As one editorial put it, President Trump certainly has whacked the beehive. The unnecessary controversy was set off by yet another poorly worded, inelegant Trump tweet: But as Holman Jenkins writes in the WSJ, despite the faux outrage, the media should pay Mr. Trump to tweet.
The latest in how easily Trump’s elicits ritualized behavior from our media:
So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.
Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how….it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
Reread the section where Trump invites the Democrat congresswomen back to show how to fix what’s broken. As Mr. Jenkins notes, the outrage is over two words in the middle of Trump’s 121-word tweet storm.
Yankee Go Home and Take Me with You
Two words, “go back,” in the middle of his 121-word tweet storm apparently directed at the radical Democratic House clique … don’t strike me as the racist trope his partisan enemies insist. Yes, they echo bigoted words heard many times by foreign tourists and immigrants. Of course there’s also the countervailing trope: Decades ago on a street in Istanbul a man came up to me and shouted, “Yankee go home and take me with you.” And then he laughed.
Americans are free to interpret his comments however they wish. But if “go back” means what his critics say, then how do three other words in the same admittedly idiotic tweet storm advising them “then come back” (after ministering to the unhappy countries from which they or their parents originated) fit the trope?
Here’s the inconsistency though. Under President Trump, belittled by half the country as nothing more than a reality-TV jester, the U.S., judging by the employment and consumer-confidence numbers, is enjoying unprecedented growth
Yet an inconsistency seems worth observing. The Democrats who would challenge him uniformly insist on two points:
- Isn’t it awful that the American people could elect Donald Trump president?
- Let’s vastly expand the powers and mission of the federal government for the next time it falls into the hands of a president we revile as much as Mr. Trump (or any Republican, really).
Holman Jenkins believes that the “fundamental incontinence” doesn’t mean a Democrat can’t be elected. “It just means voters are likely to provide a GOP Congress to stop her or him from doing anything.”
Read more here.