To the Trump fans hereabouts, I wonder if you might answer a question. When might someone criticize something about Trump without drawing the reaction that the person criticizing is not a partisan stooge? Is there any subject area that is open for consideration, any timing that might be acceptable, or tone, perhaps?
Context for the question from today's WaPo:
...I could pause here and write verbatim the emails and social-media comments certain to follow these observations. They’re as predictable as a 3 a.m. tweet from Trump Tower. This, too, is part of what’s frightening as we take our leave of 2016. People who voted for Trump refuse to critique his behavior through any lens but that of having won a contest.
“We won, you lost — get over it” is what now passes for a serious dialogue about matters of immense importance.
The notion that people who still express concerns — including three professors of psychiatry who’ve signed a letter suggesting the man isn’t well — are just sore losers is nonsense. When the president-elect of the United States so cavalierly threatens to unravel the fragile threads that hold civilization together, there are no winners. He or she who is not worried is not paying attention.
My personal stake, other than the fears herein described, is well and good. What’s bad for the republic is good for columnists and cartoonists, though this time, I admit, the muse’s generosity is less enjoyable.
These are also not simple partisan fears. Many Republicans I know are “slightly terrified,” as one Trump voter recently put it to me. That most, if not all, Democrats are, too, doesn’t have to mean they’re all excessively disappointed, though many surely are. Nor, as the incensed have written, does my non-support of Trump translate to support for Hillary Clinton. We call that a non sequitur.
washingtonpost.com
|
