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?
I agree. I think it’s kind of pathetic how the Bush Administration and their apologists in Washington D.C. (i’m talking about their cable news supporters too) thought that what happened to Berg would suddenly transform their situation. I see the opposite happening. People are making the connection with Abu Ghiraib. It’s sad really. I also think the Berg beheading had less effect because his father openly blames the Bush Administration for the death of his son.
Personally, more and more, I keep hearing people getting sicker and sicker of Bush. Their apologists are getting more defensive, etc.
For the first time since his (s)election, I sense he is toast. No more feelings that “he can” lose, or that “he might” lose. Now i’m definitely in the “he will” lose camp.
The Berg killing doesn’t necessarily distract from Abu Ghiraib. Most people don’t pay attention to the details, and they heard about the prison abuses in a cumulative way – drip, drip, drip. Then the Berg killing happens, and most people think “jeesus, it’s retribution for the prison stuff”, and then they might reflect that invading Iraq has just “opened the gates of Hell”. It’s all bad for Bush.
To me one interesting question about the latest, quite dramatic drop in Bush’s overall poll numbers is why they dropped just when they did.
I’d estimate the average poll number dropped from about 49% to about 44% — roughly 5% of the hardest percentage points we’ve yet encountered. Yet it did so over an event, the release of photos of prisoner abuse that would not, at first blush, seem to be the worst thing going on from a political point of view.
There are several possibilities here.
One is that it was simply the final straw, and that other things could as well have been that straw.
Another is along the lines I had suggested in some previous posts: that Bush’s overall approval numbers would not go down even on bad news from Iraq, so long as his approval numbers on handling Iraq were not distinctly more negative than his approval numbers. The underlying idea here is that shifting the focus to national security issues, as opposed to the economy, actually helps Bush, so long as his numbers on national security are relatively good. But once they go below water level, and particularly once they go below his numbers on overall approval, then those overall approval numbers will go down with them.
A still further explanation is that the prisoner abuse hurts Bush so much because they get at the only remaining defense he has had of the Iraq adventure: that we are the good guys bringing civilization and democratic ways to benighted Iraq. Most Americans respond positively to this view; it flatters us as a country and a people. The problem with the prisoner abuse is that it tears to shreds that image. No one can look at these pictures and feel that these soldiers are involved in something noble and uplifting. This fact has doubtless inspired many Americans to turn away with real revulsion from the Iraq war and its supporters.
I guess my own view about the true explanation is that it likely involves all three of the potential components I have mentioned above.
New Zogby Poll: Kerry 47 Bush 42. Bush approval down to 42%. Bring it on!
I’m a little skeptical about the HB&Staff ACT polls. Notice in the text that they don’t identify who they are polling (RV, LV, Adults, Democrats, etc). ACT and HB&Staff are certainly interested parties in this election as well. That they don’t reveal their poll questions also has me skeptical.
“Given George Bush’s lies about Iraq, healthcare, the deficit, etc. Whom would you vote for if the election were held today?” I’m guessing HB&Staff are not that crass in their polling techniques but it sure makes me question the results when they don’t provide the survey details.
There is a conflicting Oregon poll, by someone named Riley (is this a known pollster?), also through May 10, which has Bush at 44, Kerry at 39. Don’t know who is right.
Eldon, that poll was considered an outlier by many because they had the same size sample of Republican and Democratic voters, even though Democrats outnumber Democrats in CA.
This is all good news but the media and Bush won’t give up without a fight. November is an eternity from now and the Thug hate machine has just begun to fight. They will do *anything* to keep their power. It is going to get ugly.
How valid is the SurveyUSA poll in California, showing Kerry by only 1%? Seems hard to believe.
Now that’s a line I hadn’t heard before. The CIA did it to get REVENGE on Bush. George Tenet striking back just before he leaves town. He fell on his sword for Bush but nothing came of it.
I just hope Kerry doesn’t peak to early, got to have a simmer till the convention and then go strong to weather any hit from the NYC convention.
The Berg video has two main effects, one hurts Bush, the other helps:
1. It takes attention away from Abu Ghraib, and reminds us how bad the other guys are. This helps Bush.
2. It shows that al Qaida is still out there, and still killing Americans. The Iraq War was supposed to stop this sort of stuff. This hurts Bush.
The June 2004 Atlantic has a riveting graphic (pgs 54/55, paid online subscription only, unfortunately) which shows al Qaida is resurgent after 9/11. Kerry has an opportunity to publicize the ineffectiveness of the Bush response to al Qaida. This can turn the Berg incident in the long-term decisively against Bush.
One of Bush’s few remaining areas of strength in the polls is the War on Terrorism (hate that phrase, just like War on Drugs). How better to measure his effectivenes than the post 9/11 al Qaida terrorism upsurge.
Results. Results. Results. Swing voters tend to be results oriented. That’s why they are swing voters! They don’t have a strong ideological lens. They go with what works.
–tin-foil-hat: on–
I think the CIA manufactured the Berg video, not at the behest of the Bush campaign, but to attack it. They really, really don’t like this Administration. And, unlike us, they really do have data to back their feelings up. They just can’t show it to us.
–tin-foil-hat:off–
Good concise write-up of the aforementioned new CNN/Time poll from Ryan Lizza:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal?pid=1661
Let’s be vigilant. This is when Rove and crowd bring out the most brutal attacks. Remember what they did to McCain in S. Carolina. What horrible rumors will they start about Mr. Kerry?
I don’t see why anyone would expect the Berg video to help Bush. I suppose they imagine that this just proves “how barbaric the towel-heads are” so of course everyone will vote for Bush out of fear.
I haven’t seen the video. But if you see the video, does it make you feel safer? Does it make you feel like we are getting a handle on the terrorism problem? If not, the incumbent isn’t going to benefit.
The line from get-your-war-on about the War on Terror really rings true: “Remember when we had a problem with drugs so we declared a War on Drugs and now you can’t buy drugs anymore? It will be just like that!”
Kerry in a landslide.
I saw a couple of posts on the warblogs about the Berg video being a major public breakthrough. Lots of quotes from TV types and editors about viewer/reader feedback, and all of it was “more Berg, less Abu Ghraib.” Also, lots of high search traffic numbers for the Berg video, although, given how hard it is to find an unedited version on a mainstream news site, search engines are the only way for the morbidly curious to see it.
But, if the upsurge in public interest in Iraq and the War on Terror is real, I’m not so sure the conservatives are right that the Berg killing will galvanize the public and make them forgive the Abu Ghraib abuses (and the screw ups in Iraq too). Rather, I’d expect a lot of people who’ve only been half paying attention (if at all), and who may have given the administration the benefit of the doubt on terror or simply not considered it much, are going to think, “after everything in Iraq, all the dead soldiers and civilians, all the money, all the mixed up reasons and leaks and coverups and who said what to whom, all the gunmen and bombings and mutilated Americans … after all that, weren’t we supposed to get these f***ers?” If the Berg killing does anything other than simply reinforce the existing polarization, it’s gonna cause a LOT more re-evaluation by those folks – and they’re not gonna decide they want another four years of this.
After all, when you poll 1000 people nationwide, only a couple dozen actively read blogs or internet news or political commentary or watch Fox or CNN more than a few minutes a week. Most Americans still get their news from local tv, the network nightlies, the front page of a newspaper, late-night talk or the water-cooler. Even on-line, its mostly MSN or Yahoo frontpages, larded with wire stories where they only read the headlines.
The thing about the Berg video is that it is coming at the worst time for Bush: it upsets the inattentives and makes them want to support their government’s efforts to retalitate and get justice, so they decide they want to do something about it. But when they try to learn more, all they will hear now is Abu Ghraib, insurgencies, State-DoD infighting, and declarations of failure by military leaders and defecting neo-cons. And that will be very bad news for the Bushies indeed.
I wonder what they’re saying at a Republican version of this site. Bush took Kerry’s lead by doing a press conference, and he lost it without any significant moves by either Bush or Kerry.
I mean, really.
I was pessimistic about the polls a couple of weeks ago and Ruy told us to stay cool that Bush’s low approval numbers would eventually show up in the head to head matchups with Kerry. I think Ruy is being proven right and that we finally have the Bastard where we want him. I hope I’m not crowing too soon but I think this is the beginning of the end for Bush. I certainly hope so.
You said it SqueayRat! Amen.
I’m so tired of the idea of a War on Terrorism. It’s as if WWII was the war on blitzkrieg, or a War on Drugs. Just venting.
As Kos pointed out the other day, the reason Bush’s numbers on the War on Terrorism are sliding so fast is that he and everyone else in Administration have insisted that Iraq is the new front in the WOT. So when his Iraq approval tanks, so does his WOT approval. Serves him right for being a liar.
Most shocking thing about the new CNN/Time poll if I’m reading the story correctly is the public’s view of Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism:
“But even in the fight against terrorism — one of Bush’s strengths in many polls — this poll showed a split over whether Bush is doing a good job. Forty-six of those polled said he was, but 47 percent said he was doing a poor job.”
I’m sure Ruy will have the answer momentarily, but that has to be the first time there’s been a net negative on Bush’s handling of the terrorism threat. It might even be the first time his approval on that issue has dipped below 50%.
Still, the public prefers Bush to Kerry on the issue by 49 to 42, and despite dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, prefers Bush to Kerry by 46 to 43. Not to state the obvious, but Kerry’s big task, IMO, is to present himself as a viable wartime President and defender of national security. Makes me think more and more that he should pick Clark as his VP.
New CNN/Time poll out today has Kerry leading Bush 49-44, and with 6% for Nader:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/bush.kerry/index.html
It would be interesting to track these approval polls on the same graph as the poll where people believe that Saddam had nukes or had something to do with 9/11.
The media is not covering for Bush anymore, and this is the result.