After wrongly predicting the election, political pundits are returning to TV talkshows to explain what will happen under a Trump presidency. But these predictions aren’t like TV anchors predicting the weather; these forecasts have a profound impact on the public reception to the Trump administration and the future course of US politics.
The danger is that by normalizing Trump—a candidate distinguished by an embrace of political violence and open appeals to ethnic nationalism who boasted of getting away with sexual assaults—these commentators will make racist and sexist bullying an acceptable way to run for public office.
The Atlantic’s Michelle Cottle told Al Sharpton on MSNBC (11/13/16): “This is a guy who will say anything on the campaign trail, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’ll start out like that.” Her reasoning as to why Trump won’t be as vile and dangerous as he promised:
I think he starts out knowing he’s got people watching him, and knowing that people are nervous, and until he has a reason to clash with folks, I think he’s going to try to moderate a little bit.
When Sharpton asked Michael Steele, an MSNBC political analyst and former Republican national chair, what happens if Trump bans Muslims and deports millions of people, Steele responded by explaining:
Well, first off, I don’t think that’s going to happen…. Exit polls showed that, you know, his supporters never took that seriously. The press took it literally. They never took it seriously. And I don’t think that’s going to be part of the agenda.
Apparently people who voted for Trump thought he was kidding, so not to worry.
In the worst-case scenario—that Trump actually meant what he promised to do on the campaign trail multiple times—that still isn’t a problem, Steele assured us:
But I’ll go with that. If that’s the type of legislation that comes out of the West Wing, and presented to the Congress, yes, there are going to be some really strong thought lines drawn there, and some pushback.
In fact, the opposite of all this horror might happen; Trump may transform into Bernie Sanders. Steele went on to say: “I really believe, Reverend, that you’re going to see Donald Trump govern as a pragmatic populist.”
Sharpton’s guests aren’t the only ones who expect Trump will be another run-of-the-mill president. On CNN (11/13/16), political reporter Eugene Scott also looked forward to a normal presidency. Scott’s reasoning as to why Trump will behave nicely:
I think he has to realize that he’s serving multiple demographics and he has to find a way to compromise. And that’s what Reince Priebus is going to help him do.
Priebus, it should be remembered, is a long-time advocate of voter suppression as a tool for Republican electoral success (Urban Milwaukee, 11/14/16). MSNBC’s Chris Matthews (Hardball, 2/24/16) once observed that Priebus’ “No. 1 goal is to keep blacks from voting.” In the event that this aide can’t control Trump, CNN correspondent Chris Frates stated:
But House Speaker Paul Ryan told early to Jake Tapper today that neither lawmakers nor Trump are planning to create that deportation force. He says that they’re focused more on border security, Fred.
You know, Paul Ryan—the GOP leader who wants to privatize Social Security, end guaranteed Medicare, eliminate health insurance for low-income children and sell off federal land for revenue (Grist, 10/28/15). He’s got your back, undocumented immigrants!
Lesley Stahl interviews the Trump family on 60 Minutes (11/13/16).
Trump gave his first extended post-election TV interview to CBS‘s 60 Minutes (11/13/16), and to return the favor correspondent Lesley Stahl did what she could to legitimize his presidency. She introduced the segment:
What we discovered in Mr. Trump’s first television interview as president-elect was that some of his signature issues at the heart of his campaign were not meant to be taken literally, but as opening bids for negotiation.
She asked Trump mostly softball questions, like “Are people going to be surprised about how you conduct yourself as president?” and “Are you in any way intimidated, scared about this enormous burden, the gravity of what you’re taking on?” before bringing on Trump’s wife Melania (“What kind of a first lady do you think she’s going to be?”) and his adult children (“Don, did you discover something about your father that you didn’t know before?”).
When CBS’s John Dickerson (Face the Nation, 11/13/16) brought up Trump’s association of “alt-right” neo-supremacists, guest Newt Gingrich responded:
This is crazy. Donald Trump is a mainstream conservative who wants to profoundly take on the left. The left is infuriated that anybody would challenge the legitimacy of their moral superiority. And so the left goes hysterical.
Dickerson didn’t ask what makes Trump a mainstream conservative, instead inquiring about what would happen to Trump’s Twitter account.
NBC’s Meet the Press (11/13/16) did more than most to challenge the normalization of Trump. When Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, told host Chuck Todd that this election was a “mandate” for Trump, Todd pushed back, asking how you could have a mandate while losing the popular vote. When Conway answered by observing how many people live in states like California and New York, Todd noted that these states are “all part of America.”
Todd brought on Sen. Cory Booker (D.-N.J.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D.-Minn.), both of whom highlighted the hatred Trump has promoted. When Booker was asked if he had a message for those who had taken to the streets against Trump, he answered, “God bless the protesters.” Asked if the Clinton brand was “tainted,” Ellison shifted the focus to Trump, explaining that he
has hurt workers in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Florida, multiple bankruptcies, never showed his taxes. I don’t know any good thing this guy has ever done…. He actually lost the popular vote.
Unlike some talkshow hosts, Todd occasionally challenged statements and provided context for facts put forward by guests. Basic as such journalistic acts may seem, this resistance to the normalization of Trump’s racism and sexism is critical to avoid the subsequent normalization of Trump’s proposed policies, including gutting the Paris Climate Deal, creating a registry to monitor Muslims and deporting millions of undocumented people.
Rohit Chandan is an editorial intern at FAIR.
Enlightening reporting. Although I had somewhat of a difficult time buying into some of the basic premises. Whatever the cataclysms a Trump presidency holds in store, at least they won’t be Lady Klynton Kissinger-Sachs’s. Nor do I agree with the implicit argument a rebuilt Democratic Party is the possible answer to the depths to which US politics has sunk. Give Bernie Sanders a rest boys. What more needs to be known about Sanders than like Obama’s legislative style he makes a compromise which all but promises capitulation from the very beginning. “When the Democratic machine crushes me, I’m will too sing the praises of the coronation.” Or, “no one cares about your email.” Really? Sanders could have won the primary on that issue notwithstanding the machinations of the DNC. Indicative of what his function was in the race. As Dave Lindorf has pointed out, even after being robbed of the nomination Sanders still might very well have won the presidency if he’s taken up Jill Stein’s gracious offer to let him replace her atop the Green Party ticket. As Lindorf also points out, for all the risk to Sanders, even losing he could have helped to create the movement that is so desperately needed.
I don’t watch him, so it might be my limitations but I have trouble buying into the integrity of the likes of Chuck Todd. Isn’t a journalist in the Fawning Corporate Media compromised by definition? I endured about the first ten minutes of it, but I thought Stahl did a pretty good job on interviewing Trump. I was trouble by half of what I witnessed from Trump, but heartened by the other half. He was subdued and that was encouraging. I have less hopes for the Trump presidency that I did for the Obama, and it’s tough to find a number below zero. Still, I will always feel a debt to Trump for ousting Clinton. The corruption sinks no lower.
I couldn’t endure any more than about ten minutes of the interview when Trump began spouting his Orwellian nonsense in response to Stahl’s query as to why he was stocking his transition team with corporate lobbyists and Washington insiders. HIs response was telling and what we face in a Trump presidency: Goebbelian nonsense repeated so often not only does Trump comes to believe it but his listeners too. What is going to be the response of Trump’s populist base to his making cabinet officials of the insiderest of insiders like Jeff Sessions? Chris Christie? Really? He’s not been convicted in the bridgegate scandal yet? I’ve even heard a proven fascist like Joe Arpaio mentioned for important posts in the cabinet. As Paul Street wrote in Counterpunch November 16: let the blood flow.
Whatever the cataclysms a Trump presidency holds in store, at least they won’t be Lady Klynton Kissinger-Sachs’s.
___________________________________________________________________
This strikes me as an MLB manager saying: “I don’t want to have to have the pitcher pinch-hit here. Lemme go into the stands and find an old guy who has never played the game before. While we’re at it, let’s make him bat with a soup ladle… while blindfolded… while holding a baby and a loaded gun.”
The pitcher is Clinton: it probably wouldn’t go well, but at least you have an idea of what’s gonna go wrong. The old guy is Trump: it’s probably not going to go well, but it could go wrong in so many different ways.
Trump Supporter didn’t realize that he is talking seriously. Its right that they consider it, He is joking but now its time to application the thoughts. I am sure he is going to apply all those thoughts that he shared during his election campaign. Because He think, These thoughts helped him to become president and So he must to apply and he is moving.
What happened that if elected president Donald Trump will apply thoughts that he mention in his campaign. Trump supporter will support him again?
There’s just too much compulsive gum-beating about all of this. I like what Sanders said in his interview after Trump’s win: basically, let’s work with him where we like what he’s doing and oppose him where we don’t. That’s all.
Right ! That’s called “rational pragmatism”. Support progress. Oppose regress. The true enemy is bad ideas. Not bad individuals.
“How to Make USA Interesting Again” – Uncle Sam entertainment and suspense 101.
As survival, self esteem and national pride dictates, media folk and USA people in general now have to do their very best at the production of this new reality show thrust upon them (or deserved, whatever). If you are not a producer or director, script writer, a headline star, technician or crew member then you are a captured extra who will wave a flag on set and consume the series on your devise.
USA appoints clowns, puppets and criminals to the White House (and Supreme Court) but the “Office” is Paramount and very 20th Century Fox worthy – its been very profitable so far, right?
Trump’s “Making America Great Again” means bringing Uncle-Sam-You-Dirty-Old-Man back again.
The greater US family may cozy up to it’s wealthy schizophrenic uncle in command, turn away from or otherwise shame the young cousins and all who are victims and above maintain the seal and family reputaion.
Solution: Global solidarity.
The USA debacle, not just Trump,is fatal to many, grossly unjust to all but the elite, and exceedingly dangerous to all life. Hopefully the neighbours will take action beyond sniggering behind the curtain and subscribing to the USA media and myth machine for laughs, consummer seduction and entertainment. Hopefully the people of the USA, who have till now, increasingly distrusted media, will not buy the sugar coating over the White House and all, and the protesters and mass indignation will cause a collapse to the system.
I look forward to the Democratic Party moving swiftly to do away with the Electoral College, to require, for federal elections, a 48 hour, round-the-clock, weekend period (to allow more people to vote), to outlaw voting machines that have no paper trail, and to assert federal primacy over the voting rolls of all states so as to require a preliminary review and approval, by the US Attorney General’s office, of any changes to voting registration rules. I am confident that, unlike after the election of 2000, the open and notorious deficiencies of the electoral process in this country–that belie our claim to honest elections–will be addressed and corrected.
Just kidding!
This is brilliant ! No kidding.
FAIR recognizes here the current attempt by the main stream media and many other commenters to make Trump seem somehow acceptable. He is not, and the Congress should institute impeachment proceedings now rather than later.
His business connections alone are more than sufficient grounds for impeachment, and unless we act at once, those already proposed for key positions in the Trump administration could destroy the United States.
There is no way to put into words the shear, unmitigated disaster the Trump election threatens to become unless members of our courts and Congress have the courage to resist./
Sorry, but I agree with some of the sentiments expressed. I’m not a Trump supporter, but not everything is black and white. On some issues, Trump is frankly better than Hillary. He made populist promises on trade and protecting earned benefits. He indicated a new, less confrontational approach to foreign policy. I don’t necessarily expect him to keep those promises, but why not look for points of agreement and try and hold him to some of the better promises he’s made?
At the very least, our side will look more credible when and if he does break those promises.
Greg: he promised to protect earned benefits, but his tax plan immediately laid that bare as a lie. It hurts anybody Middle-income and below, by eliminating the Earned Income Credit for kids, and removing the Head of Household designation.
“He indicated a new, less confrontational approach to foreign policy””? I’m sorry, which time? When? He also indicated that he was going to destroy ISIS by “finding their families and torturing & killing them”. He wants to bring back waterboarding “and worse” in his own words. I’m trying to see how that gets transformed into “less confrontational foreign policy”.
Well, let’s see what his program is for protecting Medicare and Social Security. Then we can decide whether it’s worth supporting, worth protesting, or worth tweaking. We’ll see.
So far, he hasn’t even gotten into office, and TPP is already dead. Asia-Pacific partnership is dead on day 1. NAFTA will be renegotiated. Isn’t this something progressives fought for???
On foreign policy, he’s expressed skepticism of NATO expansion, said that we need to reduce our foreign military commitment, and work with Russia (instead of poking the bear and provoking nuclear war). And now there’s talk that he’s going to appoint Tulsi Gabbard as UN Ambassador or another position. This is awesome stuff.
I strongly oppose the anti-immigrant stuff, the climate change denial, and I’m not comfortable with some of the other people he’s bringing along (Bannon, Sessions), but I’m getting really irritated at liberals and Democrats (I won’t cal them progressives, because real progressives stand on principle) who oppose everything Trump just because it’s Trump.
Over at Daily Kos they’re already ripping into Tulsi Gabbard, a sharp woman woman with military credentials who nonetheless believes strongly in international law and has an appropriately skeptical eye toward US military adventures. It seems that principles are going out the window for party expediency.
Well, as a progressive, I say forget that! I’m an issues voter. If Democrats become the party of war, McCarthyism, and free trade, then let me off that sinking ship NOW.