Donald Trump’s remarks about the Judge handling two lawsuits against Trump University have evoked a series of outcries, from editorial boards, from columnists, from pundits like those appearing on morning Joe, even from establishment figures.
But will it matter?
I find myself asking that question after glancing at two very pointed columns in today’s Washington Post. One, by Dana Milbank and titled Republicans finally discover that Trump is an actual racist, goes through all the elements of Trum’s’ expressions that support that assertion, but quite possibly could be summarized in one sentence partway through the column:
You know you’re in trouble when you’re being lectured on sensitivity by Newt Gingrich.
The other is by the inimitable Eugene Robinson and titled Endorsing Trump will leave a mark, begins with a similar assertion:
Bluffing is Donald Trump’s one great talent, and he brazenly bluffed his way to the Republican nomination. Now he is showing his cards, however, and they are utter garbage: racism, ignorance, capriciousness, egomania and general unfitness for office. That should be — it must be — a losing hand.
The question of course is whom will that mark really fall.
Yes the press is now willing to challenge Trump. As Milbank phrases it
A confluence of three factors has caused a sudden and sharp change in Trump’s fortunes. The media scrutiny has increased significantly since he secured the nomination, and journalists, rather than chasing his outrage du jour, are digging in to report more on Trump University, Trump’s stiffing of charities, his lies and his racism. Hillary Clinton has, finally, made the shift to attacking Trump vigorously over his instability. And Republicans are, belatedly, discovering that their presidential candidate wasn’t putting on a show during the GOP primaries: He’s an actual racist.
We have seen talking heads challenge Trump -there was a lot of it on Sunday shows this past weekend, where he was challenged to his face. There was even more yesterday. Those who have endorsed him were also challenged.
But not that many of the electorate watch the Sunday shows or the politically themed shows on television. A relatively small proportion read op ed pages in newspapers.
So will any of this make a difference?
And if so, to what end?
When I write about a column, I offer selections to try to give a sense of what that column seems to be communicating. It is a legitimate form of writing, one that some of the columnists themselves will do. Thus, we see Robinson use the words of Mitt Romney to help frame his contention:
Mitt Romney is usually not the most eloquent of public figures, but he got it right when he explained his increasingly lonely resistance to Trump: “I wanted my grandkids to see that I simply couldn’t ignore what Mr. Trump was saying and doing, which revealed a character and temperament unfit for the leader of the free world.”
Certainly opposing political campaigns will take advantage both of the words a candidate says — particularly if there is video of the candidate saying it — and words offered by others. We have already seen the Clinton campaign do so brilliantly with some of Trump’s expressions, including one powerful online ad put up in response to this particular outrage, including not only the words of Trump but of Republicans who react negatively to his attacks on Judge Curiel.
That can have an impact if the ad is seen enough. Sometimes an online video can go viral — think back to 2008 and Will-I-Am’s “Yes we can” video as an example. Sometimes ads do not even need to be broadcast all that much to go viral — think of the famous “Daisy” ad that destroyed Barry Goldwater: the campaign of Lyndon Johnson only broadcast it once, but it got replayed on multiple news programs, and burned into people’s minds an image of Barry Goldwater as reckless with nuclear weapons.
I can look at the two columns I am citing today and note that both are by liberals who write for a newspaper that is in general considered to be a major liberal voice — does anyone expect a general election endorsement of anyone but Hillary Clinton? And yet, at least in the case of Robinson, who also is a regular commentator./analyst on MS-NBC, his work is widely circulated, and this column will appear in newspapers around the country.
But then, how many people still read newspapers, even online? And how many of them read opinion columns?
There of course are those who do, and many of them are elected and party officials, especially those operating out of Washington. The headquarters of our two major parties are only a few blocks apart, on the House side of Capitol Hill. They will read the industry rags as well, but everyone is aware of what appears in the paper from which these two columns are drawn. Thus when they read the following from Robinson:
GOP leaders who choose “party unity” over principle should know that there is no way back; when you embrace Trump, you make a decision that will stay with you forever. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), your claim to intellectual leadership of the Republican Party is forfeited by your endorsement of a man who mocks the high ideals you espouse. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), your legacy is marred by support of a candidate you know to be unfit for the presidency. Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), your future in politics will be undermined by your support of a nominee you once rightly called a “con artist.”
it has to bite. Especially when Robinson follows those words up by observing that he suspects most of those Republicans are merely positioning themselves for the aftermath of Trump losing. But as he notes:
But that is no excuse for putting the nation in peril by endorsing Trump and thus bettering his chances, even incrementally.
Robinson states the obvious — that as a man about to turn 70, we cannot expect Trump to change, that he will continue with his outbursts, verbally and on twitter. Because Trump is “ who he is” Robinson asks
The question for those who cynically support him: Who are you?
Many will be skillful at diverting the questions intended to determine that. If you ask how you can support someone who is making racist remarks, they will pivot to the question of who gets to support judges, or whether the country can tolerate 4 more years of continuation of the Obama policies. They will not directly answer the questions.
But is not to support a bigot an indication of your willingness to tolerate bigotry. After all, as Robinson notes in the paragraph where he describes who Donald Trump is, he puts it bluntly noting
he’s not going to take an interest in policy or become less of a bigot
Which brings us back to Milbank.
For me the key part of his column is contained in two paragraphs:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that’s nonsense. The things Trump is doing now — disparaging the “Mexican” judge, disqualifying Muslim judges, calling somebody claiming Native American blood “Pocahontas” and singling out “my African American” — is very much in line with what he has been doing for the past year, and before.
More than six months ago, I began a column by proposing, “Let’s not mince words: Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist.” His bigotry went back decades, to the Central Park jogger case, and came to include: his leadership of the “birther” movement suggesting President Obama was a foreign-born Muslim, his vulgar expressions for women, his talk of Mexico sending rapists into America, his call for mass deportation, his spats with Latino news outlets, his mocking Asian accent, his tacit acceptance of the claim that Muslims are a “problem” in America, his agreement that American Muslims should be forced to register themselves, his call to ban Muslim immigration, his false claim about American Muslims celebrating 9/11, his tweeting of statistics from white supremacists, his condoning of violence against black demonstrators and his mocking of a journalist with a physical disability.
To Milbank’s credit, he was on point about who Trump was before many were willing to broach the idea aloud, even as they pondered it, based on the behavior. Yes, Trump is a bully. Yes bullies attempt to focus on perceived weaknesses in those they bully. But as one reads through the litany in one place of all the different ways Trump belittles and mocks, it becomes clear he is much more. He is a bigot on multiple grounds — of religion, of race, of national origin.
It was because of this that Milbank said he would eat his words were Trump the nominee. To him it was inconceivable that a major American party would nominate someone so bigoted in so many ways. Many pundits — and many politicians — agreed with him.
But American populism has always had streaks of bigotry, as anyone who remembers the campaigns of George Wallace in 1968 and 1972 will remember.
It is not so much saying “I told you so” but Milbank offers this thought, just after the words quoted above:
Now that Trump has secured the nomination, Republican officeholders are shocked to discover that his racism continues?
A bit later he closes his column with another brief statement:
Republicans, look at your nominee over here. It’s a grotesque sight.
It IS grotesque. It is even more — it is a frightening look at the dark underbelly of our society, one that Trump’s rhetoric has legitimized. Remember, he got heavily involved in the birtherism movement, which is how his relationship with the noxious Joe Arpaio began.
We also know that the Republican party had too many willing to flame the embers of racism and religious bigotry in the attempts to gain and maintain political power.
Now we have it being openly addressed, because of who the presumptive Republican nominee is, how he speaks and acts in public.
Now some who had been supporting him for various reasons — in a few cases perhaps hoping to be his running mate, in others because of a visceral hatred for anything Clinton, and for more than a few being willing to use any means to justify certain ends of policy and of appointments especially judicial — are forced to confront the reality of who it is they are supporting, and how perhaps it might reflect back on them.
But I ask as I did in my title;
But will it matter?
After all, Milbank called out Trump’s racism and bigotry, yet had to eat his words because Trump got the nomination.
As of now, I would say it is exceedingly unlikely that Trump, even if he remains the nominee, ever wins in the electoral college.
So the question of whether it matters may not be whether or not he wins the election. I do not think he will, because a general election is a very different animal than winning a primary by being one of 17 candidates. Further, I do not believe that Trump brought in any significant number of voters new to the Republican party: by an large he motivated people who voted Republican in general elections for the presidency to turn out for primaries. Any increase in those willing to vote Republican because it is Trump are likely to be offset multiple times by those turned off who either stay home, vote minor party, or crossover for Clinton. Further, we KNOW that there is an increase in Latino registration, primarily of people who want to vote AGAINST Trump.
But the question goes beyond the election. The question is what this will do to our nation.
Mrs. Clinton is already forcing the media and to some extend the general public to look closely at who and what Trump is. When she speaks bluntly, as she did in her San Diego speech, the media has to address it, because it is the candidate herself raising the issue.
And yet, as of right now, I remain cautious.
Which is why I will end as I began, with the words I used for my title. You tell me:
But will it matter?