George Will has a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Here is his latest screed, which I shall proceed to deconstruct:
Speaking on "Fox & Friends," of course, Trump revealed something he learned from the National Enquirer, of course. Although the Kennedy assassination is one of history's most minutely studied events, all previous scrutiny missed something the supermarket tabloid discovered for people like Trump—a connection between Ted Cruz's father and the murder of the 35th president. Trump said:
"You know, Cruz's father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being, you know, shot. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. I mean they don't even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it. But I think it's horrible. I think it's absolutely horrible that a man can go and do that, what he's saying there."
Fox host: "Right. There was a picture out there that reportedly shows Rafael Cruz standing with Lee Harvey Oswald . . ."
Trump: "I mean what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death, before the shooting? It's horrible."
Fox host: "Crazy."
What does Will mean by "of course"? I think he's criticizing Fox News Channel (his employer) for giving Trump air time. Is Will envious? Trump is much beloved by Americans and Fox knows it. What's wrong with Fox giving its viewers what they want? As for the National Enquirer, does it report only falsehoods? Is there any truth to the story about Ted Cruz's father and Lee Harvey Oswald? Will does nothing to set things right. Has he even looked into the matter, or does he simply assume that if the National Enquirer reports something, it is false? Frankly, I trust the National Enquirer more than I trust George Will. Incidentally, if there's a picture of Rafael Cruz with Lee Harvey Oswald, I want to know more. Much more.
Parsing Trump sentences is a challenge, but is rewarding because it frequently reveals that he actually has said nothing at all. When silence descends, there lingers in the air only gauzy innuendo. What did Trump really say about "the whole business" of Oswald?
Will is projecting. For at least a decade now, his op-ed columns have been tales "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (Shakespeare, Macbeth). Someone who cares about George should look into a nursing home for him.
Looking on the bright side—speaking of challenges—Trump's nomination might have two salutary effects: It might counteract "The Cult of the Presidency," as explored in Gene Healy's 2008 book with that title. And it might reacquaint Republicans with the reality principle—the need to assess and adapt to facts.
Yes, because there was no Reagan Cult, and George Will had nothing to do with it.
Healy analyzes the delusion of "redemption through presidential politics." The infantilization of America is apparent in the presidency becoming a semi-sacerdotal office, one that conflates spiritual yearnings and magical thinking about wonders performed by executive power. Trump, with his coarse character and fanciful promises, is an antidote to such superstitions.
Who writes like this? Oh, wait. The insufferable George Will writes like this. If only the "children" who voted for Trump and who agree with his policy proposals would look to "adults" such as George Will for guidance, all would be well. Tell you what, George. Run for office and see how well you do. When is the last time you were in a grocery store, a Home Depot, or a fast-food restaurant? Your understanding of the lives of the American people is about the same as your understanding of nuclear physics.
Now, regarding realities: In 2012, 93 percent of self-described Republicans who voted did so for Mitt Romney. Trump probably cannot receive 80 percent of what probably will be, because of discouragement and revulsion, a smaller Republican turnout. Romney lost 73 percent of the Hispanic vote; Trump is viewed unfavorably by 82 percent of Hispanics and very unfavorably by 62 percent. Trump probably will receive significantly less than Romney's ruinous 27 percent of this vote. And because of demographic trends and Trump's motivating policies and insults, Hispanic turnout probably will be significantly larger than in 2012, as the white percentage of the electorate continues to shrink. Romney won just 37 percent of young voters (18-29); Trump is unlikely even to match this.
Very balanced of you, George, to focus on those who might be alienated by Donald Trump, while ignoring the legions of people who are being drawn to him from the ranks of Democrats and the unaffiliated. By the way, Trump has received far more votes already than Romney did in 2012. Interesting that you didn't mention that, George. Doesn't fit your narrative, does it?
Although Romney won 53 percent of married women, he received just 44 percent of the total female vote. Today, Trump trails Hillary Clinton among women by 19 points (35 percent to 54 percent), and most women probably do not yet know that he testifies to the excellence of his penis. ("My fingers are long and beautiful, as, has been well-documented, are various other parts of my body.") Or that his idea of masculinity is to boast about conquests of women "often seemingly very happily married" and that "I have been able to date (screw)." Or that he says "it doesn't really matter what the media write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass."
This is pure envy. Here is George Will's wife. Given how he treated his first wife (the one who bore his children and put up with him all those years), one wonders how well Will himself would fare with female voters. Probably not well. Probably quite poorly. I wonder: Is there a single woman who reads his column?
In receiving, so far, the support of 4.7 percent of America's eligible voters, Trump has won a mere plurality of votes in a party approved by only 33 percent of the electorate. This electorate had about 5 percent more Democrats than Republicans even before Trump further tarnished the GOP brand. So, Republicans need to carry independents by more than Romney's five points. Even in states that have voted Republican since 2000, Trump is viewed unfavorably by 62 percent and strongly unfavorably by 52 percent.
I have no idea what point Will is making in this paragraph, unless it's that Trump will lose to Hillary Clinton. Did Will foresee Trump's victory over 16 Republican rivals, including one (Scott Walker) for whom his wife worked? (Speaking of which, did he disclose in this column that his wife worked for Scott Walker, so that readers can decide for themselves whether Will is biased against Trump, who vanquished Walker and thereby reduced Will's household income?) If not, then he's not well-placed to be predicting electoral defeat for Trump.
His metabolic urge to be scabrous guarantees that Republican candidates everywhere will be badgered by questions about what they think about what he says. What they say will determine how many of them lose with him, and how many deserve to.
Put your money where your mouth is, George. How about this: If Trump wins in November, which you think impossible, you write nothing for one year. Not one word. And you stay off Fox News Channel as well, so we don't have to look at your smug face and see your ridiculous bow tie. (What statement are you making with that tie, anyway? That you're an Ivy Leaguer? How very populist of you!) That will increase the civility level of society significantly.
Addendum: Read the comments on Will's column. The consensus, to put it politely, is that Will is past his use-by date.
