A Room With a View
Until 18 August I'm physically free of the stifling stupidity and improvisational lunacy of Donald Trump's America — I'm visiting friends in Canada, home of the bona fide brave ...
... yet cognitively chained to its homegrown reflections I remain. Thus did I read this morning Julian Zelizer's thoughts on Trump's transmissible degeneracy.
The eminent historian of American politics wants an answer to, "Where's the Rest of the Outrage?" By where, Zelizer means Republicans' eniviron, and by outrage and the rest of it, he means anything Trump — except the Epstein files.
About that there's considerable internal indignation and occasional fury. This isolated bruhaha "gives us insight into the fault lines within the Republican Party," observes Zelizer, "[but] it’s the issues that haven’t prompted any outrage that reveal just what the party faithful are willing to accept from Trump."
As much as I've always admired the written works of Princeton's Prof. Zelizer, his question, "Where's the rest of [Republicans'] outrage?" puzzled me, because 1) rational Americans never expected it — not after GOPers blithely sailed past Nixon's Watergate, cheerfully ignored the Gipper's teeming debacles and stuck to their guns over W.'s nonexistent WMD — and 2) Republicans' apathy over Trump's many violations of the U.S. Constitution is rather irrelevant. See: No. 1.
In brief, the noted historian asks the wrong question; yet more than that, he wrongly interprets "the issues" which Republicans should be up in arms about. One which Zelizer observes is this: "At almost every step, [Trump] has demonstrated a willingness to deploy federal authority in ways that fundamentally contradict the Republicans’ supposed skepticism of government power."
Here, there is nothing sui generis about Trump; the same indictment could be issued against every Republican president since T.R., save for Collidge and Hoover (although, at rare moments, the latter, too, exercised unRepublican government power). Trump is unique, however, in his clamorous authoritarianism — that being a far cry from "federal authority" or a mere "contradiction" of the GOP's self-promoted "skepticism" of it.
For Zelizer to avoid even the words authoritarian, despot or dictator came as a shocked bewilderment to this reader, especially since he rolls on with similar weak usage; e.g., "Trump has depended on unilateral presidential power to shape the economy through tariffs." Trump's taxing of foreign nations has been tyrannical, not "presidential." Take Brazil, a tariff case of one dictator defending another because of the other's selfsame attempted coup. Nothing at all to do with "the economy."
The historian also notes Trump's deportation of "undocumented (and some documented) immigrants without due process," and done in defiance of federal courts. Again, that's sheer despotism — and that's wholly incomparable to presidential power. The same goes for Trump "us[ing] his position to threaten law firms, universities, and media outlets" — omitted here: threats surpassed, extortion accomplished.
To that one can add his flagrantly unconstitutional withholding of congressionally authorized funds for assorted agencies and social priorities which Trump simply dislikes — pure authoritarian bulllying. Plus the "corruption" that Zelizer notes about Trump's various "money-making" schemes is on a scale quite famliar to Vladimir Putin, about whom the title "dictator" is suitable; a "president" — Webster: "an elected official serving as both chief of state and chief political executive in a republic" — laughable.
Trump's squalid authoritarianism is undeniable, hence seeing references to his "presidency' is appalling. When the vastly inapplicable usage comes from such a distinguished historian of American politics, it's profoundly puzzling as well.
Now I'm going to enjoy some time in the land of the authentically free, the intelligent, the sane. While doing so, I shall the spread the word, or at least remind them: Be thankful, my august Canadians, that you have no authoritarian idiot of clinical madness pissing on your history, pilfering the present and pillaging your good national name; yea, verily, this I say unto thee: Seriously, be thankful, very thankful.
Well, not being familiar with Zelizer’s work I can’t say for sure, but there has long been a cottage industry of pundits and writers who have dedicated themselves to the proposition that republicans are something they’re not. As driftglass has documented for literally decades, this describes the entire career of one David Brooks. It sounds like Zelizer has by accident or design slipped into this particular mode. But as you note the gop was never honest. All their small government talk was just that. The reality on display with Trump is different only in that it’s out and loud instead of tucked away behind the stage for fear of scaring the proverbial straights.