December 5: A Field Guide to MAGA Excuses for the Toddler President
Don’t know if this post from New York about Trump’s immaturity will get me onto the White House list of enemy media, but there’s a chance.
Veteran political journalist Jonathan Martin has a new rant at Politico Magazine with the self-explanatory headline: “The President Who Never Grew Up.” Nothing he said is the least bit revelatory; it’s all about things we know Donald Trump has done and said but lined up in a way that illustrates how very much the president resembles a child, and a not-very-well-behaved child at that. A sample:
Trump is living his best life in this second and final turn in the White House. Coming up on one year back in power, he’s turned the office into an adult fantasy camp, a Tom Hanks-in-Big, ice-cream-for-dinner escapade posing as a presidency.
The brazen corruption, near-daily vulgarity and handing out pardons like lollipops is impossible to ignore and deserves the scorn of history. Yet how the president is spending much of his time reveals his flippant attitude toward his second term. This is free-range Trump. And the country has never seen such an indulgent head of state.
Yes, he’s one-part Viktor Orbán, making a mockery of the rule of law and wielding state power to reward friends and punish foes while eroding institutions.
But he’s also a 12-year-old boy: There’s fun trips, lots of screen time, playing with toys, reliable kids’ menus and cool gifts under the tree — no socks or trapper keepers.
Martin is just scratching the surface here. He doesn’t even mention the president’s inability to admit or accept responsibility for mistakes, which is reminiscent of an excuse-making child, or his tendency to fabricate his own set of “facts” like an incessant daydreamer bored by kindergarten. Now to be clear, the essentially juvenile nature of many of Trump’s preoccupations and impulses has struck just about everybody who’s forced to watch him closely and isn’t inclined by party or ideology to jump into the sandbox with him to share the fun. But since he’s the president, it’s more seemly for critics to focus on problems deeper than immaturity. There are the many worrisome “isms” he is prone to embrace or reflect (nativism, racism, sexism, authoritarianism, jingoism, cronyism, nepotism). And there’s also his habit of surrounding himself with cartoon villains like Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem, Kash Patel, Stephen Miller, and J.D. Vance who are the stuff of grown-up nightmares.
But still, I find myself wondering regularly how Trump’s own followers process his rather blatant lack of seriousness about the most serious job on the planet. If there’s such a thing as negative gravitas, the toddler president has it in abundance. So what are the excuses MAGA folk make for him? There are five major rationalizations that come to mind:
Whenever he says something especially outrageous or embarrassing, we are quickly told by his defenders that he’s just having an enormous joke at the expense of humorless liberals. This dates back to pro-Trump journalist Salena Zito’s famous 2016 dictum that his followers “take him seriously but not literally.” Where you draw the line between the stuff he means and the stuff he’s just kidding about can obviously be adjusted to cover any lapses in taste or honesty he might betray. The “he’s just trolling the libs” defense is a useful bit of jiujitsu as it happens. It turns the self-righteousness of his critics into foolishness while neutering any fears that whatever nasty or malicious thing Trump has said reflects his true nature and inclinations. You see this tactic a lot with Trumpworld social-media takes on mass deportation that exhibit what some have called “performative cruelty” in depicting ICE violence against immigrants, which predictably shock liberals who are then mocked for not understanding it’s all a shuck. Meanwhile, the most radical of Trump’s MAGA fans bask in the administration’s appropriation of their worst impulses.
A second rationalization you hear from Trump’s defenders, particularly when he says or does something that makes no sense, is to argue that he’s operating on multiple levels that include some higher strategies his critics simply don’t have the mental bandwidth to grasp. If, for example, he insults a foreign leader, he may secretly be setting off a diplomatic chain reaction that results in foreign-policy gains somewhere else. Similarly, if he defames federal judges, Democratic elected officials, or mainstream journalists, he may simply be trying to manipulate public opinion in a sophisticated way to overcome those who thwart or undermine his substantive agenda. Trump himself set the template for the “chess not checkers” theory by telling us his most incoherent speeches and statements reflect a novel rhetorical style he calls “the weave.” You do have to admire his chutzpah in telling people they simply aren’t smart enough to follow him as he fails to complete thoughts and sentences.
An even more common excuse for Trump’s worst traits is that he is focused on communicating with the people, not the media or other snooty elites. If he’s crude or impulsive or irrational, so, too, are the people. As one liberal writer ruefully admitted of Trump circa 2016:
He liked fast food and sports and, most importantly, he shared all their gripes and complaints and articulated them in the same terms some used themselves. For all his crowing about his money and showing off, he really didn’t put on airs. He was just like them.
And he behaved just like they would if they were given a billion dollars and unlimited power. Thus his childishness and even his cruelty could be construed as efforts to meld minds with the sovereign public or, at least, key parts of it. This became most explicit in 2024 when Trump’s crudeness and fury about diversity were transformed into a shrew pitch for the support of the “manosphere” and the masses of politically volatile younger men who spend much of their lives there. It could even serve as an excuse for his destruction of the White House as we’ve known it. Gold plating of everything in sight and the construction of a huge, garish ballroom might disgust aesthetes and history buffs with postgraduate degrees and no common sense. But with the White House set to become a venue for UFC fights, why not go big and loud? Nobody elected architecture experts to run the country, did they?
A parallel excuse for Trump’s uncouthness is that transgressions are central to his mission. He’s there to overturn the Establishment, not respect its silly rules of what’s appropriate for presidents. His distractors ruined the country, so who are they to complain when it requires someone unconventional to set things aright? Trump campaigned in 2016, 2020, and 2024 as a disrupter and thrilled his followers by refusing to be domesticated in office. When returned to power most recently, he hit Washington like a gale-force wind defying all precedents and expressing an exasperated public’s disgust with the status quo and the people who led it. So why would anyone expect this Robespierre to play by the rules of Versailles? That’s not who he is and not what he was elected to do.
The president himself has best articulated the standard by which he judges himself and expects to be judged by his followers, and by history, in a Truth Social post this past February: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” From the MAGA point of view, the 47th president is bending history, reversing a long trend toward national decline, and raising the economic aspirations and moral values of America to heights thought to be long lost. Perhaps the most powerful rationalization for Trump’s many excesses ever written was the famous 2016 essay by Michael Anton comparing those supporting Trump’s challenge to Hillary Clinton to the desperate and self-sacrificing passengers of the hijacked September 11 flight that brought the plane down by rushing the terrorists in the cockpit:
[I]f you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
It’s Trump, warts and all, or the abyss, to many Trump fans, today as in 2016. So if he wants to have some boyish fun while he’s saving America, and perhaps civilization, who are we to deny him?
Teresa Heinz Kerry has said that she considers herself Latina and African.
>>Huh? Where did you get the idea that Teresa Heinz-Kerry is Hispanic? She was raised the daughter of expats in Mozambique and South Africa. As far as I know, she’s as blue blooded as (both) her husbands.
Posted by ColoDem at March 16, 2004 12:04 PM <<
Are you implying that Hispanics can’t be blue-blooded, wealthy, and white? For your information, there are many Hispanics of European heritage who are as white, if not whiter, than Mr. Kerry. The Portuguese are Hispanics, but then again, Ms. Heinz Kerry isn’t even Portuguese, she’s African!
milli, are you a GOP plant? Could you tell us why we’re better off with 4 more years of Bush?
I suspect Bush is really helping himself and the Republicans by suggesting that the Spanish People in Spain are really very very bad people because they voted for “SOCIALISTS’. Of course they nicely leave out the fact that it twas the Spanish Socialists who put it all together in 1976 when Franco died — and built a modern democracy, negotiated the entry to the EU, (EEOC at the time) signed every Human Rights tresty in sight, and accomodated many of the interests that simmered behind the scenes left over from the Civil War. While I realize most Americans of Hispanic background are not from Spain, it does remain something of the cultural center of the Spanish Speaking World — a position somewhat enhanced by recent Spanish History. Do you think they will move into “Freedom Fries” mode? Will we have little Bourgeois Riots at the local Taco Bell’s? Tonight Denny Hastert has lined the House Republicans up with the grand analysis that the Spanish are just a pitiful bunch of appeasers. That is really a great position to take if you want to seem acceptable to Hispanic Voters.
I noticed the Madrid papers took on Bush the other day for showing disrespect for the dead in the train bombing. Apparently one is expected to wear a black tie when extending condolances, and Bush wor a red, white and blue striped one. I thought the White House had a Protocal Officer who sorted things like this out. I must say laying flowers at the Spanish Embassy is more than our dead troops get from this guy.
I’m a Hispanic woman and you have it all wrong. A an independant I am looking for a leader with conviction and a voice for my “people”, I’m an American first and what I need and what this country needs is a leader that stands for all of us and not someone trying to “hispanicize” his ticket. Kerry lost me last week, he LIED about voting for Helms Burton and was just trying to convince Cubans to vote for him – what a joke. He stands for NOTHING – we’d been better off with Edwards – at least he doesn’t have 20 years of WAFFLING on everything. November is a loss – get used to it – 4 more years of Bush – maybe that’s a good thing considering the options!!!
In the case of Bill Richardson, I think the GOP slime squad was doing some preventive maintenance during his time at DOE. Richardson has been a comer in the Democratic Party for some time and the GOP wanted to eliminate or forestall his elevation to VP candidacy because of his obvious demographic advantages. Remember, they did the same thing with Henry Cisneros.
But I doubt they’ll be able to use the same kind of tactics if he actually becomes a candidate. Not without risking pissing off the Hispanic vote.
Finally, I don’t think there is a worse Cabinet-level job than DOE. No one is going to be able to turn around that bureaucratic culture in two years without a lot of help and DOE hasn’t been a top-level priority since the oil shocks of the 70s.
–Dan
Dear Sara,
Thanks for your very thoughtful response. I should not have said you raised charges–you expressed concerns.
I know nothing about energy policy–maybe others can comment on Richardson’s tenure. But certainly the “GOP slime squad”, as you call it, will go after whomever Kerry chooses. If the worst they can say about Gov. Richardson’s integrity and character is that he arranged a job interview for Ms. Lewinsky at the President’s request, I don’t think that’s the kind of thing that should cause us to turn away from a candidate who may be uniquely positioned to help Democrats win Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and perhaps Florida.
Curtis, some people say Kerry should pick Evan Bayh (former Indiana governor, now a senator) as VP because of Indiana. I think it’s an awful idea. He’s too DLC, too boring.
In raising questions about someone on the VP list, as I have suggested above regarding Richardson, I have not, as Ron Thompson suggested — made charges. I have simply pointed to areas that need to be examined as you mull your choice.
Yea — I understand Richardson was very much of a blindsided bit player in the Monica story. My concern is less with the truth of the matter — more with the potential target quality offered to the GOP slime squad by the choice. I am not in favor of a selection for VP that makes the slime squad’s job easy.
Now as to the Dept of Energy. Look, there is something called the IF Stone rules of investigative Journalism — and one of these is pretty obvious if you think about it. If you want to understand how a principle political actor administers policy — uses the bureaucry to solve problems, and more programs ahead — you drop down about three levels from the subject person, find the people who are really experts in the actual content of programs, and see what kind of tale they tell. You don’t ask them to “judge” someone — you ask for the story, and look for key things that help you assess whether a leader made a program more ahead in a reasonable way, or whether he failed.
So — I’ve looked at various Department of Energy programs over the years that interest me. I am interested in clean-up of the Nuclear waste issues at places such as Hanford, Savannah, Oak Ridge and a number of other sites. (See W.Post series on the N. Kentucky mess for instance) — And I know people who are legislators, members of congress, who have served on regulatory commissions, and I know some scientificly credentialed folk who are sometimes consultants on these matters. And yea, I have asked about departmental leadership, and how that impacts program progress. What I find is that during Richard’s 2 and a half years, the problems with moving programs forward were not solfed.
Was this Richardson’s fault? — well he had the top job, and I expect someone in that position to show some leadership. If people or policy are in the way — the idea of leadership is to move over and/or around them. Gain greater understanding of the problems so as to create a base of support for problem solving and all.
Cleaning up the waste from the Nuclear Industry in the Cold War era is a HUGE issue. From the beginning and up to the mid 70’s, the problem was hidden and ignored and wrapped in official secrecy. Then, mid 70’s onward — we’ve begun to comprehend and calculate the cost of clean up. Done right — it will cost Trillions, and there is absolutely no political advantage in talking about spending zillions for the necessary projects. Anyone who has followed this since the 70’s knows this — and looks at leadership of DOE in these terms. Hazel O’Leary tried to go at the problem sideways — by dealing with the victims of human experimentation and industrial exposure. The idea was — in focusing on the human interest and compensation aspects of it all — to move from those specifics to the much broader matters. (Broader matter being what happens when the Hanford storage dumps break, and the Columbia River is polluted, and we have to say bye bye to Portland Oregon, and all?) So — look at DOE during Richardson’s years in leadership — and find your own people who are mostly technical experts and who know the problems — and ask them if much progress was made in the last couple of years of Clinton’s term. Or — take any other DOE subject area that interests you, and where you’ve done a bit of educating yourself, and apply the IFStone rule of Investigative Journalism — the technical guy a couple levels down can tell you if the programs are moving along at a reasonable pace — or whether monkey wrenches are getting thrown into the gears.
What I believe happened to Richardson at DOE is that the Republican Congress did everything possible to distract attention from real problems. The Win Ho Lee case — bad security at DOE labs and all, and the notion that the Chinese had stolen the latest in bomb designs — that whole long saga was really about distracting from all the enviornmental clean-up missions of DOE. I simply am making the case that Leadership would have been about finding a way to make the Republican strategy and tactics clear — and that didn’t happen.
I hope I have suggested enough history to review.
Remember, these are the same bozos who think American Jews have no political opinions beyond Israel policy and that the women’s vote depends on which candidate is hotter-looking.
Please support a candidate in a swing NM District….
*** MILES NELSON, M.D. for CONGRESS ***
http://www.nelsonfornewmexico.com/
Contribute today. Every dollar counts.
http://www.nelsonfornewmexico.com/
Hey Curtis – I hear Jeb Bush can deliver Florida – but I suppose he’s not on the list, huh.
🙂
I’m not entirely sold on Edwards – if only becuase of the rarity of primary “losers” being selected (Bush I is, I believe the only example – there are a couple farther back)
However – I agree with Dan – or maybe even got a step further – in this Election cycle – an “attack dog” may not be the best thing – one of the things that shot Edwards to the front of the pack in the early primaries was the idea of his positive approach – given how negative this race is going to be – that might be such a change that it would be better than an attack – plenty of other ways to raise issues with this administration than an “attack dog”. Besides – mostanything that breaks up the normal political mode and confuses the rightwing dominated press for a minute is good by me.
What about someone who could deliver a midwestern state or two? Ohio, Indiana?
I would say pick anyone who could deliver Florida, but it appears that such a person doesn’t exist.
Rove wants to get 40% of the Hispanic vote this year. He knows that is all they need to win. And it looks like they are on their way to getting that.
I agree with you all that John Edwards is the best choice. He will really appeal to Latinos because he is from a working family and has worked hard for all he has achieved. In addition, he will appeal to voters across the country, not just in a particular state. He will make it impossible for the Republicans to label Democrats as liberal elitists. Most important, Edwards will appeal to swing voters because he is not perceived as having an ideological agenda or being beholden to special interests. He is inspiring, charming, and likeable-all of which we badly need on the ticket!!!
The conventional wisdom for picking a VP is to find someone who can carry a large swing state or energize an important group. In this vein, Joe Lieberman was critical in pulling CT into the Dem column and swaying Democrats who were tired of 8 years of Clinton.
So I guess that rules out Lieberman, who was the worst attack dog in history.
But I question the idea that Edwards can’t play the “attack dog” role. He brings a recognizable passion to his speeches that would team up with Kerry’s experience. Who cares if he doesn’t go negative if he can reliably draw distinctions with the Republicans. His trial experience provides an ability to seize on opponents weaknesses.
Frankly, the VP candidate is going to give a lot of speeches and interviews and then he’ll have one shot at Cheney. Of all the VP possibilities, and I count myself as a Richardson advocate from way back, I would want Edwards going up against Cheney.
–Dan
Sara,
If you have charges to make about Richardson, could you please be a little more specific than saying that “a couple” of people told you that his brief tenure as Secretary of Energy “was much of a mess”? He didn’t get the job until 1998.
And, yes, he arranged a job interview for Monica Lewinsky at the President’s request. Is the implication that he knew about her relationship to the President? If not, and his boss asked him for a favor, why shouldn’t he do it?
Richardson brings with him several problems. There were lots of issues with regard to how he handled the Dept of Energy — a couple of a-political science types tell me it was much of a mess — and then there is the Monica Connection which could be brought up and discussed 24/7. (He interviewed her for a UN job,) Baggage we don’t need right now.
If Bush disses the Spanish Election — the one that looked pretty “fair” and “well attended” and where they voted on paper, and counted all the ballots — and his best buddy got defeated, I suspect that could boomerang on him in the US with Hispanic voters. And if he will take it, recent events offer Kerry a chance to show respect. I tend to think various modes of showing respect and listening is somewhat more valuable in getting these votes than a VP slot.
It looks like the Dem’s in Colorado will have a Hispanic Senate Candidate. Campaigning with him in that marginal state might show more respect than a spot on the ballot for VP.
I think it’s a vast overstatement to say as Ruy does, that “the GOP Hispanic strategy is in shambles.” Bush got 34% of Hispanic voters in 2000; he’s getting 34% in this poll, with 9% undecided. His strategy has neutralized his losses among a group which might otherwise have been expected to turn more solidly against him, for economic reasons.
It is still very necessary to increase Hispanic support for Democrats: for Kerry in 2004, and for the party in the future. And the best way to do that is to put Bill Richardson on the ticket.
This is very good to know. I was commenting on this a couple of days ago at this site. I hadn’t read the January analysis in the archives.
I hope that these side issues that Bush is using to peel off Hispanic voters continue to fail.
It would be great if the Hispanic vote in Florida can be even more turned towards Kerry. More divergence there would give Kerry an even greater chance to win Florida.
Huh? Where did you get the idea that Teresa Heinz-Kerry is Hispanic? She was raised the daughter of expats in Mozambique and South Africa. As far as I know, she’s as blue blooded as (both) her husbands.
I wonder if Latina Teresa can help Kerry more with hispanics. I hope the campaign is exploiting have a real hispanic very nearly on the ticket.
Support a truly grassroots Senatorial candidate! Georgia Senator Mary Squires is running for Zell Miller’s U.S. Senate seat that he is vacating. We must win this seat for our progressive candidate. She CAN and WILL win this seat but needs your support. Democratic supporters in Georgia and around the nation have begun organizing for Senator Squires because we understand the importance of taking back our U.S. Senate. The Republicans want this seat and have already raised several million dollars to help them get it. Please consider a small contribution today to help win the Senate for REAL democrats. Contribute here: http://www.marysquires.us/contribute.html
Bill R. would be a good veep because he is a good person, not just because he is hispanic. He has impeccable foreign policy credentials and now has executive experience as a governor as well. It is a bonus that he is hispanic, but i would like him even if he spoke spanish like W.
For the record, I think Bill Richardson would make a great choice as VP. I agree with ABB; it could energize turnout among Hispanics. As Democrats, we cannot simply take minority groups for granted. Sure, Hispanics trend strongly towards Democrats, but we can solidify that support in November by aggressively targeting their needs. So far, the Republicans have been far more aggressive about targeting Hispanics. I agree with DR that this strategy hasn’t worked, but don’t forget that Bush only got 35% of the Hispanic vote last time. If he can increase this to around 40%, Rove would be ecstatic.
Btw, as for Richardson not wanting the post, I’d imagine that the whole Democratic Party imploring him to run with Kerry could change his mind.
something’s missing from the analysis, though. the Hispanic strategy, while clearly about Hispanics, is also about the White People Party’s ability to convince its adherents that it’s not, in fact, the white people’s party. whenever a challenge is levied against the GOP’s commitment to Hispanic causes, White People can assuage their guilt and believe, contrary to reason and experience, that something is being done about an issue they pay lip service to.
IOW, I’d be curious to see how the Hispanic strategy played out among white people too.
Not Graham. He’s a bad campaigner, and polls in Florida with him as Kerry’s veep are no different than Kerry alone—ie he gives Kerry nothing. Plus, I think the whole “well, then you win state X because so-and-so is from state X” is out the window after Gore lost Tennesee in 2000.
I’d actually like Richardson, not because he gives you any specific state, but having a Latino on the ticket might energize Latino turnout in general, which has always been the larger Democratic problem with minority groups—they support the Dems, they just don’t go to the polls at the same rates that other groups do.
The problem with this is that Richardson has stated repeatedly that he doesn’t want the veep slot, he’s only been governor 1 year, etc. So he’s out.
I think Edwards would be a good pick. My only concern with him is if he’d be sufficiently attack-dog. As VP, you can’t be Mr. Sunshine all the time.
Kerry probably will not need him, and might do better w/ Graham or Edwards. Arizona is the most radical change from 2000 to 2004. Arizona (based on recent polls) looks to be pretty safe territory for the dems in ’04.
Would it help Kerry to have Bill Richardson as his VP–to build on and solidify the Hispanic vote in AZ, NM, CO, etc.–or is that issue not very important given how solidly Dem the Hispanic appears to be?