New York Times: Trump Supporters Are 'Just Bad People'
Columnist doesn't understand life outside the morally superior left coast
A New York Times columnist has demonstrated how much she doesn't understand life outside the morally superior left coast, merely arguing that Donald Trump supporters are just “bad people.”
NYT writer Michelle Goldberg cut to the chase by categorizing Trump supporters into two kinds “bad people,” and “the immoral and the amoral.”
Goldberg was not writing about MAGA-hat wearing middle-Americans who swarm to Trump’s rallies, or the conservative types.
She said she is referring to the rotational cast of aides, officials, and lawmakers who work for Trump or support his administration.
They’re the Steve Bannon's (a “quasi-fascist with delusions of grandeur”), and the Anthony Scaramuccis ( a “political cipher who likes to be on TV”), the Ivanka Trumps and the Lindsey Grahams.
Out of them all, Goldberg observes the apolitical figures, the ones only in it for the paycheck, the worst.
“Trump is unique as a magnet for grifters, climbers, and self-promoters,” she writes.
“In part because decent people won’t associate with him.”
Orange Man Bad
A simplistic belief theory that even a 5-year-old can grab on to, as many of the New York Times’ reader's likely share with Goldberg.
The columnist then questions how people could work for Trump without feeling “shame or remorse” at his “belligerent nationalism and racist conspiracy theories.”
Goldberg fails to explain what these conspiracy theories are.
Instead, she assumed that her readers instinctively know that Trump is terrible.
The suggestion that any associate of Trump is just “bad" may be appealing to liberals who froth at the mouth with the mention of the President, but in reality, it's a biased one side cop out.
Just like the left, Trump aides and officials have their ambitions and dream, and they're own families to take care of.
For example, Take Mary Kissel, appointed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s new foreign policy adviser.
She is a former Wall Street Journal reporter who was critical to Trump’s policies before.
But is her advance to the State Department a submission of her anti-Trump media credentials, or simply a career ascent?
What about the officials who served in previous administrations?
According to RT: Surely the New York Times fretted over the 29 Google employees who took up jobs in the Obama White House?
After all, Obama presided over the largest expansion of mass surveillance in history and defended the National Security Agency even after it emerged that it collected vast amounts of call, email and internet data from millions of Americans.
Some moves through the swirling door that existed between Google and the Obama White House were reported, but the morals of the employees themselves were never challenged.
Because, while these moves raised questions about the cozy relationship between Washington, DC and the tech industry, they were at an individual level, career moves.
Besides, they were working for Obama, who came with a tacit seal of endorsement from much of the mainstream media.
Things are different in 2018, however.