Dumbest words of the week. (Updated)

It is exceptionally difficult to top Trump-Vance on the title's proposition. But David Von Drehle, usually a thoughtful Washington Post columnist, has managed to pull it off. If you disagree that he has outcrazied the aforementioned duo, I think you will agree that he at least came close.

Democrats should stop with the existential threat language because it’s not working.

I understand the allure of political pragmatism. In other such instances I'm in unflinching harmony with that approach. This one, however, presents some thundering questions.

If Trump went beyond his existence as an authentic "existential threat" and began fulminating at rallies that he will "dismiss Congress" as a king would parliament, order military invasions of Canada and Paraguay — both on Day One, the latter going as gifts to Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin ...

and order the immediate construction of concentration camps for the imprisonment of all Americans who identify as Democrats (as well as the monitoring of those suspicious independents) ...   

should Democrats stop with the harsh language because their protests against, and condemnations of, Trump's explicit intentions weren't working with voters?

Would Democrats ever be forgiven by history for falling silent on America's would-be dictator's overt plans to convert the United States into a Fourth Reich?

Would American citizens forgive them once they witnessed, before being hauled off themselves, their neighbors being perp-walked to a paddy wagon by the Trump-stylized Stasi-Gestapo?

My examples of Trumpian extremes are, of course, extreme themselves. Yet they're not that far from the idiocies, tyrannies and dictatorial measures he would impose if reelected via the "disowned" Project 2025. 

Von Drehle overlooked a critical factor in his stop-with-it-already proposition. Directly following his statement above and in support of its pragmatism, he said  [Democrats have] been saying it for almost 10 years and America’s still here.

What there is no question about is that America would not still be here if Trump had in his first term the Hitlerite inner circle and tens of thousands of servile, fascistic government employees that he has, in fact, explicitly said he will take with him into a second term. 

In David Von Drehle's statements are vivid reflections of the political journalism pack that insists on treating Trump and Trumpism as an everyday politician and everyday ism ...

even though every word spoken, every act on display and every unambiguous written policy imported from the 1930s into modern American politics by Trump stand nakedly before the nation's political journalists, wearing blinders.  

***

Update: I summarized my thoughts and passed them on to Mr. Von Drehle, who was kind and thoughtful enough in taking time to reply. He wrote:

"That’s a very selective reading of what I said. I went on to say that in my opinion the tack taken by the Democrats at their convention—pointing out that Trump/Vance are “weird,” that the MAGA schtick is tiresome and Americans are exhausted by it, that a 78-year-old man rambling on hatefully for hours at a time is pathetic, etc. –are much better and more effective lines of attack. The evidence for that claim can be found in polling since the convention. Though Americans remain politically divided (as we have been for the past quarter-century) the Democrats have turned a roughly 5-point average deficit to a roughly 3-point lead. This is a significant swing and has raised hopes that Trump might be defeated in November. It’s not enough to be outraged; Democrats need to be effective."

My response was even briefer than my earlier summary, Extended, emailed back-and-forths are rarely productive, face-to-face far better.

"Thank you for replying, Mr. Von Drehle. I'll merely note that in your reply is the selfsame argument. I'm all for effectiveness and political pragmatism, as every reader of my site knows. But again your defense is one of popular appeal rather than Democrats' profoundly ethical obligation to warn voters of Trump's possibly imminent atrocities committed against the U.S. Constitution — even if, and that I stress, even if voters don't give a damn or willfully tune it out. The Dems would be forever condemned by history and the gods of human decency, and justly so."

I'm a little biased. I can't declare the winner of this debate.

Comments

[Anne J]

I just saw his headline yesterday and didn't think I would be able to read the article without exploding. It's not democrats terrorizing a town in Ohio with anti immigrant hatred.

[ssdd]

I gotta disagree. McMegan’s babble about “social contagion” is several infinities dumber than anything Von Drehle spat out in that conversation.

[PM]

She sure is, always is, ssdd. McMegan is so predictable she's not worth my time. But Von Drehle surprised me. He's better than that, or at least he used to be. It seems another form of "contagion" is what infected him.

[PM]

Anne, that's what caught my eye but I've forgotten what the headline said and it's not there when calling up the piece which I linked to . Do you recall? Others might like to know, too.

[Anne J]

Found it.

Opinion Should Democrats tone down their rhetoric on Trump?

[Anne J]

It sounds like he tried to gaslight you a little bit in his reply, so I went to the WaPo comment section on the article and stated that it is perfectly OK to say that Trump is a threat to democracy because he has already proven that he is a threat to democracy, and asked David if he was living in a tree on 6 January 2021.