The Corner

Politics & Policy

The Two Ways of Looking at Trump

In following the debate over criticizing the president’s critics, I’m reminded that one of the dividing lines in American politics these days is between those who view President Trump as the singular cause of the present crisis and those who view his election as the symptom of a much broader crisis. This is not the only line in American politics, and it doesn’t break down neatly along partisan lines; people from a variety of sides might have different responses about how to address this crisis, and some might not think that we’re in a period of crisis at all. But it is a line.

If you see Donald Trump as the cause of our current discontent, then the temptation might be pretty strong to pull out all the stops to defeat him — every inopportune norm must be crushed, every argument against him deployed, every defense of his actions shredded. Mobilizing against Trump might mean the sacrifice of principles (for instance, supposedly pro-life folks might have to support candidates who call for no restrictions whatsoever on abortion), but you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. There’s a reason why the more fanatical of Trump’s opponents have appropriated the iconography of “the Resistance,” as though the Nazi invasion of France were the same as the constitutional election of Donald Trump: Only when the enemy is so wicked can the moral compromises become so virtuous.

If, however, you believe that Trump’s election is the sign of a greater crisis, the stop-Trump-at-all-costs strategy might end up being counterproductive in the extreme. According to the symptomatic interpretation of the Trump presidency, his rise has been premised on a variety of things, including economic stagnation, escalating negative partisanship, elite indulgence in bad-faith arguments and “no choice” politics, the tendency to respond to dissent with cultural excommunication, and the sense of a splintering body politic. Doubling down on those tendencies either to oppose or to support the president could be more a poison than a remedy.

For those who subscribe to this symptomatic interpretation, navigating the Trump presidency means the careful adjudication of norms, regardless of which partisan faction benefits from this adjudication. It means cultivating the virtues of republican life, such as courtesy, moral responsibility, civic fellowship, thoughtfulness in public affairs, and probity in political deliberations. That adjudication involves recognizing that there is no “Trump exception” to the Constitution or to politics — precedents laid out during this administration will be felt by later ones. For instance, a weaponized partisan bureaucracy could become a tool to “resist” more than one presidency; it could also further corrode faith in important institutions.

Even those who view the Trump administration as an existential threat to the country might have good reason to pay attention to the norms they’re willing to adopt in order to stop him. History did not begin with Donald Trump, and it will not end with him, either. There is no guarantee that toppling what you take to be a bad regime will lead to a good one.

A citizen’s attention to norms should not be seen as political cowardice or “enabling” Trump. Instead, it is nurturing the soil for the political renewal that many Trump supporters and opponents believe our republic needs.

Fred Bauer — Fred Bauer is a writer from New England. His work has been featured in numerous publications, including The Weekly Standard and The Daily Caller. He also blogs at ...

Most Popular

Elections

Democrats Are Dumping Moderates

The activist base of the Democratic party is lurching left fast enough that everyone should pay attention. Activists matter because their turnout in low-turnout primaries and caucuses almost propelled leftist Bernie Sanders to victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Last month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated New ... Read More
Culture

Questions for Al Franken

1)Al, as you were posting on social media a list of proposed questions for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, did it occur to you that your opinion on the matter is no more relevant than Harvey Weinstein’s? 2) Al, is it appropriate for a disgraced former U.S. senator to use the Twitter cognomen “U.S. ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Strzok by a Farce

An investigation is one of two things: a search for the truth, or a farce. The House is conducting a farce. That fact was on full display during ten hours of testimony by Peter Strzok, the logorrheic lawman who steered the FBI’s Clinton-emails and Trump–Russia probes. The principal question before the ... Read More
Film & TV

Stalin at the Movies

Toward the end of The Death of Stalin, two Communist Party bosses size up Joseph Stalin’s immediate successor, Georgy Malenkov. “Can we trust him?” one asks. “Can you ever really trust a weak man?” his comrade answers. Good question. Last week brought the news that the head of Shambhala ... Read More