Why the media must continue to hammer Trump for his tweets

Every new Trump tweet brings a few predictable reactions: the outrage; the terrible defenses from paid apologists, usually followed by renewed outrage; and appeals to the media to stop covering the Assclown-in-Chief’s every self-inflicted pie-to-the-face. For the latter, I understand the feeling – how can we focus on anything if every other minute we’re distracted by news about Trump’s compulsive howling? He’s probably doing it on purpose as a diversion from his terrible policies! – but as Ed Brayton explains, it’s crucial that the media keep shining the spotlight on everything that comes crawling out of Trump’s Twitter feed:

Yes, he’s trolling here. No, he is not trying to distract attention. He doesn’t think that strategically. He just can’t help himself. He’s a child, with zero impulse control. And that is precisely why the media should continue to cover his tweets, because they reinforce his worst tendencies. He does things like this specifically because he knows they’ll cause outrage, because he’s basically screaming “YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME, I DO WHAT I WANT!” So the more he’s criticized, the worse he’ll get.

Exactly. The idea that Trump purposefully tweets shameful and incendiary batshit to divert the public’s attention from his executive orders and legislative proposals falsely imputes cleverness to the man that he doesn’t possess. A more accurate explanation is the simpler one: He’s too stupid and clueless to know any better. It’s why his aides constantly try to rein him in, and why he refuses to stop no matter how much embarrassment he piles on top of himself both nationally and around the world.

I’ll admit, in the early days of the election cycle and before I knew much about Trump, I thought there was a possibility, a slight one, that this was all some long con, a presidential version of Punk’d, and that he couldn’t possibly be as grotesque as he made himself out to be; that he might just be doing and saying whatever it took to tap into the current of Red-American resentment (whom, after all, had just suffered under eight years of a non-Republican Black president), knowing that they were his best chance to win the White House. Perhaps he was something of a Mitt-Romney-like chameleon: someone who twists and turns with the political and ideological current, but who ultimately would bring some level of acumen to the top job.

… As I said, I thought it was a slight possibility. Instead everyone is now dead certain that the most powerful man in the world is a terrifying, mean-spirited imbecile.

Brayton continues:

And that’s a good thing. The more he does this, the more he confines any support he might otherwise get only to his hardcore base, the kind of simpleminded lickspittles who salivate at the feet of bullies like Trump. The more he displays such behavior, the harder it becomes for anyone who is capable of changing their mind about him to keep supporting him. And the lower his support numbers go, the less likely he is to get cooperation from his fellow Republicans in Congress, who are increasingly being forced to distance themselves from him.

On this point, I feel somewhat conflicted – not about whether Trump deserves to get pummeled, but about what the end goal should be in doing so. Most of Trump’s opponents would like to see him impeached, but even if the country could pull off that little miracle, unless Trump’s removal from office were followed by removing his successor just as quickly, the US would only trade an incompetent buffoon for Mike Pence, the religious-conservative ideologue and former governor of Indiana who wrecked his home state so badly that the moment he left to become Vice-President, his own Republican colleagues rushed to reverse his policies to salvage what they could. And even if Pence were also miraculously removed, Trump’s entire line of succession is one walking disaster after another. There’s simply no way that impeaching Trump doesn’t make things even worse.

The goal instead should be to keep Trump in power, but in name only. Rather than get rid of him altogether, his opponents must try to frustrate his every effort and mitigate whatever damage he causes. Less support in Congress means he might fail to push through his more heinous proposals, if Republicans know that standing by him will result in an election loss down the line. With perseverance and a little luck, he might be hated enough come November 2020 that even the same conservative base that buoyed him in the first time won’t be enough to grant him a second term. And whilst we’re at it, maybe the Democrats may figure out how to run a widely popular and genuine candidate without undermining them in favor of a flawed and distrusted but politically well-connected corporate sellout.

Sorry, I think I fell into a dream there for a moment.

Edit (07/04/17 @ 6:08 AM ET): Fixed a couple typos.