Blah, blah, blah. Once again we see a journalist treating an outrageous and dangerous piece of Trump nonsense like a piece of legitimate commentary that deserves serious consideration.
He’s expressing his own sick fantasy while sounding a dog whistle to his cult to perform an assassination on his behalf. And he gets the sick satisfaction of knowing he is intimidating, terrorizing, and enraging his targets, their families, and all his adversaries as well.
This is an irresponsible way to respond to a dangerously irresponsible man.
Completely agree. Inskeep should be ashamed of this piece. It underscores why I’ve stopped listening to NPR and PBS, the normalizing of Trumpian fascism thru journalistic double standards, false equivalency, and explaining away what are direct threats to free press, the rule of law, and our entire republic.
Again, you write a lot of words to normalize a man who openly says he could shoot someone and get away with it, who has sexually assaulted women because he feels entitled, who tried to get HRC jailed last term, who in words of historians and experts in autocracy speaks this way because it normalizes violent language and then violence against foes. You’re participating in the normalization. This man sat and watched and replayed scenes of 1/6 when he had the power to stop it, people died, suffered trauma and injuries-stop sanewashing and normalizing this-it’s how dictators come to power-you’re a journalist, interview experts on autocracy, dementia, history -but stop writing this kind of normalizing stuff-we deserve better
Three times this week I complained to NPR about Steve Inskeep preemptively surrendering to Trump’s fascism on Morning Edition. He doesn’t seem to understand that Trump sees the press as the “enemy of the people” and his acting like a Pollyanna Quisling won’t save him from being put in a camp or disappeared.
Thank you! I feel like I’m the sole cranky old lady who repeatedly writes to NPR almost every time I hear Morning Edition-he’s especially egregious as he refuses to inform listeners about the actual threat-obeying in advance or he really likes Trump but it’s bad journalism
What Trump is actually describing in this comment is a firing squad, not a combat situation so I don't think your analysis holds up. He is fantasizing out loud about murdering Liz Cheney. You do yourself and your readers no service by trying to convince us otherwise. Further, while your analysis of opposing strategies is useful, it seems unrelated to this particular incident. Trump has lost what filter he had whether from dementia or general old age. He is simply unfit to serve.
Thank you for your work. I sense extraordinary effort here to avoid making value judgements or assumptions of Trump's intentions regarding his remarks. Yet, ultimately we all arrive in the same place. Our survival most likely rests on the election of Kamala Harris as President of the United States. Listening is good, pondering is good, giving benefit of the doubt is good and gracious but sometime things are just as they seem.
I've just begun reading Differ We Must. Your analysis puzzles me. Of course what Eisenhower did was important and crucial. BUT that is not what Trump's remark is about---it is directly about killing someone who opposes you---fantasy or whatever, this IS the language of dictators, tyrants, and mob bosses when talking about opponents and people they despise. You can't avoid it......
I am puzzled by your piece. Trump is not speaking of war, he is talking about what he wants to do to his political enemies - or those who hurt his feelings. They are the "enemy within" because they are within his mind. His followers do not seem to understand EVERYTHING is about how Trump perceives life about himself. His hate and vitriol divide our country, and our news outlets offer excuses for him.
I so appreciate digressions (wherever I find them) on Ike’s lasting impact in diplomacy and institutions. Definitely a president worthy of some fresh examination!
But must say, that when I got to that digression, I began to wonder if “the weave” is contagious.
Really Steve? You can say she/ her father was too eager to send Americans to war without the specifics Trump used. When a candidate for the presidency talks about nine barrels pointing at her, it sounds like a threat. And Trump clearly knows this .
Yes, much of the debate over the comment misses the point. And yes, which candidate has the skill to maintain our alliances is important. But that too misses the point.
The comments are a perfect example of how Trump operates. He talks about Cheney as a war hawk and then says some words he will later insist are about how she would like it if she were the one being sent into war, not about executing her.
But let me ask you a multiple choice question: No matter in what context, when you hear these words, “let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her” followed by “when the guns are trained on face…” what mental,picture do you get?
a. A picture of someone fighting on the front lines in a war.
b. Someone about to be executed by a firing squad
c. Other (fill in the blank).
I find it hard to believe that anyone would choose a or even c, because the image is so clearly of execution by firing squad. Soldiers in an opposing army may come at your army as a wave and firing weapons, but they don’t come at you, as an individual, in squads of nine, training their rifles on your face.
And yet, it is true that he did not use the words firing squad or execution, and the image is placed within the context of a statement about war, not public execution.
So I think the point is this: THIS IS WHAT HE DOES ABOUT ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. Consider the origins of his political rise—the birther nonsense. You will be hard pressed, I think, to find any evidence anywhere that Donald Trump ever actually said that Barack Obama was not born in the US, or that he (Trump) thought or even suspected that he was not. It will all be “people are saying” and “we’re looking into that” and “we’ll have to see.”
He is a master at stirring up shit with what I would call “implausible deniability.” All those for whom the image of the firing squad executing Cheney is appealing will feel as though he is their man. Many will not be afraid to derive from the words both more direct language and even action. He will have created real time danger, potential for mob violence. And he will sit back with his Diet Coke and enjoy watching it on tv, shrugging it off as having nothing to do with him. Meanwhile he, or his fans, will be busy decrying the hysteria of those who find what he has created terrifying. He is incompetent at many things, but at this he is a master.
Jesus, Steve, you’re treating him as sentient. We are in the tenth year of his assault on every meaningful institution in our country, rhetorical, hateful, criminal. He long ago proved his true intent is the worst possible interpretation of his words or actions.
Agree wholeheartedly. This is a major problem. We’ve lost all nuance in political discourse in favor of sports-team-like cheerleading. It’s so entrenched on both sides now it will be difficult to find out way back. ALL public policy issues are nuanced, but we have become too lazy to engage in the critical thinking required to have an honest and vigorous debate. It’s all about power now, not what is good for the country.
Blah, blah, blah. Once again we see a journalist treating an outrageous and dangerous piece of Trump nonsense like a piece of legitimate commentary that deserves serious consideration.
He’s expressing his own sick fantasy while sounding a dog whistle to his cult to perform an assassination on his behalf. And he gets the sick satisfaction of knowing he is intimidating, terrorizing, and enraging his targets, their families, and all his adversaries as well.
This is an irresponsible way to respond to a dangerously irresponsible man.
You are right. This is irresponsible journalism.
Dangerous
Completely agree. Inskeep should be ashamed of this piece. It underscores why I’ve stopped listening to NPR and PBS, the normalizing of Trumpian fascism thru journalistic double standards, false equivalency, and explaining away what are direct threats to free press, the rule of law, and our entire republic.
Again, you write a lot of words to normalize a man who openly says he could shoot someone and get away with it, who has sexually assaulted women because he feels entitled, who tried to get HRC jailed last term, who in words of historians and experts in autocracy speaks this way because it normalizes violent language and then violence against foes. You’re participating in the normalization. This man sat and watched and replayed scenes of 1/6 when he had the power to stop it, people died, suffered trauma and injuries-stop sanewashing and normalizing this-it’s how dictators come to power-you’re a journalist, interview experts on autocracy, dementia, history -but stop writing this kind of normalizing stuff-we deserve better
Three times this week I complained to NPR about Steve Inskeep preemptively surrendering to Trump’s fascism on Morning Edition. He doesn’t seem to understand that Trump sees the press as the “enemy of the people” and his acting like a Pollyanna Quisling won’t save him from being put in a camp or disappeared.
Thank you! I feel like I’m the sole cranky old lady who repeatedly writes to NPR almost every time I hear Morning Edition-he’s especially egregious as he refuses to inform listeners about the actual threat-obeying in advance or he really likes Trump but it’s bad journalism
What Trump is actually describing in this comment is a firing squad, not a combat situation so I don't think your analysis holds up. He is fantasizing out loud about murdering Liz Cheney. You do yourself and your readers no service by trying to convince us otherwise. Further, while your analysis of opposing strategies is useful, it seems unrelated to this particular incident. Trump has lost what filter he had whether from dementia or general old age. He is simply unfit to serve.
Thank you for your work. I sense extraordinary effort here to avoid making value judgements or assumptions of Trump's intentions regarding his remarks. Yet, ultimately we all arrive in the same place. Our survival most likely rests on the election of Kamala Harris as President of the United States. Listening is good, pondering is good, giving benefit of the doubt is good and gracious but sometime things are just as they seem.
I've just begun reading Differ We Must. Your analysis puzzles me. Of course what Eisenhower did was important and crucial. BUT that is not what Trump's remark is about---it is directly about killing someone who opposes you---fantasy or whatever, this IS the language of dictators, tyrants, and mob bosses when talking about opponents and people they despise. You can't avoid it......
It’s really quite something.
I am puzzled by your piece. Trump is not speaking of war, he is talking about what he wants to do to his political enemies - or those who hurt his feelings. They are the "enemy within" because they are within his mind. His followers do not seem to understand EVERYTHING is about how Trump perceives life about himself. His hate and vitriol divide our country, and our news outlets offer excuses for him.
FFS. He was not making a foreign policy statement.
He fantasizes about harm coming to those who oppose him, particularly a desire to preside over that harm.
It is worse if those opposing him are women.
What on earth are you talking about?
Thanks, Steve. Now favor us with a reasoned explanation of what Trump meant when he mimed a blow job. I’m sure you can make it seem presidential.
I so appreciate digressions (wherever I find them) on Ike’s lasting impact in diplomacy and institutions. Definitely a president worthy of some fresh examination!
But must say, that when I got to that digression, I began to wonder if “the weave” is contagious.
Trump, the draft dodger who had a physician diagnose bone spurs as a four to his father, only wants to use the military against his personal enemies.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/12/26/politics/trump-bone-spurs-vietnam-war
Really Steve? You can say she/ her father was too eager to send Americans to war without the specifics Trump used. When a candidate for the presidency talks about nine barrels pointing at her, it sounds like a threat. And Trump clearly knows this .
Yes, much of the debate over the comment misses the point. And yes, which candidate has the skill to maintain our alliances is important. But that too misses the point.
The comments are a perfect example of how Trump operates. He talks about Cheney as a war hawk and then says some words he will later insist are about how she would like it if she were the one being sent into war, not about executing her.
But let me ask you a multiple choice question: No matter in what context, when you hear these words, “let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her” followed by “when the guns are trained on face…” what mental,picture do you get?
a. A picture of someone fighting on the front lines in a war.
b. Someone about to be executed by a firing squad
c. Other (fill in the blank).
I find it hard to believe that anyone would choose a or even c, because the image is so clearly of execution by firing squad. Soldiers in an opposing army may come at your army as a wave and firing weapons, but they don’t come at you, as an individual, in squads of nine, training their rifles on your face.
And yet, it is true that he did not use the words firing squad or execution, and the image is placed within the context of a statement about war, not public execution.
So I think the point is this: THIS IS WHAT HE DOES ABOUT ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. Consider the origins of his political rise—the birther nonsense. You will be hard pressed, I think, to find any evidence anywhere that Donald Trump ever actually said that Barack Obama was not born in the US, or that he (Trump) thought or even suspected that he was not. It will all be “people are saying” and “we’re looking into that” and “we’ll have to see.”
He is a master at stirring up shit with what I would call “implausible deniability.” All those for whom the image of the firing squad executing Cheney is appealing will feel as though he is their man. Many will not be afraid to derive from the words both more direct language and even action. He will have created real time danger, potential for mob violence. And he will sit back with his Diet Coke and enjoy watching it on tv, shrugging it off as having nothing to do with him. Meanwhile he, or his fans, will be busy decrying the hysteria of those who find what he has created terrifying. He is incompetent at many things, but at this he is a master.
What war did Liz Chaney vote for?
I don’t think you’ve shown anything to support that reading of his statement. Just more sanewashing.
Jesus, Steve, you’re treating him as sentient. We are in the tenth year of his assault on every meaningful institution in our country, rhetorical, hateful, criminal. He long ago proved his true intent is the worst possible interpretation of his words or actions.
Agree wholeheartedly. This is a major problem. We’ve lost all nuance in political discourse in favor of sports-team-like cheerleading. It’s so entrenched on both sides now it will be difficult to find out way back. ALL public policy issues are nuanced, but we have become too lazy to engage in the critical thinking required to have an honest and vigorous debate. It’s all about power now, not what is good for the country.