Washington Post's Op-Ed By Jennifer Rubin Swings And Misses-It's Not About The "Optics"
This Op-Ed (linked below) from Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post is what I would characterize as her increasingly typical "weak sauce" as it pertains to the possible prosecution of Donald Trump.
As usual, Ms. Rubin is thorough in stating her case for Merrick Garland to go ahead and prosecute Trump. She "touches all of the bases" as the saying goes. But the whole thing is off, by way of "fallacy of composition."
Her article is based on a false premise, which is her assertion that the main argument for Garland to keep his hands off Trump is that it signifies the US transitioning into a "Banana Republic," that is to say that only such nations prosecute former Presidents upon their leaving office. And she goes ahead to rationally debunk that argument and makes the case why it is invalid, in fact why not indicting him would be more typical of a Banana Republic, since justice and the rule of law would no longer apply.
All very logical, reasonable, cogent, and comforting like Earl Grey Tea with toast and Peach marmalade. Something you might hear being talked about in faculty lounges here and there. And actually wrong. There is only one real world argument against indicting Trump which carries any weight anywhere, which mainstream writers simply refuse to put into clearly worded terms. Which is that it will be a trigger for civil war. Even that is not a strong argument for non-prosecution in my view, since many people privately believe that it has already begun, with January 6th being the Fort Sumter of our times. Therefore on those grounds, trying to avoid the triggering of something already underway is not an acceptable argument either. Rubin's article is really more about the poor "optics" of a non-prosecution of Trump, how it makes us look, (meaning we will look worse if we don't indict) rather than the deeper reality.
The point made by Ms. Rubin at the conclusion is real enough, which is that to not prosecute Trump is to enable future coup attempts. That is correct, as far as it goes. However, it still conforms to the line of establishment media, which is that their coverage should downplay the dynamic of civil conflict, out of fear of "talking it into existence." The logic is that reporters and journalists warning of civil war will be responsible for it because they talked about it too much. Not talking about it is supposed to make the threat go away, according to this editorial stance. It is the same stupid reasoning which says "never do a breast exam in the shower, you might find something."
So, here is a classic example of a kind of modern "newspeak," which is to make an argument through compiling a list of verifiable facts, and to draw the entirely wrong conclusion from those facts. Banana Republic. A nice, trendy but old school expression, reminiscent of the old comedies like Woody Allen's film "Bananas," or the Peter Falk film, "The In Laws." (both hilarious btw) Bad guys who look like Castro, big beards, cigars, Generalissimos in full regalia.
It is trivializing and demeaning to those Americans who will lose both life and limb in the coming civil conflict to compare our current crisis to countries whose governments rose and fell not because they were inherently unstable, but because of machinations run by the CIA out of US Embassies against their Soviet counterparts, which is the actual real etymology of the term Banana Republic anyway. (United Fruit Corporation was run as a virtual CIA proprietary company for decades of covert ops in Latin America) That is actually funny in a dark kind of way to think about. I don't seem to remember the US government having an embassy in Washington DC. Maybe that's why we never had a coup here before.
So, who am I to call out an established prize-winning female writer with a national following and a column in one of our two newspapers of record in the US? Just a guy on the internet who wrote 31 articles over two years preceding the 2020 election warning in specific about the steps Trump would take to overturn the election, including the violent white supremacist attack on our Capitol. Why don't I have a column, you might be asking? Because I burned my bridges to the US establishment many years ago.
I wouldn't write for the Washington Post. In the words of the immortal Groucho Marx; "I would never join a club that would have someone like me as a member." And the idea of working for Jeff Bezos is not too thrilling either. I'd rather deliver for UPS.
And please, while we are on the subject, someone should write an email to Jennifer Rubin to ask her to get off of her high horse and stop being so damned respectable. We need something "picante" coming from her direction, not soothing like f*cking Earl Grey Tea.
