but it was for perjury.
A reasonable argument could be made that it wasn't perjury. There are a lot of people, many, many young people, best I can tell, who don't see that as "sexual relations," which was the basis for the perjury claim. They see sexual relations as intercourse. That view is at least arguable. He might have looked at that variance in definition as opportunity for plausible deniability. But it didn't fly. I'm not defending him, just suggesting that the perjury charge wasn't quite a slam dunk, which further mitigates the seriousness of the offense somewhat.
That's more an explanation for bias than an argument against bias.
It was intended as an explanation. Here's further explanation and differentiation.
There's bias and then there's bias. Kind of like errors vs lies. The former is unconscious, not knowing, not deliberate, not malicious. That's not the same as being out to get someone, which is implied in recent charges of bias.
If you're a cosmopolitan person who regularly rubs shoulders with ordinary gay people and thus perceives them as normal, you are going to have some natural, righteous bias against a culture that would diminish them. If you're pro-life, you're going to have some natural, righteous bias against a culture that favors reproductive freedom. In both cases, and myriad potential others, you can't relate to those who, by your perceptions, would diminish us all by being otherwise. That's not the same thing as being from Oklahoma and being mindlessly biased against anyone from Kansas.
I believe the amount that he represents "a new and dangerous paradigm" is exaggerated
Perhaps. We call these things as we see them. We bring different experiences to the issue. For example, I posted earlier about how I grew up immediately after WWII in an immigrant community comprised of Eastern Europeans, Italians, and Jews, among others. It sensitized me to the danger of authoritarian regimes. Someone else might not have picked up on those characteristics in Trump or seen them as dangerous. I have the quote "First they came for..." indelibly etched into my brain, which is why I have always stuck up for everyone's rights. The point being that other people can see things we miss.
Different people have different risk tolerances, too, even if they see the same risks. The most generally useful thing I learned at EPA was how incompetent Americans, in general, are at assessing risks. I was chatting the other day about the recent immigrant flap with someone who insisted that the ban needed to be slapped on immediately as is was, not making any allowance for anyone in transit, because a terrorist might just slip in during that small window. He didn't care that the odds were minuscule. Far better to knowingly harm thousands of people than to take any risk at all that a terrorist might show up on that very day. Trump, unlike typical candidates, was a risk. How big a risk was unknown and is still unknown. People can have different views of both what constitutes a risk and the size of that risk.
MSMers are sophisticated people. They know how the world works, how our government works, what a big job the presidency is. The average voter, not so much. Independent of world view, they are much more qualified than the average voter to determine who is and isn't qualified to be president and they know it. That is experience that they bring to the table. They have covered the news, they know the people in it, and they know what it takes. Trump didn't even know that he'd be expected to live in the White House and work weekends. Big-time journalists are no more qualified than the average voter to determine government goals and priorities because each of us is equally entitled to have our interest represented but they do know far better than the rest of us what it takes to be president. They spoke to that, but it was interpreted not as not coming from their particular expertise but from their world view so those with a different world view not only discounted it but saw is as partisan bias. It might be hard for Republicans to differentiate, particularly in this mindlessly hostile partisan climate, but I'm quite sure I can tell the difference between being anti-Republican and being anti-Trump. The MSM has always marginally preferred Democrats but they have always at least gritted their teeth, made an effort to not be homers, and did their jobs, albeit imperfectly. This was different.
So we have soft bias vs hard bias, righteous vs mindless, experience-based vs partisan. Lotsa finer distinctions rather than just your standard, generic MSM bias perception.
To the extent that its true it runs in to a bit of a "boy who cried wolf" problem. He isn't the first Republican president or presidential candidate to be portrayed as representing a new dangerous paradigm.
I know, and that's the danger of all this partisan hyperbole we've allowed to flourish. If it REALLY IS a new paradigm, there's no further notch up, no room left to go. Of course, that works if one is only interested in assigning blame. Doesn't do much good against a wolf. |
