This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

For two reasons, I was interested in the column reprinted below:

• I am a former journalist – a newspaper reporter – so I have been concerned about the faulty way many outlets today are covering a fanatic, Donald Trump, who wants to be president again.
• After writing for a newspaper, I worked for about 40 years in politics, so today I am a bit of a political junkie, concerned about the current state of politics – read governance – in America, which relies mostly on assault and innuendo, not the tough work of finding middle ground on public policy issues, either in Washington, D.C., or in Oregon’s capitol, Salem, where I live.

So it was Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin captured my attention in a piece that appeared under a headline I stole for this blog.

Rather than quote part of and then comment on Rubin’s work, it was so good that I chose to reprint it here, with, obviously, due attribution to Rubin for her sagacity.

Here is the column.

*********

This week, I look at the media’s worst error in covering four-time-indicted former president Donald Trump. 

What caught my eye

After missing the significance of the MAGA movement in 2016, innumerable mainstream outlets spent thousands of hours, gallons of ink and billions of pixels trying to understand “the Trump voter.”

How had democracy failed them? What did the rest of us miss about these Americans?

The journey to Rust Belt diners became a cliché amid the newfound fascination with aggrieved White working-class Americans.  But the theory that such voters were economic casualties of globalization turned out to be false.  Surveys and analyses generally found that racial resentment and cultural panic, not economic distress, fueled their affinity for a would-be strongman.

Unfortunately, patronizing excuses (e.g., “they feel disrespected”) for their cult-like attachment to a figure increasingly divorced from reality largely took the place of exacting reporting on the right-wing cult that swallowed a large part of the Republican Party.

In an effort to maintain false equivalence and normalize Trump, many media outlets seemed to ignore that much of the GOP left the universe of democratic (small-d) politics and was no longer a traditional democratic (again, small-d) party with an agenda, a governing philosophy, a set of beliefs.  

The result:  Trump was normalized and a false equivalence between the parties was created.

Instead of reporting Trump’s wild assertions as legitimate arguments, media outlets should explain how Trump rallies are designed to instill anger and cultivate his hold on people who believe whatever hooey he spouts.  How different are these events from what we see in grainy images of European fascist rallies in the 1930s?

When Trump apologists insist that tens of millions of people cannot be part of a cult, it’s critical to remember mass fascist movements that swept entire populations.

The appeals to emotion, the specter of a malicious enemy, the fear of societal decline, the fascination with violence, and the elation just to be in the presence of the leader are telltale signs of frenetic fascist gatherings.

Trump’s language (“poisoning the blood”) even mimics Hitler’s calls for racial purity.

Even as Trump shows his authoritarian colors and his rants become angrier, more unhinged and more incoherent, his followers still meekly accept inane assertions (e.g., convicted January 6, 2021, rioters are “hostages,” magnets dissolve in water, wind turbines drive whales insane).

More of the media should be covering this phenomenon as it would any right-wing authoritarian movement in a foreign country.

Though polls continue to show Trump’s iron grip on his followers, mainstream outlets spend far too little attention on why and how MAGA members cling to demonstrably false beliefs, excuse what should be inexcusable conduct, and treat him as infallible.

Outlets should routinely consult psychologists and historians to ask the vital questions:  How do people abandon rationality?  What drives their fury and anxiety?  How does an authoritarian figure maintain his hold on followers?  How do ideas of racial purity play into it?

Media outlets fail news consumers when they do not explain the authoritarian playbook that Trump employs.  Americans need media outlets to spell out what is happening.

“Authoritarian, not democratic dynamics, hold the key to Trump’s behavior as a candidate now and in the future,” historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat wrote.  “The main goals of his campaign events are not to advance policy proposals but rather to prop up his personality cult, circulate his lies, and emotionally retrain Americans to see violence as positive and even patriotic.”

Plenty of experts are available to dissect the phenomenon.  Expert Steven Hassan, for example, explained to the Atlantic’s Peter Sagal that, as Sagal wrote, “the MAGA movement checks all the boxes of his ‘BITE’ model of cult mind control — behavior, information, thought, and emotional control.”

Sagal continued, “Like all cult leaders, Trump restricts the information his followers are allowed to accept; demands purity of belief (beliefs that can change from moment to moment, as per his whims and needs); and appeals to his followers through the conjuring of primal emotions — not just fear but also joy.”

Another expert, Daniella Mestyanek Young, explained:  “The first rule of cults is you’re never in a cult.  The second rule of cults is the cult will forgive any sin, except the sin of leaving.  The third rule of cults is even if he did it, that doesn’t mean he’s guilty.”

A message from a mentally sound, serious leader (President Joe Biden) cannot be equated with the message of an authoritarian who seeks absolute power through a web of disinformation and, if need be, violence.

Instead of probing why MAGA followers, despite all evidence to the contrary, deny that Trump was an insurrectionist and a proven liar, pollsters insist on asking Trump followers which candidate they think might better handle, for example, health care.

The answer for Republicans (Trump! Trump!) has nothing to do with the question (Trump never had a health-care plan, you recall), and the question has nothing to do with the campaign.

The race between an ordinary democrat candidate and an unhinged fascist is not a normal American election.  At stake is whether a democracy can protect itself from a malicious candidate with narcissistic tendencies or a rational electorate can beat back a dangerous, lawless cult of personality.

Unfortunately, too many media outlets have not caught on or, worse, simply feign ignorance to avoid coming down on the side of democracy, rationality, and truth.

**********

And my closing comments are these: 

1. Given Rubin’s rational explanation, a lot rides on the next presidential election.  Many of us may not like the apparent choices – Biden and Trump.  But one, Biden, wants to preserve democracy.

The other, Trump, wants to make government in his own image, which is that it is a dictatorship, subject to his whims and caprice – and those change nearly every minute.  He runs a cult.  And the media, not to mention all of us as voters, should recognize that reality.

•  As a former journalist, I grew up with the notion that, as a reporter, you covered both sides rather than give one side the benefit.

But, today, this is called “both-sideism” and it works against the kind of rational, real coverage Trump deserves as a cult leader.  So, the media needs to reckon with this change of approach – and, if it does, we’ll all be better for it.