Trump deserves credit for sitting down with African-American reporters knowing the deck was stacked against him. But he stepped on a few land mines.
The reason why political candidates who subject themselves to a hostile reception from typically oppositional constituencies generate goodwill from that exercise alone is because it entails risk. Walking willingly into a minefield is an act of bravery. But if you step on a land mine in the process, you’re still debilitated by it. Donald Trump deserves all the credit in the world for sitting down with African-American reporters at the National Association of Black Journalists conference knowing the deck was stacked against him. But he stepped on a few land mines along the way.
The confrontational interview got off to a rocky start when ABC News correspondent Rachel Scott opened with a monologue itemizing all the reasons that some members of the NABJ boycotted Trump’s appearance. It was a sandbagging from the start, but Trump took the bait. He bristled with offense at the tone and framing of the question, called his interlocutor “nasty” and her employer a “fake news network,” and he deemed the conduct of the conference’s organizers and participants a “disaster.”
This dynamic — gloves-off Trump versus a hostile press corps — enlivens partisans on both sides of the aisle. But this display is also indicative of the kind of conduct that led a majority of Americans to say in Trump’s third year in office that his behavior was “unpresidential.” With the general election upon us, the goal of both campaigns is to appeal to the fickle middle of the electorate, the members of which never reacted as favorably to Trump’s jousts with journalists as Republicans do. Diving into the mud with ABC News’s Capitol Hill reporter only raises her profile while lowering Trump’s.
The hits kept coming. When Trump was asked to explain the charge that Kamala Harris is a “DEI hire,” Trump replied by asking her to define “DEI.” She did not, but nor did Trump define his terms. Instead, he pivoted to questioning Harris’s racial identity. “She was always of Indian heritage,” Trump said. “And she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black, and now she wants to be known as black.”
“I respect either one,” Trump later added amid attendees’ jeers, but the gift he delivered to the Harris campaign’s doorstep will keep on giving regardless of what the former president said after the newsy soundbite he just crafted for Democrats concluded. Intrepid investigators will find deep in the archives evidence that Harris has emphasized distinct aspects of her biracial identity over the years, but good luck litigating that one, Republicans. The vice president and her allies are more than eager to promote Trump’s remarks for a wider audience, and Trump would be doing them a favor by continuing to pull on that particular thread.
When pressed by Fox News Channel host Harris Faulkner if Trump’s vice-presidential pick, Ohio Senator J. D. Vance, was “ready on Day One” to ascend to the presidency, the context of the question was clear. Vance’s debut in presidential politics has not gone well by objective as well as subjective metrics, but Trump’s answer did little to reassure his supporters that he had faith in his second in command.
“Historically, the vice president, in terms of the election, does not have any impact. I mean, virtually no impact,” Trump replied. “You’re voting for the president. And you could have a vice president that’s outstanding in every way — and I think J. D. is, I think all of them would have been — but you’re not voting that way. You’re voting for the president. You’re voting for me.”
At no point did he say “yes” to the yes-or-no question. In fact, his meandering response seemed to indicate that he, too, is filled with doubt over Vance’s political acumen. It’s not as though Vance alone had the qualities Trump sought in a potential successor. “All” the candidates on his short list would have been great. And, after all, no one is voting for Vance, right? Americans are well advised to focus on the top of the ticket to the exclusion of his maladroit running mate. There’s a universe of subtext in Trump’s response, but nowhere in that universe will you find an unalloyed vote of confidence in the GOP’s vice-presidential nominee.
The members of the NABJ who are white-hot with rage over Trump’s appearance on this panel are guilty of massaging their own egos at the expense of their industry. The interview Trump subjected himself to was one of the toughest he has sat through in a long time. The moderators did a fine job, and Trump’s responses created new knowledge that will help voters evaluate the choice before the country in America. That’s the job, and these journalists did it well.
Trump’s appearance was not the total disaster his detractors have made it out to be. And yet, whatever benefits Trump hoped to receive from the effort will be mitigated by the stumbles he made in the process — stumbles that will haunt his campaign.
The thing about going into the lion’s den is that spelunkers run the risk of being eaten. Those who survive the experience are no less brave than those who emerge from it hobbled. But, at the end of the day, if the exercise weakens you, all the public sympathy in the world is still cold comfort.