And "targeted by relentless opponents"?
My first observation of what was then, I think, a new phenomenon was the Clinton White House. There were parties who were "going after" the Clintons. The action seemed to be pure partisanship. I am not nor have I ever been a member of a political party. This was my first exposure to total disregard of the norm of objective evaluation of candidates and office holders. Maybe I was naive. Dunno. But this business of Hillary killing Vince Foster seemed outrageous to me. As was impeaching a president for a blow job, however tacky that might have been. So we had Clinton Derangement Syndrome, although it wasn't yet called that, followed by Bush Derangement Syndrome followed by Obama Derangement Syndrome. Dare I say "sad!"? My opinion is that much if not most of the rap on Hillary is a function of that. I don't much like politicians. There's no way one could live up to my standards of integrity and rise in politics to the level of presidential candidate so I have "defined deviancy down" when it comes to all of them. I have never seen anything about Hillary or her husband that was any worse than what I have come to expect. Thus I attribute the level of outrage about Hillary to CDS. Likewise Bush and Obama. There was plenty to dislike but none of them deserved that mindless onslaught. There are people, the majority of people, that we consider decent human beings, more or less, and then there are people who fail that test. Both Clintons, Bush, and Obama are all decent human beings, perhaps flawed, but normal. They are not perfect but they are not evil.
>>Hillary......remains within normal tolerances for a human being
What *exactly* does that mean?
Then there is another level, IMO, yet below decent and indecent human beings--those who are so lacking in enlightenment and/or dignity and/or intelligence that they barely qualify as human, functioning more as animals. Have you ever looked in on the people who appear on the Jerry Springer show? Having stumbled upon it once, I could not bear to watch. That's what I consider outside normal tolerances for a human being.
Trump may not have passed your laugh test but many people disagreed.
Yes, I know. Amazing. My disinterested self is beside itself with curiosity.
You said you preferred boredom to brinkmanship. A lot of people, especially Trump voters, don't have the luxury of being bored.
Yes, I figured that's what you meant. I understand that. And I can understand the feeling of having nothing left to lose, thus taking a calculated risk. But there's plenty left to lose. They could be out of the frying pan and into the fire. A calculated risk is not the same as mindless enchantment.
Compared to the MSM assaults on Trump?
I never thought that the MSM were all that biased. They just live in that cosmopolitan cultural bubble. You couldn't work for major news media without being immersed in it because they are housed in big cities. You simply don't know people who are different so you think everyone is like those around you. I recall my early days on SI when two parties were framing something very differently and each was saying, well, everyone thinks that. It's because everyone around each of them thinks that way so they assume that it is universal and inevitable and obvious. Other frames are invisible.
I think is was a sorry day for the media when they belatedly but actively engaged a side in this race. It's hard to say whether lasting damage to the institution has been done. But it was also a proud day. Once you come to see that the presidency is really possible for the likes of Trump, the world changes. If you see him as not just another candidate about whom you need to try to be objective but rather a sui generis threat to the country, patriotism overrides the role of news objectivity. I realize that there are those who consider Trump just another candidate, this round's version of Republican, rather than a new and different paradigm. I don't see how one can miss the drastic distinction, but if you do consider him just this season's Republican candidate, and if you already see the MSM as partisan, then of course you will see ordinary partisan bias on steroids against Trump in the MSM. But if he really is a new and dangerous paradigm, then the reaction to him is not Derangement Syndrome because it is realistic. If he really is a very serious threat to the country, then all the unfavorable reporting going on now is no longer partisan or cultural opposition but them doing their watchdog job. |
