Losers Versus Winners, Suckers Versus Killers

By Charles Sykes

Friday, September 04, 2020

 

The Commander-In-Chief thinks that men and women who lose their lives defending their country are “suckers,” and “losers.” He doesn’t want wounded veterans at his parades “on grounds that spectators would feel uncomfortable in the presence of amputees. ‘Nobody wants to see that,’ he said.” We already knew how he felt about POWs.

 

Don’t pretend you are surprised by Jeffrey Goldberg’s account in the Atlantic. The picture he paints is appalling but it is recognizable, because we have seen it so many times before. Even so, it is still shocking.

 

“[John] Kelly’s son Robert is buried in Section 60. A first lieutenant in the Marine Corps, Robert Kelly was killed in 2010 in Afghanistan. He was 29. Trump was meant, on this visit, to join John Kelly in paying respects at his son’s grave, and to comfort the families of other fallen service members. But according to sources with knowledge of this visit, Trump, while standing by Robert Kelly’s grave, turned directly to his father and said, ‘I don’t get it. What was in it for them?’ Kelly (who declined to comment for this story) initially believed, people close to him said, that Trump was making a ham-handed reference to the selflessness of America’s all-volunteer force. But later he came to realize that Trump simply does not understand non-transactional life choices.”

 

There are legitimate questions to be raised about the lack of named sources in Goldberg’s piece, but its gravamen has been confirmed by the AP and the Washington Post, which added another damning anecdote: Trump “told senior advisers that he didn’t understand why the U.S. government placed such value on finding soldiers missing in action because they had performed poorly and gotten caught and deserved what they got, according to a person familiar with the discussion.”

 

The anti-anti Trumpers aren’t buying it. But even as they profess skepticism and predict retractions, they know that the accounts are most likely true because they’ve seen it so many times before.

 

This is the lens through which Donald Trump habitually views the world. Losers versus winners; suckers versus killers.

 

Does this extend to members of the military? Of course it does. No one has forgotten how he mocked John McCain as a POW, or attacked Gold Star families. He has suggested that soldiers in Iraq were stealing money they were supposed to distribute. As Max Boot notes, he once called avoiding sexually transmitted diseases “my personal Vietnam” and said it made him “’feel like a great and very brave soldier.'”

 

But Republicans eventually accepted it all. The anti-anti-Trumpers found a way to look the other way;

 

Trump told us who he was over and over again and they chose to simply ignore him. In the abstract, skepticism is justified, but there is a particular reason that so many on the right simply choose not to believe this new story: if this is who Donald Trump really is, then they would have to (again) confront the choices they have made.

 

 

Some distinctions are necessary.

 

Scoundrels call to scoundrels, and they have few moral qualms. But many conservatives think of themselves as decent people: caring, virtuous, and honorable. They are Christians, who believe in upholding the values of Western culture. They understand the idea of American exceptionalism and they have a deep and abiding patriotism and respect for the men and women who have fought for their country.

 

This is what distinguishes anti-anti-Trumpers from the hard-core bootlickers. The anti-antis generally have no illusions about the man’s character, and even remember the many times that he has lashed out viciously at women, minorities, the disabled, and veterans. But they salve their consciences in various ways. Today they would prefer to talk about Nancy Pelosi’s visit to a hair salon.

 

But this story is awkward, because it dramatically raises the ante. It causes a stirring in the place where their consciences have been hibernating. What if it is true that the Commander-In-Chief, who is seeking another four years in office, is a small, vicious, and despicable man, who dishonors everything he touches?

 

So, better to cling to doubt. Better not believe. Even if they know it is true.

 

Susan Glasser raises an important point when she asks “Where the hell were these sources when it happened? Did I miss the part where any of those who heard the President attack war heroes quit in protest, or went on the record to tell us about this now?”

 

Will they speak now?