Donald Trump is historically unusual for an American president, and often unprecedented, in his behavior. That’s often — though not always — a bad thing. But if one is going to write on the subject of how Trump violates American norms and resembles foreign autocrats, it would be nice to show at least some understanding that American history did not begin in 2025.
One need not absolve Trump in order to notice when things he does are somewhat similar to his predecessors. Some of those things were bad the first time, and some are legitimately worse in ways that can be distinguished and explained. But the job of a columnist is to explain those distinctions, not simply hope that the reader is unaware of them. (For a good example of situating Trump’s immigration-law fights with the courts in their proper context, consider this Andy McCarthy column.) As I explained back in 2017, it’s not “whataboutism” to talk about what the other party has done in the past — especially when the other side’s whole argument is about what is and isn’t “unprecedented” — so long as you have some consistent theory of what is good and/or legal and what is bad and/or illegal.
Comments