New York Times Bold Enough To Ask: How Are Democrats To Blame For Trump’s Fascism?

This weekend, Great Leader will finally get the big military parade he’s always longed for, and he’s promised that anyone who protests his Big Birthday Parade will be met with “very heavy force.” No qualifiers in that statement, like “anyone who disrupts the parade with violence,” just any protest at all, and it’ll be justified, too:

“If there’s any protester that wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,” Trump said. “I haven’t even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.”

The man wants his tanks in the street, and as he’s an admirer of how China literally crushed pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square, we won’t at all be surprised if he issues a standing order for his tanks not to stop for any scruffy civilians carrying a bag of groceries. At the very least, he’ll probably end up riding around in a tank himself, only he’ll refuse to wear a dorky helmet like that wuss Dukakis.

With Donald Trump provoking and then overreacting to protests against his indiscriminate ICE raids on Home Depot parking lots and people attending their scheduled immigration hearings, and the unnecessary (and illegal) deployment of the National Guard and Marines to LA, Trump is blowing $134 million, but isn’t that worth it if he gets to impose the autocratic rule he’s been promising? So it’s clearly time for the New York Times to ask the tough loaded question: How will Democrats’ weakness on the border and crime help Trump? (Archive link.)

Yeah, really. National political correspondent Shane Goldmacher knows what readers are truly worried about in this moment: not so much the threats to the rule of law and democracy, but the far more important nuances of horse-race politicking.

For Democrats, the scattered yet searing scenes of unrest in Southern California have uncomfortably thrust to the center two issues that have powered Republican gains in recent years — immigration and crime — as party leaders worry that the president is setting a dangerous political trap with provocations too outrageous to ignore.

For fuckssake. If you have to ask a question about Democrats right now, shouldn’t it at least be “What will they do to stop Trump’s march to fascism?” Not “How will this play in Peoria?”

We do at least get the occasional nod to what actually matters here, but it’s framed not as a crisis for the nation, but as little more than partisan messaging. Donald Trump is simply doing things, while Democrats are reacting. The last time the Guard was deployed over the objections of a governor was when LBJ federalized Alabama Guard troops to protect marchers in Selma 60 years ago. And that deployment wasn’t supplemented by active-duty Marines, either. To be sure, the unprecedented nature of Trump’s action does get a mention — more than halfway into the piece.

For the Times, this is simply about the interesting way Democrats are talking about Trump’s Big Autogolpe (available at 7-Elevens everywhere). The escalation of force, we’re told, “has unleashed an avalanche of condemnation from Democrats who argue that the president’s actions were authoritarian and unconstitutional.”

Well are they? That would make for a good news analysis! We’re pretty certain the answer is yes to the first, and “maybe in a narrow sense, but elected autocrats have a nasty habit of seizing power by exploiting narrow readings of the law,” followed by a look at how Viktor Orban crushed democracy in Hungary by doing exactly that.

In a similar vein, the piece says that Trump and crew “have continued to argue that California in general and Los Angeles in particular are descending into a lawless state of chaos.” Is that “argument” checked for accuracy, perhaps by noting that apart from the areas around federal buildings, the rest of the city is completely unaffected? Nope.

Instead, we get what the “other side” is saying, which isn’t even presented as factual, but as a contentious claim that’s undermined by the repetition of the most scary images over and over: “At the same time, local officials have said that outbursts of violence have been only sporadic, even as they spread widely on social media.” [emphasis added]

Perhaps the Times could have countered the assertion that Los Angeles was but a step away from a conflagration by posting this sweet video showing a young woman with a bubble wand in front of a heavily-guarded downtown building. It was posted to Bluesky with the comment, “More scenes from the ‘big insurrection’ in Los Angeles.”

But for all we know, the Times may have felt compelled to point out that soap bubbles can be an eye irritant, so this could be seen by many as an attempted attack on police by a rioter deploying chemical agents.

Again and again, Goldmacher lets Democrats have the floor to point out that Trump is pulling an Orban (don’t look that up in Urban Dictionary), only to suggest this is all just familiar partisan give and take on both sides:

“The president would like nothing better than to create a conflict in L.A. to demonstrate his strongman credentials by then cracking down on the chaos,” said Mr. Schiff, who has clashed repeatedly with Mr. Trump and led his first impeachment. “The president is a chaos agent. He thrives on disorder. He thrives on situations that allow him to pretend, to act like a strongman.”

Well then. Schiff also led the impeachment prosecution that OTHER time when Trump ran wild with his power, so you can see how there might be some bad blood there. Oh, wait, the Senate let him off, so maybe we should say that other time Trump purportedly ran wild. My, we are so partisan when it comes to tyrants.

But, but there was violence, wasn’t there? Sure was: Several Waymo robotaxis were burned, and people threw chunks of concrete (and Lime scooters — the Left hates rented EVs of all kinds!) onto cop cars, without injuring anyone. But instead of doing Objective Journalism and noting that the vandalism was an attention-getting sideshow compared to the peaceful and ongoing nonviolent marches, the Times pours rhetorical fuel on the lithium-ion battery fire, agreeing that the images are very inflammatory, here, LOOK AT THE FLAMES, SO SCARY.

In a rhetorical trick that’s not unlike how rightwing media says “Even the liberal New York Times admits …,” the Times pushes to its readers the same image of two burning vehicles and a shirtless protester waving a Mexican flag that’s become the permanent wallpaper on Fox. But that’s cleverly framed as an embedded tweet (non-twitter link) from Sen. John Fetterman, “a Democrat who has increasingly broken with his party,” so that it’s not the New York Times waving the bloody shirt (or the flaming Waymo), but a very principled Democrat who’s bravely standing up to his party by saying “My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement.”

Dear readers, you have to read another four paragraphs, and yet another reminder that immigration and crime have been tough political issues for Democrats, before you get to the Times’ belated acknowledgement that “Most prominent Democrats have denounced the recent violence, and many have cited local officials who say such incidents have been mostly isolated.”

Even that fact is framed as a defensive talking point. There are many opinions about this.

When Trump and his gang of creeps suggest something insanely authoritarian, like arresting the governor of a state for no reason at all, the Times manages to suggest that actually, Gavin Newsom is the outlandish publicity seeker:

Mr. Newsom has used his confrontation with Mr. Trump — who has mused about arresting him — to elevate himself as one of the leading Democratic foils nationally to Mr. Trump, responding to the president’s comments with bravado and seemingly in real time.

The news isn’t that the Big Man is talking about arresting his opponents. That’s just an aside, and look at Gavin Newsom burnishing his reputation.

Even Trump’s suggestion that he may just have to use “very big force” against protesters of his Birthday Parade is framed in this piece as “another potential tinderbox looming this weekend,” not as a threat to stifle dissent. How interesting that might be! One wonders how Democrats, already weak on their support for the Troops, who are with Trump, may decide to reply.

Share

David Huerta Released, Battle For USA Not Under Military Occupation Goes On

[NYT / archive link / NBC News / MSNBC / NPR]

Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please become a paid subscriber, or if you’d like to make a one-time donation, many people are saying this is the button to click.

Does This Button Fight Fascism?