I've argued since last July that the rise of Trump is the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic party.
When I became a Trump Democrat, most assumed that Trump couldn't win the GOP nominee and would fizzle. Nate Silver and Harry Enten were certain he was just a boomlet and would sink once he got some negative scrutiny, etc.
Then it was that if he loses Iowa this will destroy his brand that he's a winner and he will lose everywhere.
So what happened? He lost Iowa and then won most everywhere. Now even David Brooks is chastened:
"Well, some respect is in order. Trump voters are a coalition of the dispossessed. They have suffered lost jobs, lost wages, lost dreams. The American system is not working for them, so naturally they are looking for something else."
"Moreover, many in the media, especially me, did not understand how they would express their alienation. We expected Trump to fizzle because we were not socially intermingled with his supporters and did not listen carefully enough. For me, it’s a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I’m going to report accurately on this country."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/no-not-trump-not-ever.html
"Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes. All politicians stretch the truth, but Trump has a steady obliviousness to accuracy."
How accurate was George W. Bush who Brooks always treated completely seriously? I still feel like Brooks is just trying to make Trump a singular event. If Trump is so bad, how has he found such a base of support in the Republican party? Would a healthy party be subject to such a hostile takeover?
"The Republicans who coalesce around Trump are making a political error. They are selling their integrity for a candidate who will probably lose. About 60 percent of Americans disapprove of him, and that number has been steady since he began his campaign."
"Worse, there are certain standards more important than one year’s election. There are certain codes that if you betray them, you suffer something much worse than a political defeat."
"Donald Trump is an affront to basic standards of honesty, virtue and citizenship. He pollutes the atmosphere in which our children are raised. He has already shredded the unspoken rules of political civility that make conversation possible. In his savage regime, public life is just a dog-eat-dog war of all against all."
I still don't think he gets it. His trouble is he always gave the Republican party too much credit. This is why it has been such a shock. Why did I get it so early with Trump?
Because I never gave the Republican party any credit whatsoever. It was clear that as big a joke as Trump is, the Establishment-Rubio, Jeb, etc-are an even bigger joke.
I mean if I were a GOPer, I'd vote for Trump too.
A David Brooks, who wants so desperately believe in the equivalence of the parties, of 'both sides do it' simply can't digest this fact.
When I became a Trump Democrat, most assumed that Trump couldn't win the GOP nominee and would fizzle. Nate Silver and Harry Enten were certain he was just a boomlet and would sink once he got some negative scrutiny, etc.
Then it was that if he loses Iowa this will destroy his brand that he's a winner and he will lose everywhere.
So what happened? He lost Iowa and then won most everywhere. Now even David Brooks is chastened:
"Well, some respect is in order. Trump voters are a coalition of the dispossessed. They have suffered lost jobs, lost wages, lost dreams. The American system is not working for them, so naturally they are looking for something else."
"Moreover, many in the media, especially me, did not understand how they would express their alienation. We expected Trump to fizzle because we were not socially intermingled with his supporters and did not listen carefully enough. For me, it’s a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I’m going to report accurately on this country."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/no-not-trump-not-ever.html
For Brooks this is something of an epiphany. For him to actually begin to see that he has been talking about an America that he wants to see rather than one that is actual is a breakthrough. For many years he's written about the country as he'd like it to be.
Here, though, Brooks loses me again:
How accurate was George W. Bush who Brooks always treated completely seriously? I still feel like Brooks is just trying to make Trump a singular event. If Trump is so bad, how has he found such a base of support in the Republican party? Would a healthy party be subject to such a hostile takeover?
"The Republicans who coalesce around Trump are making a political error. They are selling their integrity for a candidate who will probably lose. About 60 percent of Americans disapprove of him, and that number has been steady since he began his campaign."
"Worse, there are certain standards more important than one year’s election. There are certain codes that if you betray them, you suffer something much worse than a political defeat."
"Donald Trump is an affront to basic standards of honesty, virtue and citizenship. He pollutes the atmosphere in which our children are raised. He has already shredded the unspoken rules of political civility that make conversation possible. In his savage regime, public life is just a dog-eat-dog war of all against all."
I still don't think he gets it. His trouble is he always gave the Republican party too much credit. This is why it has been such a shock. Why did I get it so early with Trump?
Because I never gave the Republican party any credit whatsoever. It was clear that as big a joke as Trump is, the Establishment-Rubio, Jeb, etc-are an even bigger joke.
I mean if I were a GOPer, I'd vote for Trump too.
A David Brooks, who wants so desperately believe in the equivalence of the parties, of 'both sides do it' simply can't digest this fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment