That was one of my primary reactions in reading this book by CNN’s chief White House correspondent. Published in June 2019, it describes many events that occurred in President Donald Trump’s first two years in office -- many of which I had either forgotten about entirely, or for which many of their relevant details were only roughly sketched out in my mind.
Of course, there’s no discussion of impeachment in this book. That drama didn’t enter the public consciousness until September 2019. And that reality creates another kind of challenge for me. As I type these characters, it is December 20, 2019, a few days after the House of Representatives formally impeached President Trump. And given the tremendous backlog of posts I have for this blog, you’re not likely to be reading these words until sometime after November 21, 2020. What all has happened since Acosta stopped writing his book and I started writing this post? And what all will happen after I stop writing this post and before it gets posted on my blog? If the narrative pace of The Enemy of the People is any indication -- the answer to both questions is: quite a lot, indeed.
But, nevermind. Onward. Here’s an event that happened in August 2017 that already seems like a distant memory. As Acosta describes it:
Two days later, on August 14, Trump tried again. Stung by the intense criticism he had received in response to his remarks immediately following the violence in Charlottesville, he addressed the nation. I was in the pool that day, as it was CNN’s day to represent the TV networks. The press gathered in the Diplomatic Room of the White House, where we awaited the president’s latest comments. The story, of course, was whether Trump would strongly condemn the white supremacists behind the melee in Charlottesville, as he should have done from the very beginning. Reading from prepared remarks, he did just that:
“Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,” he said to the nation.
I hope you remember the event that I’m focusing on here. Because Trump’s management of it is emblematic of his presidency and both those who support and oppose him.
Later in the day, Trump held a separate event where he called for an investigation into Chinese trade practices. Still in the pool for that afternoon, I asked him about the contrast between his remarks from earlier in the day and his initial response to what had happened in Charlottesville over the weekend.
“Can you explain why you did not condemn those hate groups by name over the weekend,” I asked.
“They’ve been condemned. They have been condemned,” he replied.
They were. In the scripted press conference the president held earlier in the day, but not in his comments immediately following the event. That’s the source of the confusion.
I then followed up and asked why he wasn’t holding a press conference on Monday, as he had promised that previous Friday, before the events in Charlottesville.
“We just had a press conference,” he answered.
“Could we ask you some more questions?” I inquired.
“It doesn’t bother me at all, but I like real news, not fake news,” he said, and then pointed at me. “You’re fake news.”
“Mr. President, haven’t you spread a lot of fake news yourself, sir?” I responded.
Ah, the old “fake news” line. It was back. I’ve learned that’s become one of his “tells.” Like a poker player, Trump has a tell, giving away what kind of hand he’s holding. If he’s screaming about “fake news,” he’s almost always losing. And he was losing on Charlottesville. Trump clearly didn’t like the fact that he had been compelled by his advisers to revise his botched response to Charlottesville. That was as bad, in his view, as admitting a mistake. And in Trumpworld, as I’ve been told time and again by his advisers, you don’t admit mistakes. You double down on everything, even the stuff you did wrong.
This comment has such explanatory power. If you’re ever confused about Trump’s actions, this simple rule may be as close to a rosetta stone as you’re ever going to get. No matter what happens, never admit you did anything wrong. Combine that with the mixed messages that came out around the Charlottesville event, and you can begin to understand why it -- like many of the things he does -- was so polarizing.
Which brings us to his third crack at commenting on the events in Charlottesville, this time at Trump Tower in Manhattan. Trump had traveled to his office tower and residence in the city to meet with some of the top officials in his administration about the need to upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, and a new member of the team, Chief of Staff John Kelly (who had just replaced Reince Priebus), were all in attendance.
After what had occurred the day before, I traveled up to New York with the hunch that Trump would not be able to help himself and would dive back into the Charlottesville issue. As we had so often during the campaign, we gathered in the gold-plated lobby of Trump Tower to await Trump. It felt like old times. (It should be noted that his aides told us in advance that he wouldn’t take any questions.) Trump came down the elevator, made some remarks about his hopes for an infrastructure bill, and before he could turn to exit the lobby, a question on Charlottesville was shouted his way by my NBC colleague Hallie Jackson, and we were off to the races.
It’s often that way with President Trump, especially in the first two years of his presidency. He seemed both unable to control his encounters with the press and to enjoy the verbal sparring that inevitably came about. Acosta refers to this dynamic frequently in his book. Falling off script, thinking we could win an argument, even when it is stacked against him, was one of Trump’s hallmark temptations.
It is still stunning to read the president’s remarks from that day. As of this writing, remarkably, they remain on the official White House website. In them, Trump returned to blaming both sides for the violence in Charlottesville. And that’s when I jumped in, mainly because I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
TRUMP: Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say.
ACOSTA: The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest---
TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group.
ACOSTA: No, sir, there are no fine people in the Nazis.
As you may have noticed, I didn’t put my questions in question form. That wasn’t necessary in this case, and here’s why. I suppose I could have asked him, “Sir, isn’t it true that there aren’t any fine people in the Nazis?” But that would have suggested that this notion was open to debate. I’m sorry, but there aren’t two sides when it comes to Nazis. I think we have reached the point where we can state, definitively, that Nazis are bad people. It kind of goes without saying. But I will: If you are a Nazi, you aren’t a fine person. You’re bad. So, yes, I felt well within the safe bounds of reporting to state back to the president “there are no fine people in the Nazis.” When it’s a matter of right versus wrong, there are not two sides of the story.
I agree with Acosta. I agree with both his statements that there are no fine people in the Nazis and that when it’s a matter of right versus wrong, there are not two sides of the story. But, I still wish he would’ve asked the president, “Sir, isn’t it true that there aren’t any fine people in the Nazis?” If he had, one of two things would’ve happened. Trump would have either disagreed, and gone on to argue unequivocally that some Nazis are very fine people, or he would have clarified, as I think he believed, that not everybody marching in Charlottesville was a Nazi. That might’ve created some needed granularity in everyone’s interpretation of what was going on.
Acosta, however, wasn’t thinking that way. His next several paragraphs illuminate a different, but still very serious battle, that he was fighting.
There’s another point to be made here, one going back to the idea that a different kind of president requires a different kind of press. If a president is trying to bully his way through some tough questions, interrupting and shouting, “Excuse me, excuse me,” what do you, as a reporter, do? This is when it’s probably time to throw out the old rulebook. Trump was likely not going to candidly volunteer a comment that there are “very fine people” on both sides had I not challenged him. Sometimes the sparring he craves can be his own undoing; that’s when he often shows who he really is. And at that bizzare news conference at Trump Tower, that’s exactly what he did.
In responding to Trump’s attacks, my thinking is you have to be measured and choose the right moment. Opinions vary as to whether I have met that standard, but there are very clear moments when challenging a president’s thinking is the right choice. Who am I to judge when his thought process goes off the deep end? I think that’s fairly obvious. Whether it’s an attack on the press or a blatant lie about policy or a betrayal of American principles (e.g., that Nazis are the scum of the earth), a more restrained reaction from a reporter sets a precedent that what had been said is now acceptable in our democracy. The same goes for the president’s unrelenting assault on journalists in America. Yes, Trump’s attacks on the press are designed, for the moment, to elicit a response. And yes, that response excites parts of his base. And yes, the Trump people sit back and say, “See? It works.” And yes, some news editors say, “See, that’s why we shouldn’t respond.” But Trump’s apologists and propagandists are going to go on the attack and make our lives miserable no matter what we report. That’s what they do. If we tailor our coverage to appease them, we’ve already lost. Their reaction shouldn’t change the essential calculus that attacks on the press, if left unanswered, are just going to get worse. So the question becomes: do you take the bait or take the knife?
More often than not, I opt for the bait, which bothers some people -- both in the media and in the White House. But to those critics, I ask: does every president lie and attack the press as Trump does? No. As new presidents come along and return a state of normalcy to dealings with the news media, will there be as great a need to stand up for ourselves? Of course not. Playbooks for individual journalists and news organizations will be adjusted accordingly, as we will no longer be under attack.
This, obviously, is where the title of Acosta’s book comes from. “The enemy of the people” is a phrase used by the president to describe the “mainstream media,” which he believes is biased against him and against the views of conservative Americans. I think it’s important for the media to push back against this kind of treatment, as Acosta describes, and more than that, I even think it’s time for them to drop the pretense of fairness and go back to reporting what they think is right and what they think is wrong. But that’s a subject for another day. My larger fear, however, is that Acosta is being too optimistic about returning to some kind of normalcy after the Trump presidency. As loath as I am to admit it, I think the Trump view of our politics, even the parts that give rise to “the enemy of the people” comments, are here with us to stay, regardless of who the next president is.
But let’s get back to Charlottesville.
After our exchange about “very fine people” that day in Trump Tower, Trump then tried to change to subject back to the grievance that drew the Unite the Right protesters to Charlottesville in the first place, the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee. When it came to sides, guess which one Trump chose? The president said in all seriousness that somehow George Washington would be next, as if federal workers would dismantle the Washington Monument.
TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
ACOSTA: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.
TRUMP: George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his statue? Are we going to take down -- Excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?
A few moments after that “very fine people” comment, Trump tried to clean up his mess by adding a bit of a disclaimer. “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally,” he said. “But you had many people in the group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”
As I said previously, in Trump’s mind, the “very fine people” comment was not directed at the white supremacists who led the protest, but other (perhaps imaginary) people in the crowd who were not neo-Nazis nor white nationalists, but who had come to protest the removal of a statue represented what they viewed as an American hero.
But whether or not Trump was serious about this nuanced point, he definitely wasn’t serious about his comparison between George Washington and Robert E. Lee. In making that comparison, I believe, Trump was yet again engaging in one of his favorite rhetorical devices, what others have called “whataboutism.” Oh yeah? Well, what about [insert someone the person you’re arguing with holds in esteem]? He did the same thing as [the person I’m defending]. Whataboutism isn’t about rational, reasoned debate. Its purpose is to create confusion and false equivalency in people’s minds, and its use is very intentional. Trump doesn’t actually think George Washington is the same as Robert E. Lee. Trump simply wants Acosta to entertain the possibility that George Washington might be the same as Robert E. Lee so that he can undercut Acosta’s argument.
But, relative to how the president handled this event, Acosta makes an even more important point.
The president’s defenders like to point to this final comment as an exoneration of his performance on Charlottesville. I call bullshit. In my view, a president of the United States should get this right the first time. It shouldn’t take four or five (or whatever number we are on) tries to get it right. Within a matter of four days, Trump had equivocated on the violence in Charlottesville, reversed himself to condemn the fascists, only to pull another about-face on the issue, basically landing where he started, essentially siding with the white nationalists who had touched off the violence. The epic fail at Trump Tower was written all over John Kelly’s face as the chief of staff hung his head in full view of the cameras.
I’ve gone at length on this particular excerpt because I think it is illustrative, both of the tone of Acosta’s book, and the way this president and the press he hates keep talking past each other. There’s a lot to learn from both illustrations, both for the people of this republic and for future presidents.
Let me close with two other penetrating observations from Acosta’s book. First...
Portions of the GOP, it seemed, were willing to compromise themselves in favor of achieving long-term party goals. If you wanted your tax cuts, you had to swallow Trump’s highly questionable behavior. Same thing if you wanted conservative judges. Trump and the Republicans may not believe in compromising with Democrats, but there was compromising going on inside their own party. They were horse trading, all right. The party was achieving a few of its policy goals in exchange for looking the other way.
I think this is spot on, and it is the same dynamic I see among my own friends and colleagues with a track record of voting Republican. They don’t like Trump. But they like what the Republicans have been able to do since he came into office. As long as they had the presidency, the House, and the Senate, they could do as they wished legislatively. And now, as long as they have the presidency and the Senate, they can do as they wish in terms of judicial appointments. For the party and its partisans, that’s what matters most.
And second, with regard to the domestic abuse scandal surrounding personal staff secretary to the president, Rob Porter…
The code of ethics of the Trump White House had revealed itself yet again, as the president fell back into a familiar pattern. When it comes to allegations of sexual misconduct, Trump almost always stands with the accused and not the accuser. He had done this before; he would do it again. Speaking to reporters, Trump expressed sympathy for his former staff secretary, noting that Porter had proclaimed his innocence.
“He also, as you probably know, says he’s innocent and I think you have to remember that,” Trump said. “He said very strongly yesterday that he’s innocent so you have to talk to him about that, but we absolutely wish him well, he did a very good job when he was at the White House.”
That statement, siding with Porter, was another reminder of just how Trump didn’t seem to understand the president’s role of providing moral leadership in a situation like this. This would not have been tolerated at a Fortune 500 company, and yet it was happening at the White House.
There’s one thing that the Trump presidency has made clear to me -- and that is how important it is for presidents to bring people together rather than split them apart. I think Acosta understands that, too, and that represents a deep measure of the distrust that exists between Trump and the press corps. Trump’s natural tendency is to take sides, so much so that every interaction and every kind is hardcoded into immutable “us’s” and “them’s”.
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment