CSotD: The Fact-Free Election
Skip to comments
Gary Varvel is only one of many cartoonists who may be giving voters more credit than they deserve, but his commentary is general enough to be a good jumping off spot for today's rant.
That is, he's right: Trump seems determined to destroy his own chances, blowing holes in his campaign at every opportunity and sometimes when no particular opportunity had presented itself.
The question I have is whether it makes any difference to voters.
Most cartoonists seem to be focused at the moment on the tax issue, some in simple mockery, others, like Nick Anderson, using it to challenge Trump's oft-claimed but never-proven assertion that he can run the nation's economy because he's done such a bang-up job of running his own businesses.
But if you follow the commentary on social media, Trump loyalists don't seem to care that he has left behind him a string of bankruptcies, of unpaid workers and subcontractors and of one failure after another. And it's not that they see the facts and dismiss them: They don't even acknowledge them.
Trump's claims that his business experience qualifies him to be president should touch off a lively and worthwhile debate, but he refuses to reveal the details of that experience and his followers don't care.
Whether or not ducking his taxes makes him smart, declining to put the facts into play certainly does, because he knows he is living in a fact-free zone, and, by refusing to engage on the facts, he exploits that just as relentlessly as he does the tax code.
Stuart Carlson attempts to challenge the fairness of building an empire on a taxpayer-supported system while refusing to be a taxpayer, but we saw this four years ago, with the "You didn't build this" argument. Democrats attempted to point out that the successes of private industry were made possible by public-sector efforts and the result was not conversation or debate but outraged denial.
With all due respect to Carlson – whose observations are perfectly valid — I don't see this approach having any more impact this time around, nor do I see Jeff Danziger's piece doing more than giving comfort to those who already believe it.
Trump loyalists are loyal to Trump and aren't here to debate policy. There is, they willingly acknowledge, much wrong in the country, but the solution is not pages of policy but the election of a hero, and they've got one.
As for the problems, these are people who are still complaining about welfare issues that were resolved with the sweeping reforms of 20 years ago, and who are convinced that we are being flooded with immigrants despite the choke point that keeps us from even fulfilling the modest pledges we've made.
People believe what they want to believe, and it doesn't help when sloppy reporting provides them with the chance to scream "Fix!"
Trump's comments on PTSD and suicide among veterans were inelegant, but the level of "victim blaming" is far less than is being claimed, until you add it to his statements about POWs not being heroes and his comparison of his business dealings as equal sacrifices with the parents whose children die in combat.
Still, when you quote out of context, you provide an opportunity to avoid the issue and focus on the reporting instead.
This matters: The President of the United States can get away with being a loveable fumblemouth, as we've recently proven, but he can't be a hateful one, and let's hope we don't have to see how that plays out.
That is a conversation worth having, as is the conversation about what we owe our nation besides standing up during its anthem. Framing this conversation accurately matters, even if it never quite gets off the ground anyway.
When a candidate puts his loyalty to maximizing profit above his loyalty to helping finance the nation's public expenditures, his loyalists will cheerfully go along. Why should anybody pay more taxes than they have to? Would you?
Danziger offers a challenging viewpoint, but is anyone listening who didn't already agree?
We're about a month away from the election, and there seems little chance of shaking the faith of True Believers on either side of the divide, but it's still worth challenging the people who claim to see no difference between the candidates.
Demanding to see Trump's tax forms will not produce the tax forms, but it might shake a few people into wondering what else he has to hide, and challenging his claim to be qualified on the basis of his business dealings seems worth pursuing for much the same reasons.
Still, if there is an "October Surprise" coming, it will be a sudden shift to consideration of the facts in a campaign that has, so far, been free of them.
Comments 3
Comments are closed.