The Soft Bigotry of No Expectations on Trump
WaPo has an editorial out, purporting to compare the policy platforms of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Its punchline is that Kamala can lift up politics by going deep on policy, something it admits Trump has not done.
Ms. Harris says she wants to elevate American politics, an imperative that Mr. Trump has again shown little interest in. She therefore has an opportunity to lift up her campaign by going deep on substance.
This comparison lists five policies from Trump, seven from the Vice President, plus the common no tips on taxes:
Trump
- Building the border wall
- Conducting mass deportations
- Raising tariffs
- Ending the green energy transition
- Challenging traditional alliances while going easy on rivals such as Russian President Vladimir Putin
Common
- Waiving taxes on tips
Harris
- Capping insulin costs
- Continuing Biden’s climate plan
- Boosting housing supply
- Enhancing effective anti-poverty programs such as the child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit
- [Protecting] Justice Department independence
- Seeking robust protections for reproductive rights
- Strengthening U.S. alliances such as NATO
WaPo ignores some obvious policies from Trump, such as his tax cuts for billionaires (though that is alluded to in its observation that Trump would add $5.8 trillion to the nation debt, as compared to $1.2 trillion for Kamala), or his determination to eliminate protections for civil service workers and use DOJ for what he calls revenge but which is in reality forced loyalty. Plus, they count “deport millions” as a stated policy goal of Trump, without noting that he has never provided, never even been asked to provide, details about how he would pay for it, how he’d make up for shortfalls in things like Social Security, how he’d ensure food gets picked and houses get built.
This editorial, on its face, shows that Harris has provided more detail on policy than Trump has.
Yet even though WaPo can identify more policy proposals from Kamala than Trump, it nevertheless holds her accountable for providing more.
Aside from certain specifics — such as building the border wall, conducting mass deportations and raising tariffs — Mr. Trump has never detailed much of an agenda. (His supporters at Project 2025 have prepared a pointedly conservative plan for his second term, though Mr. Trump distanced himself from it after it became a political liability.) As for Ms. Harris, the charitable view is that she has had little time to develop detailed proposals. The less generous take is that she wants to avoid revealing many specifics, lest she alienate one constituency or another. Coasting on “vibes” has worked well for her so far; she has taken a slim lead in national polling, and surveys suggest she has become competitive in all the battleground states.
But the novelty of Ms. Harris’s campaign is wearing thin as an excuse for releasing only the schematics of a platform. She promises “a new way forward,” pitching herself as a change agent, even though she is the sitting vice president and takes credit for the elements of the Biden agenda with which she wants to be associated, such as a cap on seniors’ insulin costs and the administration’s climate plan.
Trump has been running for 21 months; his campaign is more than 90% over. The Vice President has been running 43 days; her campaign still has almost 60% to go.
And yet they’re putting demands on the woman in the race, making no such demand on the white male former President.
The press has gone 21 months without throwing this kind of tantrum with Donald Trump. Given that, this column says more about the failures of journalists to hold Trump accountable than it does any shortcoming on Kamala’s part.
At some point, the traditional media needs to explain why it is so much more rabid about getting policy from Kamala than Trump.
Journalists need to come to grips, publicly, with why they apply this soft bigotry of no expectations to Donald Trump. Is it because they know he’ll deny them access if they make similar demands on him? Is it a (justifiable) fear he’ll sic a violent supporter on them, as he did the other night in Johnstown, with Trump observing, “beautiful, that’s beautiful, that’s alright, that’s okay, no, he’s on our side. We get a little itchy, David, don’t we? No, no, he’s on our side,” as the man was tased? Is it a resignation to the fact that Trump will just lie anyway?
Whatever the explanation for why the press applies so much lower expectations on the former President, who has been running for 21 months, than it does on Kamala Harris, just over a month into her campaign, the explanation is a far, far more important story to tell voters than precisely how the Vice President plans to restore the Child Tax Credit.
The only thing this comparison has done is make visible WaPo’s — and the press corp’s, generally — soft bigotry with Donald Trump, the double standard they are applying in their expectations for Kamala Harris as compared to none for Trump.
The lesson of this editorial, contrary to WaPo’s preferred punchline, is that the press is misdirecting where their attention should be focused.
Update: Tweaked to reflect that Trump is a white male former President, not a former white male.
I’ve finally had enough; just cancelled my WaPo subscription like I did the NYT two months earlier.
I am not a WaPo subscriber, but I was able to check out the comments published to that editorial piece. Over 9 thousand comments and replies! Near as I could find (I read several, scrolled a lot), none supported the editors. Many told them to stop giving Trump a pass.
Ms. Wheeler’s analogy is spot-on. Calling a wealthy, connected white male out requires journalistic integrity and that don’t pay the bills. As of 9/2, the US presidential election odds tracker per Sportshandler is Harris 52.6% v Trump at 51.9%. (There are loads of online gambling sites calculating odds on the race. Do you think pollsters have gambling sites bookmarked?)
[Moderator’s note: please omit adding a URL when entering your username and email address. You did not include a URL with your first comment here; adding one now triggers moderation. /~Rayne]
I too cancelled my subscription to the NYTimes. And now the Washington Post is following its lead. I imagine we will still be subjected to the CFTIFG’s image daily while maybe, occasionally, his opponent will be mentioned. Obviously, these former revered publications are in it for the money and the clicks. But now, where to find the news?
Project 2025. Trump has and will continue to do disavow P2025 so it won’t show on any policy list. But we know better…and others do as well. Just not enough others – yet.
“But we know better…and others do as well.” The press also knows TFG’s lie of trying to distance himself is transparently false. To buy the lie by ignoring it completely, the press misrepresents reality.
After the traditional media was browbreat by Republicans over Student Loans, at a bare minimum you’d think they’d notice that deporting people means plenty of mortages, rents, car loans, credit card bills, etc. would default if you deported the debt-holders.
I agree heartily, Dr. Wheeler! The press has given Trump a huge pass for at least 15 years now, never requiring the level of detail they expect from any Democratic candidate. Not to mention the free negative ads Trump got to use against Hillary Clinton from David Pecker and the National Enquirer, which at the time, hurt her badly. Saying she was weak and about to die, etc. Well, here were are eight years later and she looks and sounds healthier than Trump! I wish the media would stop molly-coddling this criminal!
His are mostly *ending* policy.
A lot easier to just kill something than create/design aomething that works.
[put in embargo 9:58]
[Moderator’s note: if you continue to complain about your triggering auto-moderation you will be banned. /~Rayne]
I got rid of the Times about 5 years ago, when I got sick of the clearly biased coverage, and it seems like it’s only worse now base upon what I am seeing. The Times went of the deep end during W’s tenure and has only gone further to the right. It is just gross how they and WaPo clean up for Trump while holding Harris’ feet to the fire. I am sure it has something to do with why the race is even close.
First a caveat: I dropped WaPo & NYT subs in ‘22 and ‘23 respectively- NO regrets – for exactly these reasons. So haven’t read other than headlines and the occasional share. Bigotry is a completely appropriate label. Trump / MAGA gets a pass that amounts to support, for all the good reasons stated by others. Ms. Wheeler’s impatience is spot on. Thank you and keep the good work coming!!
“plus the common no tips on taxes”
Personally, I never tip when paying taxes.
I dunno…seems obvious (at least to me) that any time there is a profit motive any corporate entity will shill and pander to make a profit. Media, Law, Health Care, Telecom, Politics, Entertainment et al – the same motivation: profit above all. While there are obvious exceptions it holds true much of the time.
Why should we expect propaganda outlets to change their tune if there is no profit in doing so?
I butted heads with bmaz a couple of times over what the Emptywheel site is: I see this as an investigative journalism endeavor with a hefty portion of politics and law to boot (bmaz was law first and foremost IMHO).
Much needed in today’s world, thank you Marcy Wheeler and all here who help keep things on an even keel.
I quit looking for rhyme or reason with printed, televised then ethered information in the late 70’s: when entities started selling their opinion as straight news I walked away from accepting at face value what was put out there.
People tend to go where their own worldview is reinforced – sites that stick to the truth and facts scare the hell out of a lot of folk.
So why are the mainstream news outlets not going to change? Not going to hold the Orange Idiot’s feet to the fire?
No profit in it. I wish I wrong about this.
“The Soft Bigotry of No Expectations on Trump” is an instant classic!
And Mike Gerson also referred to “…Trump’s fundamental unfitness for high office” and asked whether he is “psychologically and morally equipped to be president? And could his unfitness cause permanent damage to the country?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gerson
This post writes itself every presidential campaign…just trade out a few bullet points from each candidate. The general point has been true since I can remember following politics. Social media is changing all of it, however. I’d be surprised if either of my two voting-age daughters have ever read the NYT or WaPo, and yet they are both aware of what’s going on right now…and they are adept at seeing things without the tint. When the “news” media lies to them (OK, OK, “spins”) about what they’re seeing with their own eyes, it doesn’t work out so great for the “news” media.
This year, for the first time since I can remember, I think I’m actually seeing not-liberals catching on. It has taken a man as clownish as DJT to get them there, and certainly it’s not all not-liberals, but something is changing.
Unfortunately for your daughters, the news young people read on tik tok and social media is targeted at them by algorithms designed to feed them, you know, more of whatever tint they see through.
I agree that the WaPo simply chose to disregard significant disqualifying considerations in regard to Trump in trying to compare Harris and Trump. It was almost written as though the two candidates were simply “two peas in a pod”, when they clearly are not. I never thought I would be one of those to cancel a subscription over an editorial, but I just did.
It is up to the left in this country to point out this obvious disparity, starting with the candidate Vice President Harris. She could respond to the NYT complaints concerning their lack of access by pointing out their lack of real coverage of her opponent. The false narrative of a biased liberal press is long dead. Using the bully pulpit to make this point would, in my opinion, be an effective campaign strategy
Another excellent and timely piece! Nice work!
Since beginning his campaign for president in 2015, Trump has become a toon—a cartoon character in a cartoon.
One could also argue Trump first became a toon during his tenure on the TV show Apprentice, notably when he was scripted to say, “You’re fired!”
The Apprentice was a cartoon show, really no different than The Simpsons. And Trump became a toon, really no different than Bart Simpson.
Regardless, the TV and newspaper media appear to view him as a toon—a cartoon entertainment toon once again running for president.
Since, in their eyes, he is a toon, they don’t expect anything from him other than Bart Simpson type outbursts; instead the TV and newspaper media are now demanding the non-toon candidate Harris utter the straight lines (her policy proposals) so that Trump the Toon can counterpunch against those policy proposals in typical Bart Simpson toon fashion.
My question has always been when will the NYT, WAPO and TV media/reporters stop treating Trump as a toon like Bart Simpson and, instead, treat him like a candidate for president and the convicted criminal/rapist/huckster/Don the Con he is.
The TV and newspaper media’s number one priority is providing entertainment value, not policy education value. They don’t care about policy and educating the public on policy proposals.
These supposed debates are not debates; instead they are cartoon s featuring Trump the Toon counterpunching the policies of the straight person Harris.
Perhaps it’s time for Harris during the September 10th cartoon event to treat the event as the Gong Show and “Gong” Trump off stage when his shtick becomes shit.
NYT and Wapo headline failures are legion. Reading the article requires reading between the lines after mentally noting what’s missing. It really can be too much to ask of casual readers.
Like push-polling, I find the articles persistently creating horse-race conditions, quite often shoring up Trump in the process.
“Gold-standard” integrity become an oxymoron when a tin-pot candidate is oversupported. It’s been over eight years of Trump and they’ve only learned sensationalist schtick sells – not how to light up the dark.