Speculation ahead of the 2024 election continues to mount the same horse it has for the two previous ones: Trump will be participating in his third consecutive election, while the apparent rematch between him and Biden sets the stage for the first such scenario since President Eisenhower (R-KS) defeated Adlai Stevenson II (D-IL) in a landslide rematch in 1956.
With that, the same arguments, theories, and talking points continue to fatigue the public in the same way marquee elections tend to: in the most incessant, rewound, and tired ways possible.
This wouldn’t be such a big problem if it weren’t for two conditions: the mass media’s official-unofficial job of tiring the public so much that they’re just willing to settle on who creates the quietest and most digestible headlines, and if such intentional tiring of the public wasn’t based on complete lunacy and vitriol.
The public is more than entitled to their opinions on elected officials, especially with today’s cast of characters that truly make this political era something to behold, for better or worse, dealer’s choice.
Because of that, coupled with the exceptionally-short memories people seem to have nowadays, it seems the media and the general public are more intent on hanging everything up on the soundbites than actually observing governance.
Case in point: it seems many are pontificating what a second term of Trump would look like. Many assume the worst and are completely sold that Trump will be a complete dictator if he should return to Washington.
It’s almost like they said this when he ran in 2016. Before he was elected, he could either be given the benefit of the doubt or the worst could be assumed of him, and neither viewpoint would be completely invalid for the sole reason he had not yet acted in a political role yet. The makeup of his tenure was essentially anyone’s guess.
But the problem with positing the same theories now is that it completely undermines the fact that he was president for four years. He wasn’t a dictator, he didn’t take anyone’s rights away, he didn’t fundamentally change the country. It’s almost as if the worst assumptions the left made up didn’t come to fruition. And when the demand for hysteria outweighs the supply, the task then turns to our friends in mass media and Op-Ed-Land to pick up the tab.
Newsday recently ran an opinion piece by such a problem-solver by the name of John Crisp, a columnist for Tribune News Service. In his piece, he explores what a Biden victory would look like, versus that of a Trump victory. Crisp says that a Trump presidency “could” be the end of NATO, but “certainly” the “end” of Ukraine, and that his term would be “friendlier to authoritarians,” drawing a comparison to Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
On the other hand, Crisp says that a Biden re-election would be a “recommitment to the classic narrative of normal American politics, the tug-of-war between ‘big’ government and ‘small’ government.” Crisp seems to think that a party who has built a platform on removing the Senate filibuster, working towards one-size-fits-all election “reform,” and has routinely called for any commodity or service that people at least remotely like to be declared a “right” in our Constitution is a party who is concerned with preserving federalism.
But Crisp’s comments turn from hilariously tone-deaf to hopelessly cynical just as quickly as the left changes its mind on whether or not armed militias are the backbone of a strong country or a generational lapse in translation. Crisp invokes Trump’s recent use of the word “bloodbath” at his Ohio rally to wage a threat of his own, on behalf of his entire caucus, of course.
Trump said that if he is not elected, it’s “going to be a bloodbath for this country.”
If you actually watch the entire speech or read a transcript, it’s rather clear Trump was making the comments about the auto industry and that the “bloodbath” to which he was referring was purely economic. Even Fact Check says this is the “most plausible” explanation.
Crisp writes that “it’s naive to believe that the Trump era will end without bloodshed, and it’s fatal to fail to prepare for it. The question will be whether a new Biden administration and the millions who support it are prepared to commit the violence that will be required to suppress a second attempt at insurrection.”
Then he snidely writes: “Too dramatic? Don’t take my word for it. Last Saturday in Ohio, Trump said that if he is not elected, ‘It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.’ He should be taken seriously and literally.”
The first problem with Crisp’s crisp analysis is that he, evidently, didn’t watch the speech or read the transcript. Such callous disregard for simple fact-checking or baseline reading comprehension should disqualify having his random streams of consciousness published as op-eds.
The second part, and more glaringly obvious, is that his comment is markedly more threatening than what Trump said, by miles. Trump made no threat at anyone in his speech, but Crisp sure did in his article.
Crisp also overplays his hand like every leftist with a talking point nowadays in that he seems to think that mere mention of an “insurrection” is the trump card he needs to advocate for politically-motivated euthanasia and get off scot-free. Given the fact that the doors of the Capitol building could not be broken through even with a semi-truck full of absentee ballots, we’re not inclined to believe a bunch of angry conservatives simply “stormed” through them in a fit of rage. The doors were opened from the inside on January 6, 2021. It’s almost become the “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” argument of this era, except We know that a mob can’t break through doors like those of the Capitol.
Crisp and company lean on it like a crutch because it’s just the same as their claims of a ruthless, war-mongering Trump: manufactured. And yet, no one seems to bat an eye about Crisp’s obviously threatening comments calling Biden supporters to political violence in the case of a Trump victory; the same people who burned cities in 2016 when Trump won, the same people who burned cities and destroyed state Capitol buildings in the summer 2020 riots, the same people who have lost all empathy for their fellow Americans because of people like Crisp.
Newsday is within their right to re-publish guest columns as they receive them, of all differing opinions. But we wonder what the reaction would have been if a conservative commentator called for political violence as outrightly as Crisp did. We wonder if such a piece would have made it on their website at all. Perhaps the editorial board could take a closer look at what’s republished, just for posterity.
Only time will tell on that one, if anyone is bold enough to put themselves on a no-fly list to find out. But one thing is for sure: if people like Crisp say what they do and walk free, and believe us, they did during Trump’s first presidency, then Trump is, by very definition, not a dictator.
We’re not scared of Trump; we’re scared of people like Crisp and whatever “bloodbath” he thinks of in his spare time.
