By Jonah Goldberg
Saturday, June 10, 2017
One of the super-trendy talking points these days is to
say that conservatives who are critical of Donald Trump suffer from “Trump
Derangement Syndrome.” It’s original as it is clever.
Don’t get me wrong, I certainly think you can make the
case that some members of the self-styled left-wing “resistance” are indeed out
of their gourds.
Longtime readers might remember one of my favorite quotes
from Thoreau: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a
trout in the milk.” Similarly, if you find yourself wearing a rubber hat that
looks like female genitalia, or if you star in a video in which you proudly
display the bloody, decapitated head of the president and then claim that
you’re the victim because people took offense, or even if you look in the
mirror and to your horror discover that you’re Keith Olbermann, you may have
something that could be called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
Nor do I think that every critic on the right is a voice
of pure reason and restraint. I think Jennifer Rubin and Evan McMullin often
get so far over their skis they look like flying T-squares.
And then, of course, there is Louise Mensch. The most
reasonable theory for her antics of late is that she is so offended by
Russian-backed fake news, she’s decided to fight fire with fire. Another is
that she misread an article about micro-dosing of LSD to read “macro.”
But I can report definitively that’s not what’s going on.
The other day, I was in the Willard Hotel’s lobby men’s room, under the pretext
of making my routine weekly delivery of urinal cakes. I was really there,
however, to check in with the bathroom attendant who is actually an operative
for USPIS, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service — America’s oldest domestic
clandestine security agency.
(I don’t want to get bogged down here, but no one
appreciates the full extent of their reach. Ben Franklin not only created USPIS
while America was still a colony, the famous inventor used the Postal
Inspection Service as a cover to develop a host of special surveillance
technologies — not to mention numerous lethal weapons to be deployed in the war
against the embryonic Republic of Corbynistan. Not for nothing do we talk about
“going postal”: These satchel-carrying assassins delivered death long before
they clogged your doorframe with Crate & Barrel catalogs. True fact:
Congress made stealing the mail punishable by death in 1792.)
Anyway, my men’s-room contact — with whom I made no Larry
Craig–style contact, if you know what I mean — tells me that the Juvenile
Maritime Courts have issued new articles of impeachment against Trump and sent
them to the Greater Municipal Sewage Authority in Gary, Ind., for safekeeping.
USPIS would have kept it secret but they’re furious that the JMCs used FedEx to
deliver the articles of impeachment. And by a special Act of Congress — not that Congress, the real one that operates out of an abandoned Circuit City in
Cleveland — Mensch will be named chief inquisitor at Trump’s trial.
TDS for Thee, But
Not for Me
Anyway, where was I? Oh right, Trump Derangement
Syndrome. In short the problem isn’t that something like it exists, but rather
that once you buy into it, TDS becomes all-explanatory. It’s a bit like the old
Communist idea of “false consciousness” or the various theories of “white
privilege” or “toxic masculinity.” You see, the Marxists used to say that
anyone who couldn’t be persuaded to their cause was suffering from
capitalism-induced false consciousness.
Some Trump boosters have the same approach to pretty much
any inconvenient fact or development. For instance, this writer
insists that I suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome because I had the
temerity to suggest not only that Donald Trump’s use of “covfefe” was a typo
but that Sean Spicer’s defense of it might be trolling. As you well know,
Occam’s Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is usually the correct
one. And, like a stiletto-wielding assassin of USPIS, David Danford cuts
through my deranged musings to conclude that Trump was really using a loose
transliteration of the Arabic word for “stand up yourself.”
As this example might suggest, relying on Trump
Derangement Syndrome to beat back your opponents can lead to a severe case of
PTDS — Pro-Trump Derangement Syndrome. And I think we’ve seen quite a lot of it
in the last 24 hours.
Comey, Master of
Memos
Look, I am perfectly happy to concede that James Comey is
no Boy Scout. I’ve long said he’s much too interested in protecting his
reputation as a Boy Scout to actually be one. If Washington were King’s
Landing, Comey is closer to Varys, Master of Whisperers, than to Ned Stark. But
do recall that Ned Stark wore his honor on his sleeve and it got him killed.
Varys has honor and considers himself a patriot, but he’s also a survivor: “The
storms come and go, the waves crash overhead, the big fish eat the little fish,
and I keep on paddling.”
I’m more sympathetic to Comey than most, but I also think
he should have been fired. My objection to Trump’s firing him was always
grounded in the clumsy, self-destructive nature of it. If the president had
simply done it the right way and afforded Comey some minimal dignity and
respect, Trump wouldn’t be in the mess he’s in today. So, if we’re going to
extend the Game of Thrones analogies,
Trump is most like King Joffrey. No, he’s not a murderous sadist. He is,
however, a man who has an insecure adolescent’s craving for respect and loyalty
but who is utterly incapable of returning it to others. He also lets his psychological
insecurities lead him astray, sometimes hourly.
If Trump hadn’t tweeted about the possibility of there
being “tapes” of his conversation — which was almost surely a baseless and
self-injuring bluff — Comey claims he wouldn’t have planted the details of his
conversation with Trump in the press.
Of course, maybe that’s not true. I am totally open to
the idea that this was an act of political revenge as this
lawyer argues over at The Weekly
Standard. But, two points need to be made about that.
First, if you take your partisan zeal or psychological
defensiveness out of it, is it really so crazy to think Comey might want
revenge? Comey was assured he was secure in his job — at least in his own
telling (under oath) — but then he was summarily fired while he was on the
other side of the country giving a speech, where he learned about it on TV and
from the audience. He then had his name dragged through the mud. Who could have
predicted that Lord Varys of the Beltway would have contingency plans and loyalists
out there?
Second, even if you think that Comey’s payback is
dishonorable, no good, and very bad, that doesn’t have any bearing on the
question of whether or not his story is, you know, true.
The anti-Comey brigades on the right want to have it every
which way. “He’s a liar,” Trump, his lawyer, and the PTDSers say. Well, as I
note in my Friday column, if Comey is willing to lie, why didn’t he come up
with a far more damaging story? He could have said Trump offered him cash to
have Ted Cruz’s father arrested for murdering JFK. He could have said Trump
told him the Ghostbusters remake was
the best film he’d ever seen.
People are making a huge deal of the fact that Comey
admitted to doing Loretta Lynch’s bidding by calling the Clinton investigation
a “matter.” On that point, they think Comey is telling the truth.
Similarly, Democrats and Republicans alike denounce him
for not more forcefully standing up to the president when Trump said he “hoped”
Comey could cut Michael Flynn some slack. If he’s such a liar, why not say, “I
looked the president in the eye and told him, ‘Sir, I took an oath and I will
not bend to your outrageous demands!’”?
Of course, one reason Comey couldn’t say that is that he
was locked into his version of events, because
he wrote it all down and described it to colleagues immediately after the
meeting with Trump. But that, alas, is an argument for believing Comey told
the truth.
The PTDSers want to pocket every statement that
exonerates the president as utterly dispositive while claiming that every
indicting statement is a lie. That’s not how it works.
Starrs in Their
Eyes
Here’s the thing. We have this old saying: “The truth
hurts.” Call a skinny person who doesn’t have an eating disorder “fat” and
there’s not much sting. Call a fat person fat and it hurts. Again, let’s
stipulate for the sake of argument that Comey is a vengeful Deep State operator
of cynical cunning. That version of Comey would understand best of all that the
route to getting his vengeance would be by telling the truth.
All of this has me reeling from déjà vu. Bill Clinton was
a president of remarkably low character with a mutant superpower for dishonesty
so profound it would have Cerebro smoking like a AMC Pacer with sugar in its
gas tank. By actions of his own making, he invited a special prosecutor
(several, actually) to investigate him. The response from the assembled forces
of liberalism was to attack Ken Starr in the most reprehensible ways. Clinton,
too, benefitted from a cult of personality, and in such cults, the personality
is held to a different standard from everyone else. Comey is now getting the
Ken Starr treatment from Trumpworld, but the logic is the same: The fault lies
in the Starrs, not themselves — or himself.
Conservatism
Adrift
Maybe I’m so dyspeptic because I have the ooze of too
many Twitter trolls all over me. But I am just amazed how remotely objective
people can still take offense — offense! not mere disagreement — at the claim
that Donald Trump is a liar. Honestly, I think “claim” is too weak of a word.
It’s simply a verifiable fact.
And this gets to the corrupting power of both Trump’s
personality cult and the obsessive need among some conservatives to justify
their support for Trump by attacking skeptical conservatives as somehow deranged
or nefariously motivated.
My friend Dennis Prager wrote an essay a while back
lamenting about how “Never Trumpers” still refuse to become cheerleaders for
Trump. He offered a number of theories as to why — We’re “utopians”! We’re
seeking approval of the liberal cocktail-party set! We’re self-righteous! Etc.
I responded to that column already, as did many others quite ably.
Dennis responded to his critics this week. I have little
stomach to get into a major squabble with Dennis because a) I’ve lost enough
friends in all this, b) I still very much like and respect the guy, and c)
because there’s not room here to do justice to all of my criticisms, some of
which have been covered by others.
But there is one point I do want to address, because it
relates to this Comey business. Dennis writes:
“But what about Trump’s character?”
nearly all my critics ask. Or, as John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine, tweeted, “For
Dennis Prager, who spent 40 years advocating for a moral frame for American
politics, to argue as he argued today is, may I say, ironic.”
First, I have indeed dedicated much
of my life to advocating for morality — for ethical monotheism as the only way
to achieve a moral world; for raising moral children (as opposed to
concentrating, for example, on raising “brilliant” children); and for the
uniquely great Judeo-Christian moral synthesis developed by the Founding
Fathers of America.
But I have never advocated for
electing moral politicians. Of course, I prefer people of good character in
political office . . .
Put aside the fact that I don’t think this is quite
right, or at least not the whole story. For instance, in 2011, Dennis argued
that Trump’s crude language alone rendered him “unfit to be a presidential
candidate, let alone president.” He asked, “If we cannot count on Republicans
and conservatives to maintain standards of public decency and civility, to whom
shall we look?” I think Trump’s language hasn’t changed nearly as much as
Dennis’s criteria for presidents.
But, again, I don’t want to make this about Dennis. For
the last 24 hours, I have been besieged by people insisting that Comey is a
deceitful man of low honor. I don’t think Comey is that, but if he is, he is
only by the rarefied standards of a career public servant who operates within
conventional boundaries of morality and decency. But whatever. My point is: If
you excuse all the things Donald Trump has done and said — and bragged about! — you have surrendered the ability to use
notions of honor, decency, and honesty as weapons against his critics.
Whataboutism is fine if you want to point out double
standards. But the trick is to hold onto your
standards while you do it. It is otherworldly to celebrate how Donald Trump
doesn’t play by the rules while at the same denouncing anyone who doesn’t play
by the rules in response. As I’ve written before, when the president of the
United States ignores “democratic norms,” it is naïve to expect that everyone
else will abide by them. And it is grotesquely hypocritical to defend Trump’s
disdain for the rules while demonizing others for far lesser transgressions.
No comments:
Post a Comment