This column sort-of lauding Trump appeared in Politico on the 21st. It was written by Politico’s media editor in chief John F. Harris, and is entitled, “Time to Admit It: Trump Is a Great President. He’s Still Trying To Be a Good One.” Straddling the fence, but it’s an improvement. The idea is similar to the idea of Time’s “Man of the Year” award, which is that “greatness” is measured by impact, whether bad or good.
An excerpt:
But the second occasion of Trump taking the oath of office also put him in an entirely new light. For the first time, he is holding power under circumstances in which reasonable people cannot deny a basic fact: He is the greatest American figure of his era.
Let’s quickly exhale: Great in this context is not about a subjective debate over whether he is a singularly righteous leader or a singularly menacing one. It is now simply an objective description about the dimensions of his record.
So that establishes the somewhat neutral tone.
There’s also this:
Opponents have no choice but to acknowledge he and his movement represent a large historical argument — and then rally similarly large arguments to defeat it. Trump in 2020 showed himself ready to undermine democracy for his own purposes. Trump in 2024 showed that he is also a potent expression of democracy.
That second sentence reveals Harris’ bias. Did Trump “undermine democracy” in 2020, and did he try to defend it? And what of things like the Hunter laptop coverup; didn’t that “undermine democracy” tremendously, whether or not there was any meaningful fraud in the actual voting? In other words – what is democracy and how does one defend it? If a person truly believes for a host of reasons that an election is rigged, how does one “defend democracy”? That vital issue is ignored by Harris and so many others.
I like this part, though:
Have you ever known someone who was facing legal hurdles? In many cases, even if people ultimately win the case, they end up being consumed and shrunken by the searing nature of the experience. Imagine running for president amid huge civil suits, criminal prosecutions, and even felony convictions — then emerging from this morass as a larger figure than before. No one needs to admire the achievement to recognize that Trump is possessed by some rare traits of denial, combativeness and resilience.
But was it really “denial”? Or was it righteous anger at the kangaroo court proceedings, and faith that truth would ultimately prevail? Is it denial if Trump wins as he seems to have thought he would? Or was it the left that was in denial?