SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
People protest against U.S. President Donald Trump in front of the White House on July 11, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Absolving Trump Means Erasing the Harm Done to Millions
The call to coddle Trump—like the same outlets’ insistence that it would be mean to send bankers whose fraud derailed the economy to jail—is evidence of the total divorce between real people’s lives and experiences, and the puppets and caricatures in media’s narrative.
Nov 14, 2020
Disturbing as it is to see politicians and pundits advising a Biden administration to vehemently reject progressive policy goals, there's more. As Eoin Higgins notes in a piece for Business Insider (10/30/20), a concurrent strain of argument is that Trump himself should face no real public reckoning. Higgins cites a column by historian Jill Lepore in the Washington Post (10/16/20)--heralded as "eloquent" by the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof (Twitter, 10/18/20): "Let History, Not Partisans, Prosecute Trump."
Lepore, a Harvard professor, says it would be inappropriate to have a reconciliation commission like other countries have had; Trump's "wrongdoing" instead "should be investigated by journalists, chronicled by historians and, in some instances, tried in ordinary courts." How those courts can adequately address such "wrongdoing" as allowing, through corruption and mismanagement, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is unclear. Her moral point is, though: "Many Trump critics will find this suggestion maddeningly insufficient," Lepore notes, but chides "the appetite for vengeance is a symptom of the same poison."
The call to coddle Trump--like the same outlets' insistence that it would be mean to send bankers whose fraud derailed the economy to jail--is evidence of the total divorce between real people's lives and experiences, and the puppets and caricatures in media's narrative. There is no accountability to the millions of people who lost their lives, their loved ones, their homes, their jobs. Then as now, protecting the status quo involves marginalizing calls for justice, by portraying them as an "emotional" desire for "vengeance," better tempered by cooler heads.
"Higher capital requirements may not satisfy blood lust the way a CEO in chains would," wrote the Washington Post (9/12/13) in 2013, "but they're going to do a lot more." At the New York Times (2/25/11), it was: "You're entitled to wonder whether any of the highly paid executives who helped kindle the disaster will ever see jail time. The harder question, though, is whether anybody should."
The call to let Trump go gently also evokes the call not to prosecute those who committed acts of torture for the US--purporting to be some sort of healing gesture about "looking forward, not back," while in fact preserving the conditions that led to the horrors. Now as then, doing what we're told is the dry-eyed, grown-up thing to do involves erasing the real harms done to real people. That's not "politic," or "pragmatic"--it's perverse.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
Disturbing as it is to see politicians and pundits advising a Biden administration to vehemently reject progressive policy goals, there's more. As Eoin Higgins notes in a piece for Business Insider (10/30/20), a concurrent strain of argument is that Trump himself should face no real public reckoning. Higgins cites a column by historian Jill Lepore in the Washington Post (10/16/20)--heralded as "eloquent" by the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof (Twitter, 10/18/20): "Let History, Not Partisans, Prosecute Trump."
Lepore, a Harvard professor, says it would be inappropriate to have a reconciliation commission like other countries have had; Trump's "wrongdoing" instead "should be investigated by journalists, chronicled by historians and, in some instances, tried in ordinary courts." How those courts can adequately address such "wrongdoing" as allowing, through corruption and mismanagement, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is unclear. Her moral point is, though: "Many Trump critics will find this suggestion maddeningly insufficient," Lepore notes, but chides "the appetite for vengeance is a symptom of the same poison."
The call to coddle Trump--like the same outlets' insistence that it would be mean to send bankers whose fraud derailed the economy to jail--is evidence of the total divorce between real people's lives and experiences, and the puppets and caricatures in media's narrative. There is no accountability to the millions of people who lost their lives, their loved ones, their homes, their jobs. Then as now, protecting the status quo involves marginalizing calls for justice, by portraying them as an "emotional" desire for "vengeance," better tempered by cooler heads.
"Higher capital requirements may not satisfy blood lust the way a CEO in chains would," wrote the Washington Post (9/12/13) in 2013, "but they're going to do a lot more." At the New York Times (2/25/11), it was: "You're entitled to wonder whether any of the highly paid executives who helped kindle the disaster will ever see jail time. The harder question, though, is whether anybody should."
The call to let Trump go gently also evokes the call not to prosecute those who committed acts of torture for the US--purporting to be some sort of healing gesture about "looking forward, not back," while in fact preserving the conditions that led to the horrors. Now as then, doing what we're told is the dry-eyed, grown-up thing to do involves erasing the real harms done to real people. That's not "politic," or "pragmatic"--it's perverse.
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
Disturbing as it is to see politicians and pundits advising a Biden administration to vehemently reject progressive policy goals, there's more. As Eoin Higgins notes in a piece for Business Insider (10/30/20), a concurrent strain of argument is that Trump himself should face no real public reckoning. Higgins cites a column by historian Jill Lepore in the Washington Post (10/16/20)--heralded as "eloquent" by the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof (Twitter, 10/18/20): "Let History, Not Partisans, Prosecute Trump."
Lepore, a Harvard professor, says it would be inappropriate to have a reconciliation commission like other countries have had; Trump's "wrongdoing" instead "should be investigated by journalists, chronicled by historians and, in some instances, tried in ordinary courts." How those courts can adequately address such "wrongdoing" as allowing, through corruption and mismanagement, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is unclear. Her moral point is, though: "Many Trump critics will find this suggestion maddeningly insufficient," Lepore notes, but chides "the appetite for vengeance is a symptom of the same poison."
The call to coddle Trump--like the same outlets' insistence that it would be mean to send bankers whose fraud derailed the economy to jail--is evidence of the total divorce between real people's lives and experiences, and the puppets and caricatures in media's narrative. There is no accountability to the millions of people who lost their lives, their loved ones, their homes, their jobs. Then as now, protecting the status quo involves marginalizing calls for justice, by portraying them as an "emotional" desire for "vengeance," better tempered by cooler heads.
"Higher capital requirements may not satisfy blood lust the way a CEO in chains would," wrote the Washington Post (9/12/13) in 2013, "but they're going to do a lot more." At the New York Times (2/25/11), it was: "You're entitled to wonder whether any of the highly paid executives who helped kindle the disaster will ever see jail time. The harder question, though, is whether anybody should."
The call to let Trump go gently also evokes the call not to prosecute those who committed acts of torture for the US--purporting to be some sort of healing gesture about "looking forward, not back," while in fact preserving the conditions that led to the horrors. Now as then, doing what we're told is the dry-eyed, grown-up thing to do involves erasing the real harms done to real people. That's not "politic," or "pragmatic"--it's perverse.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.