More Limbaugh than Lincoln
Chris Cillizza on Trump’s non-presidential quality in light of his grotesque tweets last night and this morning.
Trump tweeting things to forward his own agenda in the wake of terrorist attacks is nothing new. Following shootings in an Orlando nightclub that left 49 people dead, Trump offered this: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!” After an incident of a knife-wielding man at the Louvre Museum in Paris, Trump tweeted: “A new radical Islamic terrorist has just attacked in Louvre Museum in Paris. Tourists were locked down. France on edge again. GET SMART U.S.”
In short, the tweetstorm following the London attacks isn’t the exception, it’s the rule for Trump. Using these attacks to prove his political point is his default position not a one-time popping off.
Trump’s responses are the latest example of how he is radically altering the idea of what it means to be “presidential.” During the 2016 campaign, Trump’s attacks on John McCain’s war hero status, his savaging of a Gold Star family, his wild exaggerations about his wealth and his seeming disinterest in the truth were all taken, at one point or another, as signs that he simply wasn’t “presidential” enough to actually win anything.
That he wasn’t “presidential” enough because he wasn’t adult enough, or thoughtful enough, or decent enough. That he wasn’t “presidential” enough because he was deficient on every criterion you could think of – literally every single one. He was and is reckless instead of responsible, rude instead of civil, hostile instead of affable, ignorant instead of informed, belligerent instead of restrained…I could go on this way all night. Every moral and intellectual quality needed for the job, he has the opposite of, up to and including mere appearance – that godawful nightmare hair.
And Trump has never stopped. His quintet of tweets on London are not only something that no previous American president would ever have said, they’re also statements that it’s hard to imagine any other leader in any other democracy around the world saying.
They are more the statements of a conservative talk radio show host than they are of what we have come to think of as a president — bombastic, over the top and out of context. They are, by traditional standards, anti-presidential.
Which, come to think of it, is a good way to describe Trump. He is sort of an anti-president — at least in terms of how we have always defined those terms. Trump’s attitude and approach in office is closer to Jerry Springer than to Gerald Ford. He’s more Limbaugh than Lincoln.
And he, of all people, is in that chair.
Trump’s attacks on Khan have left me too disgusted for words.
It’s the sort of thing that might even be out of place for Kim Jong Un…
“What, you think we’re so innocent?” That was the one that killed me. It’s not that we are so innocent. It’s that he responded to being criticized by criticizing the entire country.
Every time I think Trump has hit the bottom of the barrel he manages to dig deeper and scrape up more noxious sludge.
I mean: “We need the courts to give us back our rights.” Thats should be ironic. It should be a statement of OTT satire but he’s serious. Where does he think human rights come from? Floating down from heaven, like manna?
I’m also not sure how the US travel ban would have stopped a home grown UK Islamist but, hey! It’s Trump. It doesn’t have to make sense as long as it’s putting those furriners in their place.
I particularly like the response from Daniel Drezner, quoted in today’s Guardian, telling Trump he is “a cheap hustler occupying an office that you don’t understand”.
Well. Quite.
And it’s three more days until the UK (almost certainly) elects a woman who won’t stand up Trump. Despite the fact that polls suggest the vast majority of the UK’s populace are actually thoroughly supportive of the other guy’s policies… I really don’t understand politics at the moment.
Hmm. ‘Get smart USA?’ But only after you’ve been stupid enough to put HIM in power.
We were, collectively, at least institutionally (damn Electoral College) stupid enough to put him in power. We’re not yet stupid enough to put him in MORE power, which is what he demands by “smart”.
Well, that is where most people assume human rights come from – endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. See? The Constitution says so! (No, I do not believe that phrase was in the Constitution; I hear that from people who haven’t read either document whenever this conversation comes up). Yes, rights are supposedly gifted to us by an tri-omni triune God.
So if God gave us those rights, does that mean a self-indulgent, pumped up, would be demigod can take them away?
@ Iknklast # 7
Let’s face it, he’ll have a damn good go. I get the impression that in Trump’s world “human” rights only apply to him and the people like him. No one else is properly human (and he isn’t too sure about the other people like him…)