What I find interesting is how so many people, and not just liberals and leftists but also many conservatives and libertarians and a few anarchists, regard Trump as some special category of sinner or menace. I’m not a Trump guy. I think he’s a loud mouthed, corrupt, egocentric asshole. But how is he any worse than most of the “normal” politicians? Of the original 17 candidates in the GOP primaries, every one of them with the possible exception of Rand Paul was at least as pro-war at Trump and usually more so. Trump was the only one among them that would seriously criticize the Iraq War, if belatedly. He was the only one to take a conciliatory stance towards Russia. Right now, it’s Trump who is the dove on Russia while the Clintonites are baiting Russia Joe McCarthy-style.
Whenever I raise this issue, I usually get responses like “Trump wants to kill the families of terrorists.” But Obama kills civilians almost randomly with his drone wars.
“He wants to deport illegal immigrants.” Illegal immigrants don’t get arrested or deported now? And how is this different or worse than the millions of arrests on an annual basis that have taken place for decades under the guise of the war on drugs and other equal stupid laws (and which disproportionately impact black and brown people).
“He wants to ban Muslims from entering the country.” What about the actual slaughter of Muslims and others that has been carried out by administrations of “normal” politicians by both parties?
“He advocates violence.” What do people think the state is presently doing with its massive military industrial complex and police state?
The special indignation over Trump seems to merely be a matter of style. That he comes across like a mafia boss rather than a well-rehearsed TV personality seems to be what qualifies him as a unique evil.
In his New York Times column yesterday, Paul Krugman did something that he made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.” While generously acknowledging that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised by the Clintons as Hillary pursued increasing levels of political power — vast sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as a public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.
Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democrats — not just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as marginalized and besieged as the former first lady, two-term New York senator, secretary of state, and current establishment-backed multimillionaire presidential front-runner. Krugman — in a tweet proclamation that has now been re-tweeted more than 10,000 times — heralded himself this way: “I was reluctant to write today’s column because I knew journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty.”