Let me start with three inconvenient observations, based on dozens of conversations around Washington over the past year:
First, people who go into the White House to have a meeting with President Donald Trump usually leave pleasantly surprised. They find that Trump is not the raving madman they expected from his tweetstorms or the media coverage. They generally say that he is affable, if repetitive. He runs a normal, good meeting and seems well-informed enough to get by.
Second, people who work in the Trump administration have wildly divergent views about their boss. Some think he is a deranged child, as Michael Wolff reported. But some think he is merely a distraction they can work around. Some think he is strange, but not impossible. Some genuinely admire Trump. Many filter out his crazy stuff and pretend it doesn't exist.
My impression is that the Trump administration is an unhappy place to work because there is a lot of infighting and often no direction from the top. But this is not an administration full of people itching to invoke the 25th Amendment.
Third, the White House is getting more professional. Imagine if Trump didn't tweet. The craziness of the past weeks would be out of the way, and we'd see a White House that is briskly pursuing its goals: the shift in our Pakistan policy, the shift in our offshore drilling policy, the fruition of our Islamic State policy, the nomination for judgeships, and the formation of policies on infrastructure, DACA, North Korea and trade.
It's almost as if there are two White Houses. There's the Potemkin White House, which we tend to focus on Trump berserk in front of the TV, the lawyers working the Russian investigation, and the press operation. Then there is the Invisible White House that you never hear about, which is getting more effective at managing around the distracted boss.
I sometimes wonder if the Invisible White House has learned to use the Potemkin White House to deke us while it changes the country.
I mention these inconvenient observations because the anti-Trump movement, of which I'm a proud member, seems to be getting dumber. It seems to be settling into a smug fairy-tale version of reality that filters out discordant information. More anti-Trumpers seem to be telling themselves a Madness of King George narrative: Trump is a semi-literate madman surrounded by sycophants who are morally, intellectually and psychologically inferior to people like us.
I'd like to think it's possible to be fervently anti-Trump while also not reducing everything to a fairy tale.
The anti-Trump movement suffers from insularity. Most of the people who detest Trump don't know anybody who works with him or supports him. And if they do have friends and family members who admire Trump, they've learned not to talk about this subject. So they get most of their information about Trumpism from others who also detest Trumpism, which is always a recipe for epistemic closure.
The movement also suffers from lowbrowism. Fox News pioneered modern lowbrowism. The modern lowbrow (think Sean Hannity or Dinesh D'Souza) ignores normal journalistic or intellectual standards. He creates a style of communication that doesn't make you think more; it makes you think and notice less. He offers a steady diet of affirmation, focuses on simple topics that require little background information, and gets viewers addicted to daily doses of righteous contempt and delicious vindication.
We anti-Trumpers have our lowbrowism, too, mostly on late-night TV. But anti-Trump lowbrowism burst into full bloom with the Wolff book.
Wolff doesn't pretend to adhere to normal journalistic standards. He happily admits that he's just tossing out rumors that are too good to check. As Charlie Warzel wrote on BuzzFeed, "For Wolff's book, the truth seems almost a secondary concern to what really matters: engagement."
The ultimate test of the lowbrow is not whether it challenges you, teaches you or captures the contours of reality; it's whether you feel an urge to share it on social media.
In every war, nations come to resemble their enemies, so I suppose it's normal that the anti-Trump movement would come to resemble the pro-Trump movement. But it's not good. I've noticed a lot of young people look at the monotonous daily hysteria of we anti-Trumpers, and they find it silly.
This isn't just a struggle over a president. It's a struggle over what rules we're going to play by after Trump. Are we all going to descend permanently into the Trump standard of acceptable behavior?
Or are we going to restore the distinction between excellence and mediocrity, truth and a lie? Are we going to insist on the difference between a genuine expert and an ill-informed blowhard? Are we going to restore the distinction between those institutions like the Congressional Budget Office that operate by professional standards and speak with legitimate authority, and the propaganda mills that don't?
There's a hierarchy of excellence in every sphere. There's a huge difference between William F. Buckley and Sean Hannity, between the reporters at the New York Times and a rumor-spreader. Part of this struggle is to maintain those distinctions, not to contribute to their evisceration.
David Brooks is a columnist for the New York Times.
Editorial on 01/12/2018
Print Headline: Decline of anti-Trumpism