The "Trump test" is the embodiment of what goes wrong when playing the man instead of the ball. Who, other than the most rabid partisan, would say that things have improved under Biden? Playing the man is an intellectually cheap way of fixating on Trump's personal flaws, as if he is the first and only human to have them, while ignoring results under him vs. results under his successor.
The fallacy is the pretense that his election, Trump morphed into something that he had never been. That's nonsense. People knew exactly what they were getting. He's always been loud, vulgar, and unable to walk away from a real or perceived slight. Those people tuned in weekly to hear him tell some poor sap, "you're fired." The same media obsessed with Trump could not interview him often enough when he was a citizen. The larger point is that his election was not about him; it was about a segment of the population that was being ignored and marginalized by the political class. In Trump, these people saw someone who gave voice to their concerns.
Does someone like John honestly think that the country is on better footing now that Orange McBadman is no longer in office? Is NY's crime problem better or worse in the absence of that vulgarian? Is he enjoying the impact of illegal immigration? The same people who were convinced that Trump would usher in World War III or silence opposition voted for a guy who co-opted federal agencies to do the latter while making the former possible. Yet one cannot reason with those people any more than one can explain that at no point did Trump suggest mainlining Lysol as an anti-Covid remedy.
On occasion, election outcomes get questioned. When every instance of voting machine malfunction, late-night ballot deliveries, vote harvesting, and other tactics all work to the benefit of one party, people notice. What are the odds of such a result occurring organically? Trump's biggest sin is in exposing the nasty little duopoly that exists in DC where "public servants" become quite skilled at self-service in what often has less integrity than professional wrestling. At least in the ring, the audience knows the outcome is scripted; in politics, the principals act as if the result is in doubt and their voice will have an impact.
Playing the man has not worked out too well. I think Trump's window has closed and it's time to look to someone new, although that person will be called the same names that DT gets called, the same names used on every GOP nominee in my lifetime. Robbed of the object of their obsession, media folks will have learned nothing from the experience and they will continue to fail in their role, as the Twitter info dump is showing. The worst part is how many people are either comfortable with or ignorant of govt's role in all this. There is no excuse for either scenario, yet here we are.
Rest assured the media and the pundits will pounce on any other Republican candidate (unless it's someone like Cheney or Romney) like a pack of wolves.
The "Trump test" is the embodiment of what goes wrong when playing the man instead of the ball. Who, other than the most rabid partisan, would say that things have improved under Biden? Playing the man is an intellectually cheap way of fixating on Trump's personal flaws, as if he is the first and only human to have them, while ignoring results under him vs. results under his successor.
The fallacy is the pretense that his election, Trump morphed into something that he had never been. That's nonsense. People knew exactly what they were getting. He's always been loud, vulgar, and unable to walk away from a real or perceived slight. Those people tuned in weekly to hear him tell some poor sap, "you're fired." The same media obsessed with Trump could not interview him often enough when he was a citizen. The larger point is that his election was not about him; it was about a segment of the population that was being ignored and marginalized by the political class. In Trump, these people saw someone who gave voice to their concerns.
Does someone like John honestly think that the country is on better footing now that Orange McBadman is no longer in office? Is NY's crime problem better or worse in the absence of that vulgarian? Is he enjoying the impact of illegal immigration? The same people who were convinced that Trump would usher in World War III or silence opposition voted for a guy who co-opted federal agencies to do the latter while making the former possible. Yet one cannot reason with those people any more than one can explain that at no point did Trump suggest mainlining Lysol as an anti-Covid remedy.
On occasion, election outcomes get questioned. When every instance of voting machine malfunction, late-night ballot deliveries, vote harvesting, and other tactics all work to the benefit of one party, people notice. What are the odds of such a result occurring organically? Trump's biggest sin is in exposing the nasty little duopoly that exists in DC where "public servants" become quite skilled at self-service in what often has less integrity than professional wrestling. At least in the ring, the audience knows the outcome is scripted; in politics, the principals act as if the result is in doubt and their voice will have an impact.
Playing the man has not worked out too well. I think Trump's window has closed and it's time to look to someone new, although that person will be called the same names that DT gets called, the same names used on every GOP nominee in my lifetime. Robbed of the object of their obsession, media folks will have learned nothing from the experience and they will continue to fail in their role, as the Twitter info dump is showing. The worst part is how many people are either comfortable with or ignorant of govt's role in all this. There is no excuse for either scenario, yet here we are.
Rest assured the media and the pundits will pounce on any other Republican candidate (unless it's someone like Cheney or Romney) like a pack of wolves.