People just can’t bring themselves to accept that the United States has chosen a complete lunatic to lead them and that one of its two major political parties has completely fallen in line.
One small thing that could be done would be for everyone to drop ‘leader of the free world’ as a descriptor for the American President. It is just a lie to use that phrase now and maybe, just maybe it would wake people up to the damage that has been done
I think this version/explanation in common among many journalists here in Europe. There is one model for writing about US politics and another one for writing about politics in Russia or Venezuela.
I suppose we can add magical thinking too - people who simply can’t believe things could be this bad, so they convince themselves it’s not.
We can also generalize this sanewashing to describe the way the Republican Party is treated by the media and others. The same three mechanisms are in use. David Corn’s “American Psychosis” extensively documents the decades-long march by the GOP to become Trump/Musk ready.
Kevin Drum wrote this in 2018:
“….Today, the Republican Party exists for one and only one purpose: to pass tax cuts for the rich and regulatory rollbacks for corporations. They accomplish this using one and only method: unapologetically racist and bigoted appeals to win the votes of the heartland riff-raff they otherwise treat as mere money machines for their endless mail-order cons.”
Whenever anyone suggests that Trump has any idea what he is doing, I think of the Peter Sellers movie "Being There". Except that Chance is completely benign, where Trump is completely malignant.
Thank-you! I was reading Dr. Drezner’s post and that movie popped in my mind, but all I could remember was Chauncy Gardner not the title of the movie. I viewed the movie as a comedy but the current situation is frightening.
The other reason for sane washing is that analysts/journalists/pundits have to *write* something rational in response and it's easier to explain What Trump Really Meant and then write a cogent, thoughtful analysis of that then write "Trump says stupid crazy things again" over and over again until they get to 800 words.
It's part of the larger obsessive myth of us good college educated lefties that If Only We Explain How Bad Trump Really Is Everyone Will Vote For/Believe US.
No, the takeaway needs to be there are very specific kinds of malignantly narcissistic maniacs in office & very specific psychological ways to deal with them. Not understanding that psychology is pretending otherwise.
While insightful I worry this dances around the original question of why. Yes, each particular author is going to have their own unique motivations. Why are they in total overwhelming the popular discourse? How are they published in the first place?
I know Dan is familiar with Michael Tae Sweeney from Bluesky’s (natty boh face) argument that Occam’s razor dictates that “media executives like Trump and are ok with what he’s doing” - while one need not agree with that conclusion I at least think it merits a comment.
But all of this "sanewashing" has been going on for a long time. Much of what he says is gibberish and delusional. Bulwark aptly described Trump's Super Bowl interview by Bret Baier as completely delusional. What mainstream media described it that way? Even pictures of him now make him look statesman-like. It is all so cringe-worthy that you don't know what to say anymore. We just got back from a 16-day trek, and the Europeans on it, even ones who have their own political challenges, are shocked about what has happened and is happening. It was very, very hard to explain it...
Also the Forward printed a piece arguing according to the headline that "At least it is an idea" but this does not cover for stone illegal so I did not read it.
Needed to start making dinner about 10 minutes ago but it was very welcome yesterday to see Thomas Friedman reduced to apoplexy. (I agree, the NYT has used words about this which are very loud for them but might be decorous by the standards of other publications)
"For my money this is more about the Gray Lady’s house style" and maybe that more than one writer outside that shop takes their tone and gets their cues from the NYT. And perhaps just maybe the Gray Lady's house style is due for some deeper critical analysis.
Mature, sane adults will always attempt to rationalize the mental functioning and behavior of a 2yo, especially when that 2yo is masquerading as a wealthy, healthy, powerful adult.
I was relieved to see your explanation of the "crazy ... or crazy like a fox" brand of sanewashing, because I read on opinion piece in The Forward that suggested Trump was trying to force other players to come up with solutions, and I couldn't help thinking, "WTF? He's not capable of such subtle political maneuvers."
I suppose it's no surprise people see what they want to see. That's probably why the same worn-out Trump tropes continue to circulate on forums like this. But to what end? Trump won--soundly.
Democrats look sillier everyday--what with their throwback protest songs and public cursing. It's so goofy, adolescent and vacuous. The wind has gone out of their sails--and all the schoolmarmish meddling in average citizen's lives, ridiculous on reflection, if not actually injurious to the body politic--systemic racism, decolonization, open borders, land back movements--REALLY? Who believes this stuff? Outside a diminishing circle of elites, nobody.
It's clear--though perhaps not to this writer--what's going on here. Trump provides the perfect foil. The dumber he's made out to be, the more superior his critics feel. It's an unhealthy obsession. A species of battered spouse syndrome.
This race to the bottom offers little enlightenment, much less understanding of the Trump phenomenon.
Here's a tip you won't take: stop making it about yourself. Answer some real questions: How does Trump inspire followers, settle wars, revive economies, shatter political cliches.
How does he differ from the common grifter who occupied the White House for the past four years, and whose slavish supporters thought he should be memorialized on Mt. Rushmore.
A: By sticking it to the libs! By telling them what they want to hear! By mocking the other! By using fear and anger!
Q: How does Trump settle wars?
A: To be determined, but I remember him saying Russia would stop invading on day one of his new term.
Q: How does Trump revive economies?
A: Tariffs? Saying lots of things, but doing nothing? Fear and anger? I remember him saying he was going to shoot inflation out of the sky… is that a plan?
Q: How does Trump shatter political cliches?
A: Saying whatever he just thought of in the moment and passing it off as proof that he is a stable genius.
I do agree that the left needs to get a better plan than “at least we aren’t Trump!” But that doesn’t mean Trump is doing a good job.
The Democrats gave up a lot when they failed to act on the bombing of Gaza. If that was acceptable, then how do you attack Trump's plans, which at least don't feature death and destruction?
But that's not the point. The point is the Dems have no moral ground to stand on. Again, how do they oppose ethnic cleansing, when they did nothing about bombing?
If that's not the point, why did you invoke it as such a critical part of your argument? "Which at least don't feature death and destruction" are your words.
It's not a "critical part", and can be eliminated without changing the argument. Trump's plan is loony, but no loonier than bombing Gaza into the stone age. The Dems lost all credibility on this one.
It was a critical part and shifting your point now doesn’t change that. Your new point is also problematic. The US didn’t bomb Gaza, Israel did. Trump would have the US take a direct role in ethnic cleansing, which is much worse.
Again, nothings "shifted". Details in a syllogism can be eliminated without changing the logic. Educate yourself or you'll continue to make this kind of error.
Now to your point. Nobody says the US bombed Gaza. But we gave them munitions and stood by while they used them. Now, what Trump may do might well be worse, but that's not my point. My point is both parties have forfeited their moral authority to protest. Anyone who says it's okay to bomb them but not to displace them is a hypocrite of the first order.
It’s fine to criticise Biden for being too soft on Netanyahu, but don’t kid yourself that Dems like Netanyahu or support what he’s done. That’s just lazy thinking.
In any case Trump’s silly idea would amount to a US-led and US-implemented displacement of millions. There is no equivalent concept from the Dems. Or any previous Republican administration for that matter.
Biden and the Dems weren't just "soft" on Netanyahu. And they might not "like" him. But so what? It didn't stop them from standing by while 50,000 people were killed. If Dems would allow that, what moral standing differentiates them from Repubs? The obvious answer: none.
The answer to the headline is simple isn’t it
People just can’t bring themselves to accept that the United States has chosen a complete lunatic to lead them and that one of its two major political parties has completely fallen in line.
One small thing that could be done would be for everyone to drop ‘leader of the free world’ as a descriptor for the American President. It is just a lie to use that phrase now and maybe, just maybe it would wake people up to the damage that has been done
Yes. I cringe and shudder every time I see the words "leader of the free world" even in the same paragraph as "Trump."
I think this version/explanation in common among many journalists here in Europe. There is one model for writing about US politics and another one for writing about politics in Russia or Venezuela.
I suppose we can add magical thinking too - people who simply can’t believe things could be this bad, so they convince themselves it’s not.
We can also generalize this sanewashing to describe the way the Republican Party is treated by the media and others. The same three mechanisms are in use. David Corn’s “American Psychosis” extensively documents the decades-long march by the GOP to become Trump/Musk ready.
Kevin Drum wrote this in 2018:
“….Today, the Republican Party exists for one and only one purpose: to pass tax cuts for the rich and regulatory rollbacks for corporations. They accomplish this using one and only method: unapologetically racist and bigoted appeals to win the votes of the heartland riff-raff they otherwise treat as mere money machines for their endless mail-order cons.”
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/nos-victi-reipublicae/
Whenever anyone suggests that Trump has any idea what he is doing, I think of the Peter Sellers movie "Being There". Except that Chance is completely benign, where Trump is completely malignant.
Thank-you! I was reading Dr. Drezner’s post and that movie popped in my mind, but all I could remember was Chauncy Gardner not the title of the movie. I viewed the movie as a comedy but the current situation is frightening.
The other reason for sane washing is that analysts/journalists/pundits have to *write* something rational in response and it's easier to explain What Trump Really Meant and then write a cogent, thoughtful analysis of that then write "Trump says stupid crazy things again" over and over again until they get to 800 words.
It's part of the larger obsessive myth of us good college educated lefties that If Only We Explain How Bad Trump Really Is Everyone Will Vote For/Believe US.
When will we FINALLY get past the “if-only” stage of what ever we’re in.
& because most people don't really grasp malignant narcissism.
It's beyond that: delusions and dementia, paranoia, etc.
Thanks for proving my point. Delusions & paranoia are malignant narcissism traits & shockingly narcissists get dementia too.
The takeaway is, there is a maniac in office and the country is pretending otherwise. Kubrick must be turning over in his grave.
No, the takeaway needs to be there are very specific kinds of malignantly narcissistic maniacs in office & very specific psychological ways to deal with them. Not understanding that psychology is pretending otherwise.
While insightful I worry this dances around the original question of why. Yes, each particular author is going to have their own unique motivations. Why are they in total overwhelming the popular discourse? How are they published in the first place?
I know Dan is familiar with Michael Tae Sweeney from Bluesky’s (natty boh face) argument that Occam’s razor dictates that “media executives like Trump and are ok with what he’s doing” - while one need not agree with that conclusion I at least think it merits a comment.
But all of this "sanewashing" has been going on for a long time. Much of what he says is gibberish and delusional. Bulwark aptly described Trump's Super Bowl interview by Bret Baier as completely delusional. What mainstream media described it that way? Even pictures of him now make him look statesman-like. It is all so cringe-worthy that you don't know what to say anymore. We just got back from a 16-day trek, and the Europeans on it, even ones who have their own political challenges, are shocked about what has happened and is happening. It was very, very hard to explain it...
They're shocked? Why? Most have very sizable movements similar to Trump's.
I call it normalizing the abnormal.
YMMV?
Your Mileage May Vary
Also the Forward printed a piece arguing according to the headline that "At least it is an idea" but this does not cover for stone illegal so I did not read it.
Needed to start making dinner about 10 minutes ago but it was very welcome yesterday to see Thomas Friedman reduced to apoplexy. (I agree, the NYT has used words about this which are very loud for them but might be decorous by the standards of other publications)
"For my money this is more about the Gray Lady’s house style" and maybe that more than one writer outside that shop takes their tone and gets their cues from the NYT. And perhaps just maybe the Gray Lady's house style is due for some deeper critical analysis.
Mature, sane adults will always attempt to rationalize the mental functioning and behavior of a 2yo, especially when that 2yo is masquerading as a wealthy, healthy, powerful adult.
I was relieved to see your explanation of the "crazy ... or crazy like a fox" brand of sanewashing, because I read on opinion piece in The Forward that suggested Trump was trying to force other players to come up with solutions, and I couldn't help thinking, "WTF? He's not capable of such subtle political maneuvers."
I suppose it's no surprise people see what they want to see. That's probably why the same worn-out Trump tropes continue to circulate on forums like this. But to what end? Trump won--soundly.
Democrats look sillier everyday--what with their throwback protest songs and public cursing. It's so goofy, adolescent and vacuous. The wind has gone out of their sails--and all the schoolmarmish meddling in average citizen's lives, ridiculous on reflection, if not actually injurious to the body politic--systemic racism, decolonization, open borders, land back movements--REALLY? Who believes this stuff? Outside a diminishing circle of elites, nobody.
It's clear--though perhaps not to this writer--what's going on here. Trump provides the perfect foil. The dumber he's made out to be, the more superior his critics feel. It's an unhealthy obsession. A species of battered spouse syndrome.
This race to the bottom offers little enlightenment, much less understanding of the Trump phenomenon.
Here's a tip you won't take: stop making it about yourself. Answer some real questions: How does Trump inspire followers, settle wars, revive economies, shatter political cliches.
How does he differ from the common grifter who occupied the White House for the past four years, and whose slavish supporters thought he should be memorialized on Mt. Rushmore.
That's the question that deserves real attention.
Q: How does Trump inspire followers?
A: By sticking it to the libs! By telling them what they want to hear! By mocking the other! By using fear and anger!
Q: How does Trump settle wars?
A: To be determined, but I remember him saying Russia would stop invading on day one of his new term.
Q: How does Trump revive economies?
A: Tariffs? Saying lots of things, but doing nothing? Fear and anger? I remember him saying he was going to shoot inflation out of the sky… is that a plan?
Q: How does Trump shatter political cliches?
A: Saying whatever he just thought of in the moment and passing it off as proof that he is a stable genius.
I do agree that the left needs to get a better plan than “at least we aren’t Trump!” But that doesn’t mean Trump is doing a good job.
The Democrats gave up a lot when they failed to act on the bombing of Gaza. If that was acceptable, then how do you attack Trump's plans, which at least don't feature death and destruction?
If you think the ethnic cleansing of Gaza isn't going to involve death and destruction, you're not much of an expert.
But that's not the point. The point is the Dems have no moral ground to stand on. Again, how do they oppose ethnic cleansing, when they did nothing about bombing?
If that's not the point, why did you invoke it as such a critical part of your argument? "Which at least don't feature death and destruction" are your words.
It's not a "critical part", and can be eliminated without changing the argument. Trump's plan is loony, but no loonier than bombing Gaza into the stone age. The Dems lost all credibility on this one.
It was a critical part and shifting your point now doesn’t change that. Your new point is also problematic. The US didn’t bomb Gaza, Israel did. Trump would have the US take a direct role in ethnic cleansing, which is much worse.
Again, nothings "shifted". Details in a syllogism can be eliminated without changing the logic. Educate yourself or you'll continue to make this kind of error.
Now to your point. Nobody says the US bombed Gaza. But we gave them munitions and stood by while they used them. Now, what Trump may do might well be worse, but that's not my point. My point is both parties have forfeited their moral authority to protest. Anyone who says it's okay to bomb them but not to displace them is a hypocrite of the first order.
It’s fine to criticise Biden for being too soft on Netanyahu, but don’t kid yourself that Dems like Netanyahu or support what he’s done. That’s just lazy thinking.
In any case Trump’s silly idea would amount to a US-led and US-implemented displacement of millions. There is no equivalent concept from the Dems. Or any previous Republican administration for that matter.
Stop being silly.
Biden and the Dems weren't just "soft" on Netanyahu. And they might not "like" him. But so what? It didn't stop them from standing by while 50,000 people were killed. If Dems would allow that, what moral standing differentiates them from Repubs? The obvious answer: none.
Which country responded appropriately to Netanyahu?
158 of them:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/12/un-demands-permanent-ceasefire-in-gaza-how-did-your-country-vote
Maybe reading comprehension isn't your strong suit....
I'm an expert. What are you?
You're an expert in what? Russian propaganda? Please go away and leave the discussion up to serious people. You're not getting any converts here.