Trump's out, but Trump Derangement Syndrome still dominates among the mainstream media
New York Times columnist David Brooks is a devout NeverTrumper. He predicted during the 2016 presidential race that Donald Trump could not win. See here for an example.
Perhaps President Trump's 2016 victory agitated the existing anti-populist fury within Brooks. Since the 2016 presidential campaign, he has proven to be bitten with the rabid political bite of Trump Derangement Syndrome. As with all New York Times columnists — yes, all, including the nominal "conservatives — there is no gibe against Mr. Trump too extreme to be expressed.
And thus, in his column of July 16, on the need for the left to fight reactionary foreign regimes as well as "Trumpian authoritarianism at home," Brooks resorted to an oxymoron. As American Thinker deputy editor Andrea Widburg noted in her brilliant dissection of the woke Gen. Milley:
President Trump, wise in the ways of the world, was "utterly naive about Washington." It seems more likely than not that whoever suggested that Mr. Trump name Milley chairman of the Joint Chiefs was a deep state agent, or, at the very least, a "useful idiot" of the deep state.
Think how, in "The Godfather," Don Corleone advised Michael, his successor, that the capo who advised a meet with the Don's rival was the traitor. So it happened that Tessio was unmasked and paid the ultimate price for treachery.)
An authoritarian president would not be a political naïf.
Would his enemies have dared call an authoritarian president a "Russian Poodle," as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof did? Would a House speaker dare lie about an authoritarian leader tolerating Russian bounties on killed U.S. troops, as Pelosi did? Would Hillary Clinton have dared accuse President Trump of being an illegitimate president if she feared his power? Would a psychologist from Yale and her colleagues in the profession have dared question Mr. Trump's mental stability if they feared him?
Would an authoritarian as president have tolerated one impeachment, let alone two?
And would Brooks have written one intemperate column after another viciously insulting President Trump if he truly feared that Mr. Trump was an authoritarian president?
Where are the Republican members of House and Senate to raise these questions whenever they appear on the Sunday-morning television interview programs that use Republicans to help tear down the "authoritarian Trump"? Where are the Republicans to respond quickly and effectively to the false claims from a Madeleine Albright, scrivened by Robin Wright in the wokist New Yorker, that Donald Trump is a fascist?
Looking back, it seems clear that honest conservative populists in Congress should have counseled Mr. Trump in the ways of Washington, to go along with his expertise in the ways of the world. (Was such counsel forthcoming and resisted by Mr. Trump?)
David Plouffe, functionary of Barack Obama, tweeted in June of 2016 that Trump and his followers must be destroyed. His execrable tweet was mentioned in this Times story by Amy Chozick.
The media, serving their deep state dons and having succeeded in traducing 2020 election procedures to "defeat" Mr. Trump, are now busy with the second part of their political mission: the destruction of conservative populism (which is truly the heart and soul of "Trumpism").
Republican leaders in Congress must know, given a modicum of political astuteness, that if the Trump Revolution is crushed, the GOP will also be crushed, and the American people will learn what vicious authoritarianism is all about.
Republican officeholders must jump into the polemical trenches, to join the already embattled people, if the fight against true authoritarianism, from the anti-Americans here at home, is to be won. In this fight, as Churchill said after the Second Battle of El Alamein in 1942, "this ... is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." God willing.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.