CHUCK TODD: What did you — what went through your head on June 1st when you saw what happened at Lafayette Square?
LT. GEN. H.R. McMASTER: Well, it was just wrong. It was, you know, more than unfortunate because what we can’t do — and this is really across the political spectrum, Chuck, which really bothers me these days — we can’t try to pull the military into politics. Some of the things the president said I think have been irresponsible. But often times, the reaction to what he says is equally irresponsible. So I think all politicians have a responsibility of keeping that bold line in place.
This latest round of interviews by HR McMaster illustrates perfectly what I think we’re going to see from a whole lot of Republicans if Trump loses. Oh, I was very critical but I also criticized the other side for its reactions to him. They are just as much as fault for everything that happened as he was. And I, in my infinite “adult in the room” superiority, am the real conservative who is now going to save the country from irresponsible left now that Trump is gone. You need to put us back in power as soon as possible. ..
It is going to be infuriating, because they were just cowards who enabled Trump as much as possible even though they knew he was destroying the country. They just wanted the Democrats to do their dirty work and get rid of him so they could step in afterwards and tut-tut what it took to do that.
Here he is on Andrea Mitchell’s show managing to say that Trump’s foreign policy is really just like Obama’s — not good, exactly, but you really can’t hold it against the president since Obama was just as bad as he is.
Jonathan Chait had a smart piece last week about this situation:
The Republican Establishment perspective is perfectly reflected by the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The Journal editorial strategy is to cluck its tongue every few months at one of the president’s more counterproductively deranged outbursts, while ignoring his substantive abuses, resolutely opposing any measures to subject him to accountability or oversight, and occasionally mocking anybody who deems his authoritarian maneuvers dangerous.
Today’s Journal editorial is especially comic. Its main thrust is that delusional Democrats (not to mention formerly loyal Republicans now rallying to defend the rule of law from his predations) are going to make a big deal over the no-peaceful-transition thing:
The sad reality is that Democratic opinion leaders have been waiting for a Reichstag fire moment from the minute Mr. Trump took office. Their thirst to be vindicated has grown more intense as his term draws to a close. Perhaps they want to save face after misunderstanding their country and its citizens so fundamentally for four years.
The Reichstag fire is a dodge favored by anti-anti-Trumpists. Despite the popular misconception, it is historically rare for a democracy to perish in a sudden dramatic gesture. Every democracy expert who has been sounding the alarms has been patiently explaining that the threat is not a fascist coup, but a slow breakdown of democratic norms, enabled by mainstream allies who would rather cooperate with authoritarian allies on their own side than allow the opposition to win.
It is true that Trump has limited tools at his disposal with which to operationalize his authoritarian impulses. He has, however, already weakened or disabled a number of constraints. Trump has, among other activities, been busy:
Stoking baseless claims that mail balloting is inherently fraudulent
Calling armed supporters into the streets
Advocating violence against reporters
Strong-arming companies to support him politically
Promising pardons to government employees and co-conspirators who break the law on his behalf
Firing officials who refuse to violate the law on his behalf
Refusing outright to cooperate with any congressional oversight
Just today, his son is on social media, in an official campaign message, raising an “army” of supporters to come to the polls.
The election will probably proceed in a peaceful fashion, largely because Trump will probably lose by a margin too wide for him to cheat. But given the high-magnitude impact of the other scenarios, working to safeguard the republic seems like a worthwhile precaution.
The Journal explains there’s nothing to worry about, since the military has been raising alarms about his authoritarian inclinations. “As for the notion that Mr. Trump could execute a coup—he’s been warring with his own security agencies as long as he’s been in office,” the editorial coos. “He’s been denounced by dozens of retired generals, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff apologized for appearing with him publicly during the unrest in Washington, D.C.”
I’m not sure this point means what the Journal thinks it does. Yes, after Trump ordered the military to violently attack a completely peaceful protest in June, several military officials expressed their regrets afterward. And yes, as the New York Times reports today, Trump’s expressed desire to quell additional peaceful protests “has incited deep anxiety among senior military and Defense Department leaders.” If Trump tries to order troops to crack down on protests that may follow his expected attempt to discredit the election or cut short vote counting, there will likely be pushback. It seems odd to understand this state of affairs as reason to laugh at the silly liberals who worry about the president’s authoritarianism.
The actual scenario that most concerns the opposition is that Trump’s Republican allies in state legislatures will cite disputes over mail ballots as a pretext to appoint Trump electors, regardless of the intent of the voters in their state. Notably, neither the Journal nor any leading Republicans have renounced such a step.
What’s unfortunate about Trump’s threat, complains the editorial, is that it “hands Democrats a ready-made line of attack in Supreme Court confirmation hearings” and his reckless comments give credence to Democratic hysteria, and he should clarify his views if he doesn’t want to lose more voters who think he lacks the temperament or self-control for the office.” (Genghis Khan’s ill-advised threat to burn Samarkand to cinders just feeds into the narrative that he’s some kind of “bloodthirsty conqueror.”)
Trump of course has clarified his views. He has clarified them for decades, since he began praising authoritarian rulers who forcefully suppress popular demonstrations in Russia or China, or refusing to accept the result of the 2016 election, or calling for the mass imprisonment of his political opponents and independent media.
The Journal doesn’t want him to “clarify his views.” It wishes he would obscure them, for the convenience of his allies who are trying to deny their existence.
I wish I could say that libertarians and progressives were different. But there’s quite a bit of tut-tutting going on from those quarters as well. There is going to be a full-blown festival of Superior Dancing, from a whole lot of people if Trump loses. If he wins, well, we have much bigger problems.