the editorial references the possibility that Trump might force Ukraine into a less than optimal settlement with Russia to end the war (thus “strengthening” the autocrat Putin), yes, that is a possibility. But this is a very difficult situation that could veer out of control very quickly and tragically. I would prefer to see a distasteful, uneasy peace with new borders for a few years, while Putin inevitably reaches his shelf life. Foreign policy like this cannot be formed with assumptions about permanent solutions. Situations like this will evolve as the leadership and other factors evolve. For now, a resolution that ends the current fighting, avoids a wider European war, and allows Ukraine to both exist and rebuild doesn’t seem like a terrible interim outcome. If Putin claims a “win”, it will be a pyrrhic one. And, with his expiration date not too, too far off into the future, the situation will certainly change either way.
I realize that idealists at places like the New York Times view the world a different way — that our primary role is to spread democracy, progressive sexual ethics and climate ideology across the world, and to offer apologies and reparations for hundreds of years of colonialism. But, to put it as diplomatically as possible, that is lunacy. In the 21st century, we don’t get to tell other countries how to govern themselves and regulate their cultures. Our primary goals must be peace, stability and retention of our role as the monetary arbiter of the world economy. If a few autocrats get to live to see another day, I would rather see them alive than thousands of young Americans dead, or American cities incinerated.
Americans should demand better.
100% agree — which is precisely why I disagree with the next and final sentence.
Vote.
No, I will not be coerced into voting for someone who is unqualified for the office he or she seeks. Neither Trump nor Harris is an acceptable candidate.
For what it’s worth, I will be writing in Nikki Haley. Am I a true blue Nikki Haley fan? Not at all. I would not agree with everything she might do. But she is highly qualified — a proven, strong, capable politician with executive experience and knowledge of foreign policy. She is also a woman. And, while I don’t believe in voting on identity, I think it would be good for the country to break the gender barrier in presidential politics. Nikki Haley would bring honor, dignity and competence to an office that needs it desperately. And she is enough of a moderate to potentially help reboot our broken politics in Congress.
A vote for Nikki Haley also sends a useful message to both parties: We will vote for your side when you nominate qualified candidates!
Kamala Harris is not qualified to be President of the United States. Her rise to the vice presidency was a function of good luck and distasteful political horse trading. Her one attempt to seek the office ended in almost immediate failure, and also exposed the depth of her extreme progressive partisanship. Granted, that was in the context of a primary, and one where there seemed to be a race to the left by most of the candidates. But, given her background, we have no reason to believe that these are not her current views. The 2024 Harris campaign is attempting to run away from all of those views, out of necessity, but the candidate refuses to make definitive statements. Instead, she uses dodges such as “I will follow the law” — disregarding the fact that she would have some role in forming the law.
Harris is either unwilling or unable to form well-developed answers to complex questions, answers that reflect sophisticated thought and ideas developed over years. She seems to have no guiding philosophy, serious economic program or respect for historical context. Comparing her to someone like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton is almost silly, as both of those former presidents were deep-thinking, highly articulate, skilled politicians. Harris navigated her way around California politics successfully, but her subsequent performance on the national stage over the past eight years has ranged from irrelevant to embarrassing. She became vice president only after Jim Clyburn of South Carolina agreed to rescue the Biden primary candidacy in 2020 in exchange for political concessions.
Kamala Harris is not qualified to be president. She will be viewed as weak by a solidifying New Axis of foreign adversaries, who will almost assuredly create situations that will test her will to confront them with force. This would be a highly dangerous and volatile situation that we cannot permit to develop.
Donald Trump is deeply flawed human being, who should have been convicted in an impeachment trial four years ago — and thus, at least in principle, should be disqualified from occupying the Oval Office again. Unfortunately, the Republican Party thought otherwise.
I will be voting for Nikki, and I would encourage you to do the same. As for the New York Times, if this editorial is any gauge of the caliber of analysis it produces, I will not be subscribing any time soon.