This is not normal.
Many in the media, mostly on the liberal side, have
come up with a verb that captures their disgust at the man who will be
America’s 45th president.
It’s a word that clearly signals that they will
remain in opposition, in a state of perpetual outrage, that, in truth,
they don’t fully accept the results of the election.
Donald Trump, they say, should not be normalized.
To be “normalized” would be to be treated as just
another president-elect putting together his Cabinet and White House
staff. A normalized process would involve skeptical coverage, aggressive
coverage, but would fit within the template of previous transitions.
What those who decry the normalization of Barack
Obama’s successor are really saying is Trump is not a legitimate
president, and doesn’t deserve to be treated as such.
And the reason I find this troubling is that there’s
an echo of what some opponents did to the nation’s first black
president. He was unfit, he wasn’t legitimate, he was a Muslim, he
wasn’t born here, and we had to “take back our country”—that became a
very common rallying cry.
But somehow it’s now okay to say that Trump isn’t normal?
Look, I get that Trump was part of a divisive and
polarizing campaign, and that some Hispanics, blacks, Muslims, women and
others felt insulted by his candidacy. No one’s saying they suddenly
have to love the guy.
But Trump won the election fair and square, despite
his sometimes inflammatory tone. Sixty million Americans voted for him.
For those who were angry when Mitch McConnell said his top priority was
to defeat Obama, doesn’t Trump deserve a shot at a normal presidency?
Don’t we all have a stake in his success?
That doesn’t mean refraining from criticizing his
policies or personnel picks. But does aggressively covering a president
in the same fashion as previous presidents really amount to normalizing
him?
Slate is a leader in the non-normalization camp:
“When Donald Trump won the presidency, our
vocabularies didn’t bulge to accommodate the reality that this ignorant
geyser of hate had ascended to the world’s yugest leadership position.
We’re left pressing the same worn-out words into service, paradoxically
reminding each other: This is not normal.
"In an essay for the New York Times Magazine, Teju
Cole wrote, of the days following Trump’s win, ‘All around were the
unmistakable signs of normalization in progress. So many were falling
into line without being pushed. It was happening at tremendous speed,
like a contagion.’ David Remnick told CNN, ‘We’ve normalized [the
results] already. Less than a week after the election is over, suddenly
Washington is going about its business talking about who’s going to get
what jobs. You would think that Mitt Romney had won. It’s a
hallucination.’… ‘He is not normal,’ insisted John Oliver over the
weekend. ‘He is abnormal.’ Shouts of ‘normalization’ have become
normalized.
“The frame we’re putting around the president-elect
emphasizes how freakishly outside the mainstream his views and behavior
lie. That’s useful, up to a point. But in appealing to what’s typical
rather than what’s right or true, we’re missing an opportunity to make a
stronger statement. Trump himself aims to center white men as ‘normal’
and push everyone else to the periphery.”
Ah, now we get to the real agenda: It’s racial. It’s about putting white men back in charge and the hell with everyone else.
Salon is on the same page:
“Oprah Winfrey, in an interview with Entertainment Tonight, said
Trump’s recent visit to the White House gave her ‘hope’ and suggested he
has been ‘humbled’ by the experience. The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins told
his readers to ‘calm down’ and that Trump wasn’t the ‘worst thing.’ His
college, Nouriel Roubini, insisted the Oval Office will ‘tame’ Trump.
People magazine ran a glowing profile of Trump and his wife Melania
(though a former People writer accused Trump of sexual assault).
The New York Times’ Nick Kristof dubiously added that
we should ‘Grit our teeth and give Trump a chance.’ The
mainstays—Washington Post, New York Times and CNN—while frequently
critical, are coving Trump’s transition as they would any other.
President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have all issued
statements recognizing Trump’s legitimacy and pleading we give him a
chance.
“Overall there’s a creeping sense that we’re stuck
with Trump and we should make it ‘work’ in some type of do-goody liberal
appeal to patriotism.
“But this is wrong, both tactically and ethically.
Trump isn’t normal and he should never be treated as such, regardless of
what President Obama and Clinton and Sanders say.”
Wow. Even saying give the guy a chance is considered a failure. Who appointed Salon as the arbiter of normality?
The
Boston Globe’s Renee Graham views Trump more as a vessel:
“Ever since the election that shook up the world, one
refrain in columns, commentaries, and social media posts has been
incessant: ‘Now that Donald Trump is the president-elect, we cannot
allow him to be normalized.’ It’s a defiant, noble stance, but it
overlooks a very crucial point: Had racism, bigotry, and sexism not been
normalized for centuries, Trump would not be weeks away from becoming
the 45th president of the United States.
“Make no mistake: Trump’s election is as disastrous
as an Old Testament plague. His election has sparked anger and anxiety,
driving thousands nationwide into the streets in protest. Between 1 a.m.
and 2 a.m. last Wednesday, when Trump’s victory was inevitable, the
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline recorded a 250 percent spike in
calls. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate crimes, has
logged more than 200 reports of harassment and intimidation since
Election Day.”
And this is Trump’s fault? This is the same kind of circular reasoning that tried to blame Ferguson on Obama.
From the right,
National Review's Jonah Goldberg says it's the mainstream media that normalized Trump during the primaries:
"Trump was good for ratings ... The mainstream media
and numerous liberal pundits loved Trump’s impact on the GOP for the
same reason bored teenagers like to throw lit matches into dumpsters:
Garbage fires are fun to watch. The third reason is closely related to
the second: The media thought Trump was more likely lose to Hillary
Clinton."
How'd that work out for them?
If Donald Trump, with no political experience, rises
to the height of the office and can compromise with competing factions,
he will be a successful president. If Trump does not, his administration
will fail to live up to his promises. That, to my mind, is a more
normal outlook than insisting that the country just elected an abnormal
businessman.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.