RUTHFULLY YOURS

I’ve paid very little attention to the Donald Trump boomlet. I confess to enjoying Kevin and Jonah’s columns on the subject, but I’d enjoy their columns if they were writing about toothpicks. When asked about it, I’ve told people, “Ignore it and it will flame out on its own.” I’ve never met Donald Trump that I can recall. He’s a big New York personality and I’m Bronx born and bred, so of course I’m familiar with him. But I’ve never seen his TV shows, his news interviews are vapid, and I haven’t taken his presidential campaign any more seriously than I took his high-profile handwringing about running for this or that in the past.

What about all this psychoanalysis of the conservative base? We’ve heard the trope: Trump’s poll numbers can’t be ignored because they are not so much about him as about the anger he is tapping into – anger at the bipartisan Beltway political establishment. Well, as anyone who cares to read my columns knows, I am not exactly a stranger to that anger. I don’t need Donald Trump to draw my attention to it, and I don’t see him as a viable vehicle for representing it since he has a history of supporting positions and politicians responsible for a lot of that anger.

Besides, at this stage, 15 months before the 2016 election, the 20 percent mark at which Trump hovers is not very impressive for someone as well known as he is (a relatively unknown Carly Fiorina, for example, has a much higher ceiling than a Trump with negatives in the 60s). So I haven’t been able to work up much interest. I don’t believe even the Republicans are self-destructive enough to nominate someone who would spend the whole race explaining the boatload of money he’s donated to his opponent and other Democrats.

It appears the inevitable peter-out is happening. Better earlier than later, I suppose – with all the damage being done to the country in Washington, it’s ridiculous to spend all this time on a circus. But I must say the latest Trump misadventure is doing no one proud.

Trump said an asinine thing about Megyn Kelly – actually, a series of asinine things, but one in particular that stood out. No point in repeating it; I’ll simply note that Trump has implausibly denied what he said, and more plausibly (though not convincingly) denied that he was suggesting the anchor questioned him harshly because it was “that time of the month.” And please spare me about how his meaning is indisputable. If Bill Clinton had said what Trump said, we’d be treated to weeks of analysis regarding the audibility and epistemology of “whatever” versus “wherever”; Clinton’s indignant denials that anything offensive was intended would be accepted as dispositive by plenty of media folk. Eventually, we’d be somewhere between “I’m sorry if you misunderstood me” and “mistakes were made,” and the commentariat would “move on.”

The Trump circus is a bigger story today because Erick Erickson, with a pique that may have been just a wee bit calculated, ceremoniously disinvited The Donald from the Red State confab in Atlanta at which many in the GOP field are speaking. Kevin has already noted that Erick has a track record of statements that might make Trump blush. I would only add that this record includes provocative remarks about male dominance to which Megyn famously took offense – he took a lot of heat, and a cynic might figure he’s trying to make amends.

Some observations.

1. Donald Trump, as is his wont, has not apologized. To my mind, an apology is in order regardless of whether he said what he is accused of saying (he did) or meant what he is accused of meaning. (I am open to the argument he didn’t mean it because if he did, it suggests pathology – coming so soon after his initial refusal to apologize for bizarre remarks he made about Senator John McCain’s ordeal as a prisoner of war).

Trump should apologize because a gentleman does not speak the way he spoke; it was uncivil and unmanly. Trump has obnoxiously attempted to cover his asininity in the glory of a crusade against “political correctness.” Insisting on gentlemanly behavior, however, is not political correctness – it is correctness. (I tweeted that observation earlier in admiring reaction to Jonah’s post explaining something that should never have to be explained: rudeness is not a conservative principle.)

2. I don’t understand how so many automatically leap from the premise (actually, the fact) that Trump said something offensive to the conclusion that he should therefore have been disinvited from the Red State forum. Look, it’s Erick’s party and he is well within his rights to invite or disinvite anyone he chooses. If I were he, I hope that I’d bear in mind the indulgence I’d received for my own similar offenses, but that’s for him to decide. My point is that it was poor judgment, in principle and under the circumstances, to withdraw the invitation.

It happens that Megyn is a friend of mine. I don’t know if she’s had any reaction today, but I am betting she would never disinvite Trump from a Fox appearance over an offensive remark made about her or a colleague; she’d have him come in, confront him, let him try to explain himself, and let the audience be the judge. That’s what I think Red State should have done.

It’s a candidates’ forum (at least in part), Trump is still a candidate (at least for now), a number of people probably attended the event because he was advertised as a speaker, and it would have been worthwhile to put him to a choice of apologizing or trying to justify himself. It would have told us a lot about him but maybe even more about people who, for whatever reason, see him as a credible conservative candidate at this critical juncture in our history.

3. The worst thing about all this has been the competition among other candidates regarding who could pretend to be the most offended. I was sorry to see National Review’s reporting get caught up in it.

I confess partiality to Senator Ted Cruz, and this certainly informs my take.

An earlier post on the Corner announces, “Cruz Praises Megyn Kelly, Does Not Condemn Trump.” Let’s put aside the accolades for Megyn, since that seems to be a box candidates feel required to check today. Asked directly about Trump, Cruz is reported to have said, “I think every candidate should treat everyone else with civility and respect.” The unmistakable implication is that Trump was uncivil and disrespectful. Cruz did not say that explicitly, but it was patently clear that this is what he meant. He argued, correctly, that the episode was a distraction from the catastrophic problems facing the country and then moved on to one in particular – Iran.

Describing this transition, we report that Cruz “shamelessly changed the subject.”

Now, let me preface this by saying that National Review’s reporters (very much including Alexis Levinson) do a fabulous job, especially covering GOP goings on in Washington. Furthermore, if we were going to compile a list of National Review writers who have occasion to wince now and then over the way they’ve described breaking news, yours truly would be at the top.

Let’s also acknowledge the politics here –this is, after all, political reporting. There is a theory, probably well-founded, that Cruz calculates that when The Donald implodes, Cruz stands to inherit much of Trump’s support since Cruz is a candidate (maybe the candidate) who authentically represents the anger Trump has tapped into. Therefore, the theory holds, he is trying to avoid offending Trump’s supporters by taking shots at their champion, which would only provoke Trump to lash out at him, alienating voters who like Trump. And of course, Cruz has not worn kid gloves in his attacks on the Republican establishment, so the implication is – Heavens to Betsy! – there may be some political hypocrisy at work.

Fine. But “shamelessly changed the subject”? In a post prior to the Cruz post, we report that Mike Huckabee lauded Megyn, declined to attack Trump, and got testy (or as testy as the amiable former governor ever gets) because the Trump questions were distracting from his campaign themes. This is almost exactly what Cruz did – the difference being that Huck, unlike Cruz, does not appear to have suggested that Trump was uncivil and disrespectful. Yet the Huck post conveys a sense of admiration for how the governor sidestepped the Trump mess, while the Cruz post portrays the senator as an opportunist.

There’s nothing wrong with reporting that a politician may be acting opportunistically when the circumstances colorably suggest it. But how about a little consistency? The remaining candidates at Red State poured it on, one thicker than the next: Trump is offensive, a coward, a Clinton agent, a danger to the GOP; Megyn is the best, the brightest, the hardest working, etc., etc. Now, all those things may be true, but does a single one of these candidates really harbor these passionate feelings about the antagonist and the protagonist in this drama? Were they really singing Megyn’s praises on Thursday night after getting grilled for a couple of hours?

Why do I suspect that maybe, just maybe, they were shamelessly and opportunistically expressing outrage they calculated would please the voters they are courting?