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?
It is true that cell phones are not called. This probably has a very little impact in polls, since all polls are weighted by age groups.
It is possible that people who only own cell phones MIGHT BE more liberal then other young people, therefore making that age group seem less liberal then it really is. but this is just an assumption, i have’nt seen any evidence to back this up.
Speaking of partisan.
Good old Bill Schneider and “CNN” were nice today admitting the regime were doing JKs work for him this week, what with the various blunders regarding Iraqi Weapons programmes, Rumsfeld’s statements on Saddams’ links with ALQ. and lack of troops on the ground (Bremner)
Lastly they even admitted JFK ahead in the elec. college!!! It was something like 245 (JK) to a meagre 218 (for Pres Awol) with 6 ‘swing’ states going either way. Whooh way to go eh…?
DS-
The problem with weighting is knowing the appropriate weights to use, which has been a topic of some discussion around here.
Phone polls don’t target cell phones. The argument I’ve seen is that there are not that many people who just use cell phones, and that they can weight to get appropriate age relevant numbers. But you’re left with the question of whether those with just cell phones are typical of others of their age group.
Phatcat, Regarding:
“Zogby is NOT a partisan. It makes no sense for a polling company to undermine its credibility by favoring one party over another. Its reputation is based on its ability to deliver accurate results, not serve the Democratic or Republican party.”
As I’ve posted on this board previously, Zogby was well regarded as an independent pollster until 9/11; Since then he has increasingly become sympathetic to the views of his Bush Hating brother Jim, the head of an Arab American organ in the US.
We don’t know the weighting he uses, so for all we know, he can jimmy the numbers the way he wants them to come out. Moreover, I can assure you that he has many more Dems subscribing to his site than Reps, and that makes his numbers suspect – notwithstanding his claim of fudging, er, weighting, the numbers to balance party ID.
Perhaps most important, He claimed in not so subtle languange around the time of the Abu Gharib prison scandal that the race was Kerry’s to lose, thereby undermining his position as an independent pollster in the view of many. Given this previous statement, it’s in HIS interest to tweak his polls in order to support his pre-disposition.
But that’s OK, both sides have partisan pollsters in this fight: The Reps have Strategic Vision & McLaughlin, the Dems have Zogby, ARG & Demo Corp, among others.
Just because you’re a partisan pollster doesn’t mean you’re wrong – It just means people have to look at your polls through the prism of your bias.
Interesting discussion of interactive v. telephone polling. At least the interactive is weighted by party ID, something many of the telephone polls have ignored. I’ve heard that no cell phones are used in the telephone polls. Doesn’t that exclude the large number of us youngsters (& more liberals across the board) who only have a cell phone? Can anyone confirm or deny the assumption?
Thanks.
-DS
This links to Zogby’s summary of their interactive poll method:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=830
The results are weighted by party ID, so even if there are more Dems (which is probably not true), the weighting scheme compensates for that. Interactive polling is still relatively new and has its own unique set of problems, but telephone polling has problems that in many ways are worse. The only difference between the two right now is that telephone is more established in the public mind and therefore more acceptable, but as a practical matter online polling is as accurate or more accurate than telephone.
Zogby is NOT a partisan. It makes no sense for a polling company to undermine its credibility by favoring one party over another. Its reputation is based on its ability to deliver accurate results, not serve the Democratic or Republican party.
Mara, Regarding:
“Weak employment report this morning, and last month’s numbers were revised down. Bush is getting slapped from all sides. Pity.”
“Weak” and “getting slapped from all sides”, to be sure, are in the eyes of the beholder – No doubt your “sides” represent DNC types and mainstream media outlets already in the bag for Kerry.
That same report also showed that 236,000 jobs were added over the past year, bringing the net job loss since President Bush took office to 500,000, and not the 1,000,000 on Terry McCauliffe crib sheets and blaster Emails.
Thus Presidnet Bush is an a position tonight to respond this way when Kerry’s lips start moving on this issue: SINCE I TOOK OFFICE WE’RE DOWN 500,000 JOBS IN SPITE OF TERRORIST ATTACKS, COPRORATE SCANDALS, THE DOT BOMB MELTDOWN AND 2 WARS. MOREOVER, WE ARE IN A GREAT POSITION TO END BY FIRST TERM IN JAN 2005 AT BREAK EVEN OR WITH A SMALL NET GAIN (HERBERT HOOVER RIP).
I’m open to the argument that interactive polling will do better than telephone polling. Given declining participation rates in telephone surveys, I think there are some real questions there.
But I’ll simultaneously be skeptical of the interactives till I’ve seen more of a track record. I’m inclined to use interactives for trends (thus I’m encouraged by the movement toward Kerry from the last Zogby poll, while being unsure whether the overall numbers are on one side or the other of truth). And when interactive state polls are confirmed by phone polls, I’m encouraged that the answer is pretty close.
When there’s a conflict, I scratch my head and fall back on the “this thing is close. Keep working!” mantra.
So now there’s photos showing that Bush may well have worn a radio receiver to the first debate, in violation of the rules. Incredible.
This is excellent news. If tonight’s debate goes well, and I believe it will, I think Kerry will win by about 10 points.
Hey, I think I’m in there. I got a Zogby Interactive email last week and got polled. And I’m sure if they were trolling for LV’s, I was certainly included.
Then again, I live in Texas which isn’t a battleground state (yet!), but I really think that getting polled by Zogby went more towards getting my vote counted than actually showing up on election day (though I plan to do that too).
KE04 FOREVER!
Weak employment report this morning, and last month’s numbers were revised down. Bush is getting slapped from all sides. Pity.
As someone who desperately wants kerry to win, I still have to question the accuracy of interactive polling. What do you all think? It iseems quite possible to me that people could be seeking out to participate in these polls to influence the news coverage.
Some other encouraging news…SUSA shows Kerry up by 10% in Michigan, the Becker Institute shows Kerry up by 6% in New Hampshire. And Gallup has Colorado dead even, which suggests that we might just be able to pick that one off.
It’s close in Iowa, with SUSA showing Kerry up by 1%.
The bad news is that Gallup has Bush up by 3% in New Mexico and Wisconsin.
If the only changes from 2000 are that Kerry flips Ohio and New Hampshire to his side, but Bush gets New Mexico and Wisconsin, the race ends deadlocked, unless Colorado passes its proportional bill or one of Maine’s districts goes to Bush.
These polls are nice to see. But an 11.4% lead in New Mexico? When most polls show NM to be very close? Seems doubtful that Kerry could be so far ahead.
You got to be kidding me – Then again this is a partisan Dem site, so I guess it’s understandable. Read by bytes: This is an internet poll based exclusively on Zogby subscribers. It should only be used as propaganda in a DNC blaster Email, rather than a microcosm of our electorate.
Insofar as Zogby has become more of a partisan Dem, as opposed to being an independent poll taker, Reps are less likely to subscribe to his site – And thus less likely to participate in hiw “battleground” poll.
Zogby doesn’t publish internals for this poll but I bet his party ID mix is something like: Dems 50%, Reps 25%, Ind 25%. With a party mix like this, how can this poll be credible??