When will Trump backers admit: 'OK, this isn't normal'?
By Megan McArdle
The Washington Post
The left had an easy time settling on its attitude toward President Trump’s supporters: a mixture of horrified outrage and sneering contempt. For many of us on the right, though, it hasn’t been so easy. The president’s boosters aren’t our natural enemies; they’re former and hopefully future allies. For three years, we’ve been struggling to find some way to discuss Trump.
We don’t want to destroy Trump supporters but to convince them: that Trump’s main life achievements before the presidency lay in the fields of getting publicity, cheating people less powerful than himself and having a rich, politically connected father who could grease his way into the real estate business, rather than negotiating, managing or building; that impulsive, thin-skinned and belligerent people might be a great deal of fun to watch on television or Twitter but are rarely much good at their jobs; that Trump’s inexperience and lack of interest in policy have made him remarkably ineffective at pursuing even his stated political goals; and that the cost of his inexperience, his indifference to the day-to-day work of the presidency and his bitterly divisive rhetoric are not worth the transient joy of watching liberals have conniptions.
I wish I could say our attempts at persuasion have worked. Some of our former comrades agree with the indictment but argue that the liberal establishment’s radicalism has left them no choice but to support the race-baiting vulgarian. The religious right, in particular, senses an existential threat from a combination of overweening government and “woke capitalism,” and feels compelled to throw in with anyone who promises to fight on its side. Others simply write off our dismay as Trump Derangement Syndrome, or a desire to finally fit in at the proverbial Georgetown cocktail party.
Many days I wonder if I shouldn’t just concede defeat. And then … Greenland. Once more unto the breach.
This is a president who canceled a state visit because the prime minister of Denmark declined to sell part of Danish territory to the United States. Can you really look at that sort of behavior and think Trump’s critics have the derangement problem?
-more-
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/mcardle-when-will-trump-backers-admit-ok-this-isnt-normal/
= new reply since forum marked as read
In fact, many have this as the reason for voting for him.
Mr. Vision, Bush I, was "normal."
Bush II was normal.
Clinton, not quite so normal, but still easily within a standard deviation.
Obama pushed the boundary, and, to be honest, that's why a lot of people voted for him. I know a lot of people who admitted that race or the fact that he was lying was the reason for voting for him in 2016 than in 2012 or 2008. They wanted to be on the "right side of history" or knew that when he said he'd balance the budget and what he said about LBGTQ rights (etc., etc.) it wouldn't happen, or if he did actually believe those things he'd quickly "evolve" (meaning "change in a way that I like"
.
Trump's clearly outside that 1 standard deviation line, possibly 2 or 3 standard deviations. And yet they still point to the disconnect between what he says (or says he'll do) and what he actually does.
As for the "he canceled a state vision" line, it wasn't the non-sale, but the writer knew that. It's just that it wasn't the easiest, deftest point to get applause, so accurate information wasn't really important. As the BBC put it, "The president takes offence after Denmark's PM called his idea of buying the Arctic island 'absurd'." Trump picks up on microaggressions, and calling the deal "absurd" is at the least a centi-aggression if not a full aggression. Trump's pride is prickly, and he's gone at the least little sign of disrespect unless there's really something he wants out of the deal.
I'd point out that the omission of info may be because in the Trumpian era we're "post-truth" and blame Russia and Trump for that, but a good synonym for "post-truth" is "truthy". When was "truthy" a thing?
