At New York magazine, Jonathan Chait uses my criticism of Joe Biden to engage in some bizarre psychoanalysis of my supposed views on Donald Trump. His piece is as tendentious and as dishonest and as inaccurate as one would expect, but, more important, it serves as a perfect example of a trend that I wrote about last year:
Before long, every political topic, every prominent politician, every historical trend becomes about Donald Trump in some way, shape, or form. Every piece of journalism does, too. I haven’t yet published this piece, and I’m already bored by the responses that it will engender. That’s how bad it’s gotten: I’m pre-bored — by the emails, by the analyses, by the snark, by the desire to make every last thing in American life about Trump. Nothing is safe. Bring up something almost as old as the nation itself — the Fifth Amendment, say — and within a few minutes, people will be debating whether it is functionally pro-Trump or anti-Trump. They’ll ask if it’s Trump-adjacent, or Trump-resistant, or anti-anti-Trump, and then, without missing a beat, they’ll move on to the next topic. That Genghis Khan guy. Know who he reminds me of?
Yes, we know. We know, because this is our politics now. Donald Trump does something — or, just as often, someone does something to Donald Trump — and everyone immediately looks down to make sure that they’re standing in the correct place on the game board. Trump said what? Then it must be wrong — or right, depending on your position. Wait, you think it might be a bit of both? Whose side are you on, anyway? Are you trying to Save Our Democracy? Do you not Know What Time It Is? Whataboutism! Bothsidesism! RT if you agree!
“Trump broke us,” people say. Indeed. We used to talk about ideas, rules, positions, consequences. Now we talk about him. Previous generations argued about slavery or tariffs or free silver or the interstate commerce clause. We argue about Donald Trump. And even when we don’t, we end up referring to him obliquely, as if he were the Earth’s core. “What do you think of the governor of Maryland?” someone will ask, and, immediately, it’s back to Trump. What do you think of the decision in Dobbs? Because, you see, Trump did that — or didn’t do that, if you prefer. Nothing can ever be about what it’s actually about; it has to be about Donald Trump. A few years ago, someone told me that my opposition to Trump’s position on American libel law was “actually” driven by my snobbish dislike of his “Queens accent.” Me! A guy who was born in rural England. Does that really seem likely? Never mind.
There is just one sentence in my piece about Donald Trump, and it was placed there as a prophylactic against the phenomenon I describe above: that, whatever one writes, “within a few minutes, people will be debating whether it is functionally pro-Trump or anti-Trump. They’ll ask if it’s Trump-adjacent, or Trump-resistant, or anti-anti-Trump.” That sentence read:
For those who cannot conceive of truth without triangulation, I will freely stipulate that Donald Trump is an asshole, too — and that, in some ways, he’s an even worse one.
Chait took this line, removed the “For those who cannot conceive of truth without triangulation” part (which was smart, because he’s included in the “those”), and wrote a column about . . . Donald Trump.
QED.