Partisan Conformists

The Trump administration has been a three-ring circus.  There is always something going on to distract our attention.  Trump has himself been blamed for much of this.  What he says and how be says it is supposedly the cause of the nearly constant hullabaloo.

I believe, however, that the mainstream media are far more responsible.  Washington journalists, in particular, are partisan conformists who habitually highlight incidents that advance their liberal agenda.  They are not neutral observers who evenhandedly decide what is important.

Furthermore, events must often be interpreted for them to make sense.  This task too can be skewed by one’s political allegiance and the viewpoints of those with whom one is in contact.  Reporters may seem to be individualists, but many are slaves to the conventional wisdom.  They merely repeat the opinions of their peers.

A case in point was the s---hole controversy.  It was reported that, in a closed door meeting with bipartisan legislators, Trump said some places from which immigrants originate are s---hole countries.  Largely from Africa and South America, they were disparaged for their poverty and crime.

The press went into an immediate uproar.  Virtually all the television networks, including Fox, led with the story.  They indicated that not only was the president’s language inappropriate—it was racist.  Indeed, it was this racist meme that dominated the subsequent discussions.

Commentators from nearly every point on the political spectrum crawled out of the woodwork to blast Trump for hating blacks and Hispanics.  Not only that, but he had revealed his clandestine agenda.  He intended to reinstitute slavery.  At minimum, he would reanimate prejudice and discrimination.

This argument has been made ever since the Donald came down the Trump Tower escalator to announce his candidacy.  Once he asserted that he intended to close down illegal immigration, the recitation that he is a racist was set in stone.

But let’s look more closely at what happened the week before last.  It began with what was described as a love-fest.  The president had invited a large number of legislators to the White House to discuss the DACA problem.  But instead of holding this meeting behind closed doors, he allowed the press to remain for a full hour.

Trump’s goal was to demonstrate that he was not crazy and in control of his administration.  Having recently been castigated for being virtually insane, he hoped to prove this untrue.  In this, he succeeded.  Talk of his alleged mental difficulties soon receded.

But he accomplished something else as well.  He made his position on immigration seem reasonable.  This achievement appalled his Democratic rivals.  Plainly, when he went up, they went down; which reverberated against their negotiating position.

During the Obama years, transparency was celebrated.  Nonetheless, it was not actually implemented.  The negotiations over ObamaCare, for example, were held strictly in secret.  Now, Trump was, in fact, being open; which made the Democrats look bad.

The pictures from the White House meeting were striking.  There sat Steny Hoyer and Dick Durbin flanking the president, looking absolutely miserable.  They had been ambushed.  The whole world could now see that they were not open-minded or especially compassionate.

It was necessary to get even.  That’s what Durbin intended when he leaked the president’s supposed language at a subsequent get-together.  That’s what the press did when they glommed on to the racist meme and proclaimed it to the heavens.  Trump had to be brought down to earth!  He had to be punished for his successes.

This was the story!  This was the interpretation that an impartial press core would have told.  But no, reporters spoke to other reporters who reinforced their biases.  It helped that the construal of events they settled upon was consistent with their prejudices.

As an ex-New Yorker, I have got to tell you that Trump’s language was mild for a New Yorker.  Behind closed doors, the lingo can get much more raunchy.  This is part of being candid.  It helps prevent moralistic posturing.

Yet Durbin betrayed this trust.  His treachery was far worse that what the president did—or did not—imply.  It presented a serious obstacle to honestly negotiating political differences.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University