The Deseret News--one of the major newspapers where I live--has departed from a long standing policy of partisan neutrality to argue against electing Donald Trump. Their editorial appears below.
The breaking point for the editorial board was Trump's tape boasting of predatory behavior and apparently condoning sexual assault, a tape also filled with sickeningly vulgar language. But I think it's clear from the editorial and from other opinions the board has expressed over past months that they've been skeptical of Trump for some time. In this editorial they indicate that the tape is not the only evidence for disturbing traits--including bullying and unbridled egotism--that suggest despotic tendencies. So the editorial is very strong in its condemnation of Trump.
I would have put a few things differently. I'll detail some of those after the editorial. (Please consider reading my comments--they are my main original contribution to this post. Note that I have added highlighting to my comments so they'll be easier to locate.)
Also below, in addition to my reservations about the editorial, I've added appendix 1, 2, and 3. These include some items written by others that make several important points: (1) that Trump's "apology" was not much of an apology--and wouldn't have worked very well if he were trying to get a job (which, in a sense, he is); (2) that (contrary to what some of Trump's defenders have said) most men do not use the kind of language or express the kinds of views Trump does in his infamous tape; and (3) that the revelations about Trump should not have been terribly surprising, and that those who have reacted negatively to these revelations ought to have expressed similar outrage at each of a whole string of abusive acts Trump has been guilty of over the past few months. That third article notes that a few, including Mitt Romney, have been consistent in their critique of Trump.
And now for the editorial from the Deseret News.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664336/In-our-opinion-Donald-Trump-should-resign-his-candidacy.html?pg=all
The breaking point for the editorial board was Trump's tape boasting of predatory behavior and apparently condoning sexual assault, a tape also filled with sickeningly vulgar language. But I think it's clear from the editorial and from other opinions the board has expressed over past months that they've been skeptical of Trump for some time. In this editorial they indicate that the tape is not the only evidence for disturbing traits--including bullying and unbridled egotism--that suggest despotic tendencies. So the editorial is very strong in its condemnation of Trump.
I would have put a few things differently. I'll detail some of those after the editorial. (Please consider reading my comments--they are my main original contribution to this post. Note that I have added highlighting to my comments so they'll be easier to locate.)
Also below, in addition to my reservations about the editorial, I've added appendix 1, 2, and 3. These include some items written by others that make several important points: (1) that Trump's "apology" was not much of an apology--and wouldn't have worked very well if he were trying to get a job (which, in a sense, he is); (2) that (contrary to what some of Trump's defenders have said) most men do not use the kind of language or express the kinds of views Trump does in his infamous tape; and (3) that the revelations about Trump should not have been terribly surprising, and that those who have reacted negatively to these revelations ought to have expressed similar outrage at each of a whole string of abusive acts Trump has been guilty of over the past few months. That third article notes that a few, including Mitt Romney, have been consistent in their critique of Trump.
And now for the editorial from the Deseret News.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664336/In-our-opinion-Donald-Trump-should-resign-his-candidacy.html?pg=all
Opinion
In our opinion: Donald Trump should resign
his candidacy
Deseret News editorial
Published: Oct. 8, 2016 12:15 p.m.Updated: 22 hours ago [ca. 4pm, Oct. 8, 2016]
For 80 years, the Deseret News has not entered into the troubled waters of presidential endorsement. We are neutral on matters of partisan politics. We do, however, feel a duty to speak clearly on issues that affect the well-being and morals of the nation.
Accordingly,
today we call on Donald Trump to step down from his pursuit of the American
presidency.
In
democratic elections, ideas have consequences, leadership matters and character
counts.
The idea
that women secretly welcome the unbridled and aggressive sexual advances of
powerful men has led to the mistreatment, sorrow and subjugation of countless
women for far too much of human history.
The
notion that strength emanates from harsh, divisive and unbending rhetorical
flourish mistakenly equates leadership with craven intimidation.
The
belief that the party and the platform matter more than the character of the
candidate ignores the wisdom of the ages that, “when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” (Proverbs 29:2)
We
understand that politicians and presidential candidates are human and that
everyone makes mistakes. We do not believe that what is expressed in an
unguarded moment of conversation should be the full measure of an individual.
And we unquestionably support the principle that people deserve forgiveness,
compassion and a second chance.
But
history affirms that leaders' examples either elevate or demean the lives of
those being led. When choosing the ostensible leader of the free world, the
American electorate requires the clear assurance that their chosen candidate
will consistently put the well-being of others ahead of his or her own personal
gratification. The most recent revelations of Trump’s lewdness disturb us not
only because of his vulgar objectification of women, but also because they
poignantly confirm Trump’s inability to self-govern.
What
oozes from this audio is evil. We hear a married man give smooth, smug and
self-congratulatory permission to his intense impulses, allowing them to
outweigh the most modest sense of decency, fidelity and commitment. And
although it speaks volumes about sexual morality, it goes to the heart of all
ethical behavior. Trump’s banter belies a willingness to use and discard other
human beings at will. That characteristic is the essence of a despot.
Nor is
this an isolated incident. His reprehensible sexual speech confirms troubling
reports and outrageous outbursts that have dogged his campaign from the
beginning. Another example appeared earlier this week detailing Trump’s
language and behavior on his reality television show, "The
Apprentice."
The
Associated Press “interviewed more than 20 people — former crew members,
editors and contestants — who described crass behavior by Trump behind the
scenes of the long-running hit show.”
In the
face of these revelations, it is disheartening to see otherwise decent
individuals now attempting to defend Trump’s talk, dismissing it as mere
“locker room” bravado. At the time of the audio recording, Trump was not a
hormonal teenage athlete, but rather a 60-year-old husband of an expectant
mother and the father of four children.
America’s
locker rooms deserve better.
When
Donald Trump’s running mate Indiana Gov. Mike Pence visited Utah and met with
members of the Deseret News Editorial Board, he assured us that Mr. Trump was a
"good man" who held "the ideals and values” of Utahns. Likewise, while visiting the Beehive State, Donald
Trump Jr. told us that his father was running because of the “values held dear
in this community.”
Considering
his conduct and comportment, we do not believe Trump holds the ideals and
values of this community or this paper.
We are
grateful for the courageous decision by many of Utah’s leading Republican
politicians to renounce the top of their ticket.
Some will
see our denunciation of Trump as tantamount to an endorsement of former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That is not the case. Although she comes
with extraordinary experience, Clinton promotes social and economic policies we
cannot support and she too has a history of self-dealing that gives us
significant pause.
Should
Clinton prevail in this presidential contest, we trust she — and those in the
Congress that hold the presidency in check — will recognize that her likely
victory against a self-wounded candidate is not a mandate for her specific
platform, but rather a repudiation of Trump’s flaws.
We prefer
to stand for something rather than against someone. But this is one of those
rare moments where it is necessary to take a clear stand against the
hucksterism, misogyny, narcissism and latent despotism that infect the Trump
campaign even as we hope for a more auspicious future of liberty, prosperity
and peace for the nation.
As the
next few consequential weeks unfold, we trust the American people, as they vote
their conscience, will provide a clarion call for sound ideas, true leadership
and proven character from our next administration and Congress.
Trump
cannot answer that call. We ask him to step aside.
Editor's note: The
Deseret News, although owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, is not an official publication of the church. Editorial opinions reflect
the views of the Deseret News.
Now for my reservations--things I would have said differently if I had written the editorial:
(1) Not endorsing someone else?: I understand the need for the sentence that reads "Some will see our denunciation of Trump as tantamount to an endorsement of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." But I believe it would have been helpful to have added "or of any of the other candidates running for president." (A lengthier version could have been put after the following paragraph, i.e.., after "repudiation of Trump's flaws"--perhaps a new paragraph beginning, "Nor should our rejection of Trump be taken as an endorsement of Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. We are even less willing to endorse their policies than . . ." Something like that.)
My reason for suggesting such a clarification is that for the editorial board to specifically refer to Trump's and Clinton's flaws and take issue with their policies could be taken as suggesting that Johnson and Stein are less flawed than the major party candidates. In fact, it's clear that in terms of experience and understanding of foreign and domestic issues, Johnson and Stein have flaws at least as serious as Clinton's, if not far greater. And I would be surprised if the editorial board didn't find more to disagree with in the Libertarian platform than the Democratic one. For instance, Gary Johnson is pro-choice on abortion, favors allowing same-sex marriage, and favors legalizing marijuana. I'm pretty sure all or most of the editorial board members would disagree with those positions.
(2) Clinton's "social and economic policies": Where the editorial says, "Clinton promotes social and economic policies we cannot support," I would have added the word "some": "Clinton promotes some social and economic policies we cannot support." I can guess a couple of the social issues on which the board disagree with Clinton. But I can't believe that they prefer Trump's position on immigration, his Islamophobia, and a number of other positions that could reasonably be called "social."
As for "economic policies," it would be interesting to know which of Clinton's economic policies they disagree with. Do they prefer Trump's tax plan to hers? Do they prefer his aggressively protectionist trade positions to her greater sympathy for free trade? I have my doubts.
And when it goes beyond a few issues on which I could expect the Deseret News to take what they (and I) would consider moral positions--including abortion, immigration, and religious and ethnic tolerance--I hope that the carefully non-partisan editorial board would take a moderate, pragmatic, and mainly non-ideological approach rather than aligning themselves with a particular party platform or ideology. In fact, I hope there's some balance and diversity of opinion within the editorial board. I hope not everyone on the board would reject all of Clinton's social and economic policies.
My hope that the board is not heavily tilted toward one political ideology (either conservatism or liberalism or any other) has something to do with the fact that the newspaper is owned by the LDS Church and that the Church, besides taking a non-partisan stance, has also been careful not to endorse a particular political ideology. As one of the Church's current apostles once put it: "I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism-but I find no salvation in any of them" (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "Criticism," Ensign, Feb 1987, 68ff.).
(3) Clinton's likely mandate--or lack thereof: In another of the editorial's paragraph's I detect some flawed reasoning:
"Should Clinton prevail in this presidential contest, we trust she — and those in the Congress that hold the presidency in check — will recognize that her likely victory against a self-wounded candidate is not a mandate for her specific platform, but rather a repudiation of Trump’s flaws."
First of all, every presidential contest is between two candidates with flaws. The fact that voters prefer one candidate over the other doesn't mean either is without flaws, nor does it indicate an unqualified approval for everything the winning candidate stands for. But it is usually held that to win an election doesn't just mean that the public has rejected one's opponent. A mandate of some kind, even a highly qualified one, is suggested by the fact that one side has won the election.
I think what the editorial board means is that Hillary may win the election by a larger margin than she would have if Trump hadn't wounded himself so severely. And that is probably true. Yet polling has shown Clinton to be the likely winner for at least a couple of months now, long before the horrifically disgusting tape was made public.
So perhaps the editorial should have something more like this: "Should Clinton prevail in this presidential contest and prevail by a large margin, we trust she — and those in the Congress that hold the presidency in check — will recognize that the size of her likely victory against a self-wounded candidate is not an unqualified mandate for her specific platform, but at least in part a repudiation of Trump’s flaws."
Yes, that's longer and more more carefully qualified. But I also think it's more accurate.
APPENDIX 1: Trump's apology
This is the first of three pieces by other writers I'm appending to this post. A friend of mine (Margy Ullman Layton) has worked with inmates in correctional facilities and has shared the following insights:
Margy Ullmann Layton
As I listened to Trump’s statement today, I couldn’t help but think of parallels to discussions I have with inmates about handling questions regarding their criminal background in job interviews. I might just save the video clip to illustrate to my classes what not to do.
The one point I'd consider giving Trump is that he talked about what he’s learned and how he’s changed. I hesitate, though, because nothing he said indicated that he has a better understanding of why his "words," as he called them, were wrong. His statement would have been so much stronger had he denounced sexual assault. Maybe half a point for that.
Here, though, are five points he failed.
1. Make sure you tell your story straight. If you contradict yourself, it will undermine trust.
Trump: “I’ve never . . . pretended to be someone that I’m not.” Then two sentences later, “Anyone who knows me, know these words don’t reflect who I am.” – The second claim exactly contradicts the first. Or is it the first that contradicts the second?
2. Don't confess every detail, but whatever you say should be consistent with whatever a potential employer will turn up in a background check.
Trump: “Anyone who knows me, know these words don’t reflect who I am.” – I have a very hard time believing this claim based on so many other words that have come out of his mouth. What would a more thorough background check turn up?
3. Don’t make sweeping promises you have no way of guaranteeing. For example, instead of saying “I will never use again,” talk about what you are doing to follow through on a commitment to stay clean.
Trump: “I . . . will never, ever let you down.”
4. Don’t minimize what you’ve done.
Trump: “more than a decade-old video” – And yet he’s commented on more than one woman’s body just in the last week.
Trump: “This is nothing more than a distraction from the important issues we are facing today.” – One of the most important issues we are facing today is an unacceptable level of sexual assault and sexual abuse.
5. Don’t throw anyone else under the bus. The focus should be on taking responsibility for your own situation.
Trump: “Bill Clinton has actually abused women and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims.”
Sorry, Trump, we won't be hiring you.
APPENDIX 2: Do most men talk this way?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/opinions/most-men-dont-talk-like-trump-obeidallah/index.html
Sorry, Donald and Rudy, most men don't talk like that
Editor's Note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM's radio's daily program "The Dean Obeidallah Show" and a columnist for The Daily Beast. Follow him@TheDeansreport. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.
(CNN)Donald Trump and some of his supporters want you to believe that his vile comments about women on a recently released video are just typical "locker room banter." Trump is 100 percent wrong -- unless that locker room is in a prison where sexual predators are jailed.
The words Trump used are not the typical language used by men to describe women --- in or out of a locker room. I say that as someone who played ice hockey on my high school and college team and have heard guys in locker rooms say lots of things about women -- some awful. And still Trump's comments, made when he was 59 years old, are far more appalling than those of guys in their late teens and early twenties.
The words Trump used are not the typical language used by men to describe women --- in or out of a locker room. I say that as someone who played ice hockey on my high school and college team and have heard guys in locker rooms say lots of things about women -- some awful. And still Trump's comments, made when he was 59 years old, are far more appalling than those of guys in their late teens and early twenties.
I was raised in North Jersey at a time when the concept of "political correctness" was not even known. Yes, many young men spoke in ways that objectified women, commenting in detail on how "hot" certain women were and sharing their desire to hook up with them. And many bragged about their "sexual conquests" in an effort to impress us.
But I never ever heard a man boast or even talk about kissing or groping women without their consent like Trump did: "I just start kissing them...Just kiss. I don't even wait." Trump later added, "Grab them by the [*****]. You can do anything."
This is bragging about sexually assaulting women, since that is exactly what kissing or touching women without their consent is. It's that simple.
This is bragging about sexually assaulting women, since that is exactly what kissing or touching women without their consent is. It's that simple.
Yet Trump and some supporters want you to believe that his comments were just "guys being guys." On Sunday Rudy Giuliani, while calling Trump's remarks "horrible," told CNN's Jake Tapper "but the fact is that men at times talk like that."
To his credit Tapper responded forcefully, "I have been in locker rooms. I have been a member of a fraternity. I have never heard any man, ever, brag about being able to maul women because they get away with it -- never."
Trump's wealthy backers, Robert and Rebekah Mercer, disturbingly offered a similar defense with their statement, "We are completely indifferent to Mr. Trump's locker room braggadocio."
"Indifferent" to someone bragging about sexual assault? I sincerely hope no women in their family are ever subjected to what Trump boasted he had done to other people's daughters.
Even given Trump's history, his comments in this video are mind-blowing. And that is saying a lot, considering Trump has made countless remarks demeaning women -- calling them a "pig," a "slob" and a "bimbo," and tweeting that "Hillary Clinton couldn't satisfy her husband what makes you think she could satisfy America?"
Why would Trump think he could get away with his degrading words and possibly even touching women inappropriately? Well, as he told us in the video: "When you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything." While I'm not comparing Trump to Bill Cosby, it does conjure up the same mindset. When it comes to women, some rich male celebrities appear to think they can get away with doing anything they want.
Why would Trump think he could get away with his degrading words and possibly even touching women inappropriately? Well, as he told us in the video: "When you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything." While I'm not comparing Trump to Bill Cosby, it does conjure up the same mindset. When it comes to women, some rich male celebrities appear to think they can get away with doing anything they want.
Trump's track record in defending famous men who have allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct makes this episode even more troubling. Most recently he defended former Fox News chief and Trump campaign adviser Roger Ailes against claims that Ailes sexually harassed over 20 women by questioning whether the female victims were telling the truth.
In 1992, Trump publicly defended Mike Tyson against rape charges even after he had been convicted, claiming Tyson was "railroaded." Worse, Trump in essence blamed the victim for being raped by saying, "You have a young woman that was in his hotel room late in the evening at her own will."
And Trump, who will likely raise the issue of Bill Clinton's alleged sexual misconduct at tonight's debate, also has slammed the women who made allegations against Clinton by saying, "His victims are terrible... a terrible group of people" and even called some of them "unattractive."
To say Trump is simply saying typical guy stuff is absolutely wrong. Trump is not the typical guy. He is a celebrity who has for years despicably demeaned women, bragged about possibly sexually assaulting women and defended men involved in (alleged) sexual improprieties.
This is just more proof to add to an avalanche of evidence that Trump should never, ever serve as president of the United States of America.
APPENDIX 3: Should we have been surprised? And why weren't we equally enraged by earlier abusive language?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/opinions/were-shocked-trump-is-a-sexist-opinion-zelizer/index.html
We're shocked: Donald Trump is a sexist
A final comment from me: Despite the many condemnations of Trump, including by prominent leaders in the Republican Party who have asked him to resign or said they wouldn't vote for him, I think it's too early to to say the election is over. Some people would stick with Trump (as Trump himself put it) even if he shot someone in the street.
But I don't think it's too early to have some sense of what we would be in store for if Trump were elected president.We will continue to see a man of massive egotism who lashes out violently at anyone he sees as threatening. We will continue to hear divisive--and probably degrading--rhetoric. What we will see in terms of policy decisions and reactions to crises is exceedingly hard to predict--except that we are likely to have lots of moments of friction with other nations, including our allies, and probably some unnerving, perhaps terrifying moments when Trump being Trump will stir up rather than calm the waters.
I'm sure the world will be challenging enough without Trump at the helm. But I think it will be more dangerous if he is president. And, at least as important, in my view, he will by his mere presence help to lower the moral tone of our nation and intensify its divisions.
