That is a line from the lead editorial in today’s Washington Post, titled Republicans can’t pretend not to know what fuels the Trump campaign.
That we are seeing an editorial like this is a direct result of the speech Mrs. Clinton gave in Reno on Thursday, where she laid out forcefully the case of Donald Trump’s pattern of hateful speech and behavior that goes back decades, even if it were not as complete an indictment as could be made (it did not include, for example, the ad he took out calling for the execution of five Black and Latino young men accused of an atrocious crime in Central Park for which they were convicted but later exonerated). In that speech Clinton made a clear contrast with others who have achieved the Republican nomination for President, something to which the editorial also turns.
What is interesting is that the Post editorial in a sense goes even further than the speech on Thursday. Consider its opening paragraph:
IN A major speech Thursday, Hillary Clinton linked Donald Trump to bigoted elements on the fringe of American politics. But she got it wrong when she said, “Trump is reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters.”
The words I used for my title immediately follow those just quoted, and those are followed by the words used for the title of the editorial itself.
The editorial recounts much of the history of Mr. Trump’s bigotry, and also notes his attempted recent “pivot.” It acknowledges that not all of his supporters are themselves bigots, but follows that with this:
But Mr. Trump has attracted the support of assorted American bigots, once thought ejected from mainstream U.S. politics. The candidate has courted this support with plainly visible winks and nods, retweeting their messages and hesitating to disavow them when asked. At any point — such as last August, when the New Yorker’s Evan Osnos pointed out that white nationalists were rallying to Mr. Trump’s cause — Mr. Trump could have offered the loud, full and unequivocal condemnation of the bigoted fringe that the situation required.
The editorial then returns to Mrs. Clinton’s speech, noting the positive remarks she had made about several of Trump’s predecessors as Republican nominee. It then points out that Mr. Dole and Mr. McCain are supporting Mr. Trump before ending with these words:
They should reconsider the cost to their reputations and the nation’s well-being. Any rational accounting would show that it is far too high.
Some have criticized the Reno speech because Mrs. Clinton did not specifically tie all Republicans to the rhetoric of Mr. Trump and of his new campaign CEO Steve Bannon at Breitbart. But that is not her task.
I challenge the media to be as direct as few are, beyond Joy-Ann Reid at Ms-NBC, and when speaking with Republican office holders and candidates challenge them to answer directly a several questions, and by directly with a simply yes or no.
“Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a bigot. Answer yes or no, do you agree or disagree with that statement?”
That’s for starters. The questions can go on from there.
Because Donald Trump’s own words and actions have made things very clear:
1. Republicans can’t pretend not to know what fuels the Trump campaign
2. It’s not a “dog whistle” if everyone can hear the bigotry.
Either Republican office holders and candidates accept that bigotry or they reject it. There is no middle ground, and no rationalization can cloud that fact.