But Trump still leads the pack, so the GOP has finally taken a stand: that barring Muslims entry to the U.S. is "Un-American."
The supposed pivot is almost amusing in suggesting that, until this, Trump had not gone too far... And it predictably signaled the media that criticism of Trump is now OK.
Why, the NYT has gone so far as to run this.
tengrain says, "I for one am glad to welcome the NYTimes to the blogosphere, where we've been saying for more than a decade that the Right has lost its mind and has spiraled into fascism."
The new forthrightness will last just until Trump is out of the picture. At which time the media pack will take the departure as their cue to pretend the GOP has returned to sanity. Along with that will go the corollary: that whichever extremist becomes the nominee will then be deemed "serious" and "presidential."
Good discussion by Sam Seder and Cliff Schecter (starting at :30)–on the media's pretense that Trump has now been renounced by the GOP. That's when the reality is that even as the candidates stumble over themselves to condemn Trump for saying such awful things, they all affirm that if he becomes the nominee, they will vote for him.
There certainly has been no denunciation. As Sam says, the candidates are simply running against each other, responding to every statement from Trump with, "I have a different proposal." Republican "condemnation" of anti-Muslim statements is mere policy quibble, as in Jeb's previous "we should only let in Christians" line about Syrian refugees. The GOP immigration "debate" is all about who will build the biggest wall and mete out the cruelest punishment to immigrants and refugees.
After decades of their party's ginning up anti-immigrant fear and hatred, Republican voters are eager for just such immigrant-bashing and deportation as Trump's. As Sam puts it, "The suit has been tailored for years; Donald Trump just walked into it..."
And as Cliff says, Trump simply came out and said things that until now were supposed to be only implied. Cliff also brought up a Republican of yore: Margaret Chase Smith, who managed to get at least a few other Republicans to join her in censuring McCarthy.
As it happens, I've been reading this: J. Fred MacDonald on how television as a mass medium arrived about the same time as the Cold War, with anti-communism providing the new medium a programming theme. Trump certainly is reminiscent of the author's description of an earlier media phenomenon—
Senator McCarthy appeared on many TV discussion programs in the early 1950s... Always, McCarthy demonstrated his peculiar argumentative style: making broad charges certain to garner headlines the next day; dropping names, dates, and specifics even if they were inaccurate; and dominating any opposing views by undermining the credibility of speakers on the show. ...on June 21, 1953, for example, McCarthy employed accusations, oversimplifications, and interruptions to dominate a discussion... To one reviewer, the senator's debating "acrobatics" were by turn bland and savagely harsh for vocal effects"...It was only after he took on the Army in the spring and summer of 1953 that McCarthy was finally stopped.
McCarthy was a good television performer. . TV critic Jack Gould described him as "a master...[who]skillfully exploits an elementary rule of showmanship—a sensation or two never fails to hold an audience." And his message was believed. McCarthy continued to hold great popularity among the American people...
...The [Eisenhower] White House would not cooperate with him. With elections in the fall, Republicans tried to end the hearings as soon as possible, as McCarthy's sullen attitude toward the Army quickly became a debilitating revelation of his own pettiness and ambition.Later that year the Senate voted to censure McCarthy. He upped his game by attacking Eisenhower, but the censure had ended his official power. When the Senate changed hands he lost his committee chairmanship and public platform.
If television finally helped expose McCarthy as a fraud, MacDonald notes that coverage of the Army hearings was "no ringing victory for public affairs television"—
The two networks that covered the hearings live, ABC and Dumont, did so because they had virtually no morning or afternoon programming. With a roster of sponsored soap operas and game shows, CBS rejected the hearings, preferring to air a 45-minute daily summation at 11:30 P.M. NBC offered the hearings live for two days. But since those two days cost $125,000 in lost advertising revenue, that network also opted for a late-evening summary.1953 stakes; one can adjust for a different value for the dollar, but there's no comparing the astronomically higher level of media stakes today.
Another comparison with 1953 is more apt, though. Media coverage of Trump's demagoguery can be seen in view of the fact that McCarthy's anti-communism was not to be discredited by his downfall. Look at MacDonald's conclusion, and just update "anti-Communism"—
McCarthy's fall ... did not signify the end of anti-Communism as an alluring mind-set. McCarthyism was only one of the more virulent strands of this popular hatred of the political left. Thriving on fear and ignorance, McCarthyism represented oppressive power emanating from unsubstantiated accusation. It pursued enemies of the state where there where no enemies. It was aggressive and egotistical, colorful and falsely reassuring. The Army-McCarthy hearings only demonstrated that McCarthyism had overstepped the boundaries of permissibility in American politics as well as television. They did not demonstrate popular determination to reappraise anti-communism or to approach the East-West struggle in more realistic terms. Anti-Communism continued to thrive in politics and video.An opponent will always be accused of softness on immigration (or terrorism, or political correctness, or War on Christians). Trump invented none of this, and any will serve as the torches to be picked up when Trumpism ends.
