Joe Biden truly went off script last week. In an interview, he declared, “Any Christian person that votes for Republicans hates their religion, they hate everything about the United States, and they should be ashamed of themselves.” Then he went further: While at a rally, he declared that the looters who broke into stores and stole property during the George Floyd protests in 2020 were “unbelievable patriots.” His outrageous comments sparked front-page headlines across the country and dominated the news for days, with politicians from both parties and commentators across the political spectrum condemning his remarks and wondering aloud if he had the moral character to be president. Many called for him to drop out of the race and even resign the presidency.

Of course, none of that happened. But, no doubt, such a reaction would occur if Biden behaved in that manner. Yet with Trump, the standard rules—of politics, propriety, and human decency—do not apply. Even though we’ve known this for years, recent events have underscored the perverse reality that he has created and in which we all must now live.

In an interview with his former aide Sebastian Gorka, who had ties to antisemitic military groups in Hungary, Trump leveled a horrific antisemitic charge against a majority of American Jews: “Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion; they hate everything about Israel.” At a rally in Dayton, he referred to the thousands of Trump loyalists who attacked law enforcement officers on January 6 as “unbelievable patriots,” essentially endorsing the worst act of domestic political violence since the Civil War. Yet none of this has slowed Trump down or diminished his support—or received the same amount of attention as has Biden’s age. (Within the punditry universe, there was much chatter about whether Trump’s prediction in Dayton of a “bloodbath” should he lose the election was a threat of violence or a reference to an economic disaster. That was a silly debate. At the same event the Republican presidential nominee had enthusiastically embraced the use of political violence with his praise of the J6 brownshirts.)

This was hardly the first time Trump had made an antisemitic or racist comment or signaled acceptance of political violence. He has a long history of spewing “antisemitic tropes,” as the Washington Post put it in 2022. (And that was before he had dinner at Mar-a-Lago with Kanye West, the antisemitic rapper, and Nick Fuentes, the white nationalist and Hitler fanboy.) He also has a history of advocating violence and deploying violent rhetoric. And for at least two years he has been saying he will pardon the January 6 rioters.  

The net effect is that his outrageous remarks have become less newsworthy. Trump saying something hateful or inciteful is a dog-bites-man story. Sure, some Americans are enraged, but others either cheer him on or simply ignore it. Collectively, we’re experiencing Trump Normalization Syndrome. As we—and many in the media—have become desensitized to his demagoguery and abominable conduct, the abhorrent and the aberrant is regarded as routine and treated as such. After all, it’s just Trump being Trump. Another day, another affront to democratic values and basic morality.

Once upon a time, when Trump said something scandalous, reporters would fiercely chase Republicans through the halls of Congress in pursuit of a response. In the early Trump years, GOP legislators sometimes offered mild rebukes, rarely voicing anything too strong. As the years went by, they perfected the deaf-dumb-and-blind tactic, falsely claiming they had not seen or heard the latest offensive Trump comment. (Immediately after January 6, GOP leaders did denounce Trump for pushing his lies about the 2020 election and inciting the treasonous assault on the Capitol, but they quickly abandoned this stance when they realized that the Republican base was sticking with Trump.) I have no scientific data to back this up, but it seems that in recent years, reporters no longer press Republicans as hard for reactions to Trump’s excesses, and in turn, Republicans feel no obligation to react to the newest Trump atrocity.

One symptom of Trump Normalization Syndrome is that reporters no longer expect party elders to address Trump’s transgressions. When GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell was asked at a recent press conference about Trump hailing the January 6 rioters as “patriots,” he muttered, “I’m going to avoid talking about the presidential election.” And he got away with it; there was not much fuss among the journalists present. And when House Speaker Mike Johnson was questioned about Trump’s antisemitic remark regarding Jewish Democrats, he replied, “I understand the sentiment that he’s trying to express.” The lack of outrage over Johnson’s supportive comment was more evidence of TNS. A search turned up almost no reporting of Johnson’s response in major US media outlets. Ho-hum.

Conservatives and others used to gripe that the United States was being dumbed down. Now we’ve been Trumped down. He can amplify the bonkers QAnon conspiracy theory, and it doesn’t matter. He can call for suspending the Constitution (so he can be returned to power), and it doesn’t matter. And, as you know, there’s much more.

Normalization requires amnesia. With Trump, there has been so much misconduct that it’s hard for our minds to hold it all. There’s an overload of data; we need to dump some of it. And he and his cult followers encourage the forgetting. In recent weeks, Trump and his crew have been boldly asking voters, “Are you better off now than four years ago?” The clear and rationale answer is, are you effin’ kidding me, absolutely. Four years ago, we couldn’t touch our mail, groceries and toilet paper were hard to come by, millions of jobs were being lost each week, Americans waited in long food lines, bodies piled up in overcrowded hospitals and refrigerated trucks, the health care system was near collapse, we lived in anxiety and fear. And just about every economic indicator is stronger now than it was then.

Yet Trump and his gang believe they can hornswoggle people into thinking that life was not only normal when Trump was president during the pandemic and hundreds of thousands of Americans were dying, it was glorious. This is ridiculous. But this effort at whitewashing a catastrophe—like so much else with Trump—is not widely considered as shocking or disqualifying. Trump has worn down America. Trump Normalization Syndrome, which paves the way for a possible return to power for a narcissistic, hate-fueled, authoritarian demagogue, is a grave threat to the future of the republic.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

No, not that 1 percent, though the wealthy have always exerted tremendous influence over the political system. The 1 percent I’m talking about are those undecided voters in swing states. This week I published an article that lays out the basic math of the 2024 election. There are seven battleground states—Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, and North Carolina—and together they have about 31 million voters. About 10 percent of these voters are now undecided. This means that roughly 3 million voters across these seven states will determine the outcome—and perhaps the fate of the republic. That’s less than 1 percent of the population. Yes, the Electoral College is an awful system that allows for this and for minority rule. If you want to know more about these fundamentals, read my piece. 

Elon Musk got an assist this week for setting up one of our nominees. The alt-right man-child tweeted a short video that claimed to reveal “The Democratic Plan to Entrench Single-Party Rule.” It promoted the idiotic conspiracy theory that President Joe Biden and the Democrats are purposefully bringing millions of migrants to the United States so that these people will become Democratic voters and keep the party in power forever. Bill Ackman, the hedge fund kingpin who in recent months has become a fiery crusader against Harvard, MIT, DEI, and reporters who scrutinize him, reposted Musk’s post with an endorsement: “I find this credible. What are the best arguments one can make against the case the video makes?”

This fellow really believes that Biden and Democrats are secretly scheming to flood the United States with migrants to pick up votes? The best argument here is that there is no evidence of any such diabolical plot. It’s right-wing paranoia and fantasy. Ackman was demanding proof to confirm a negative rather than critically evaluating this loony idea. His request for “the best arguments” was ludicrous.  

But let’s turn to Jon Favreau, President Barack Obama’s top speechwriter, who decided to accept Ackman’s absurd challenge…and blew him and Musk away:

Another contender is longtime cable TV host and legal analyst Greta Van Susteren. She didn’t fancy the vitriol that greeted the news that Paul Manafort, the sleazy and felonious lobbyist who headed Trump’s 2016 campaign (until allegations emerged that he had received millions of dollars in secret payments from a Russia-aligned leader of Ukraine), was in talks with the Trump camp to join the campaign. Van Susteren especially was put off by a comment from Eddie Glaude Jr., a Princeton professor and MSNBC regular, who exclaimed, “Damn, white men get breaks!” She tweeted,

I have never met Paul Manafort...but have this to say to @MSNBC: I was a criminal defense attorney for years and we want to rehabilitate people of all colors and get them working/jobs and this snarky comment by this guest is meant only to divide the nation.

Does Van Susteren truly believe that we ought to view Manafort’s possible return to the Trump campaign as a miracle of rehabilitation? First off, Trump pardoned him. Thus, Manafort never paid his debt to society for his assorted misdeeds, which included tax evasion, bank fraud, and obstruction of justice. Moreover, he did not fully cooperate with the Trump-Russia investigation—apparently covering for Trump or others. And then there’s the bipartisan 2020 Senate intelligence committee report that revealed that when Manafort was leading Trump’s 2016 bid, he was regularly in communication with and passed inside information on the campaign to a Russian intelligence officer, who possibly was involved in Moscow’s attack on the 2016 election that was mounted to help Trump. The report called Manafort a “grave counterintelligence threat.” This is hardly the case of a fellow who erred along the way, did his time, and now deserves a second chance.

The judges find it difficult to believe Van Susteren was unaware of the special details of Manafort’s case. If she’s not, they encourage her to read this before she says anything else about Manafort.

This week’s winner is an old favorite of the judges: Ari Fleischer, the press secretary for President George W. Bush who helped lead the US into the disastrous war in Iraq with lies. He was called into service by Fox when Trump made his antisemitic remark noted above. Fleischer, a Trump toady and big macher for the Republican Jewish Coalition, would not criticize Dear Leader:

Donald Trump, as he has a habit of doing, puts things in the most blunt, tough form you can ever say them…And there's long been a debate inside Jewish circles [that] the more religious Jews definitely are more conservative. The Jews who never go to synagogue are definitely more liberal…[T]hat is the bigger point Donald Trump was making…Trump puts it indelicately, but Trump is basically right on the bigger issue.

Did you enjoy that heaping mess of word salad? Trump said Jewish Democrats are bad Jews who hate Judaism. What bigger issue was Fleischer talking about? Trump was assailing millions of Jewish Americans and spreading a message of hate. For covering for an antisemitic meshuga goyim, Fleischer takes home the trophy.

Lots of comments poured in about my recent piece suggesting that the Biden campaign deploy Vice President Kamala Harris to assail Donald Trump with derision and disregard—to trigger him. Carl Olson represented the majority sentiment:

You nailed it. My wife and I have often lamented that our incredibly talented VP, Kamala Harris, is underused and undervalued. She definitely needs to be on the campaign trail speaking the truth!

But there were letters taking issue with my characterization that she has “not met her full potential” as veep.

Jamie Barnett emailed:

I agree with your analysis that it is time to unleash Kamala Harris (and I am not biased even though she is married to my former law partner). I am shocked by Kathleen Parker's Washington Post column that Biden should replace Harris. Parker's reasons are insubstantial and, of course, politically it would be moronic. I am sure Parker knows that. I do not agree with you that she has not met her full potential as vice president. Why do you say that? Because she didn't solve the border problem? She is an effective campaigner, hard-hitter and she was amazing on the Dobbs reversal of Roe v. Wade and every reproductive rights issue since then. I feel very confident that she can assume the responsibilities of the presidency in the event President Biden passes away or is incapable of completing his term. She may be underestimated like another vice president—Harry Truman.

Tina Herod conveyed a similar criticism:

You are correct. Harris can effectively needle Trump. You pissed me off with this: “She definitely has not met her full potential as vice president, but the reasons for that seem unclear.” What?!? The reasons are very clear to me—a Black woman. Pundits, even left-leaning ones, judge her by standards no white man has ever faced. They downplay all the initiatives she’s led on, like Black maternal health, because it’s an issue they don’t care about. She was standing in front of a sign touting her reproductive freedom tour. How many times have you covered one? How many times have you seen the throngs who come out? Trump never fooled me. He disgusted me from the time he came down that tacky escalator. You know who he entranced? White people. Why? Because they like his racism. The comment you made about Harris is just another flavor of racism. Don’t make her your mule and put her down in the same column.

There’s no doubt that Harris has had to face racism and misogyny, as I noted in the piece. But I do believe—and I’ve heard Black Democratic professionals say this—that she has not done the best job possible as veep. Granted, it’s a tough assignment with no specific duties. But whether it was during her time as AG in California, her stint in the Senate, or her presidential run, she has been criticized by Democrats who are sympathetic toward her (white and Black) for not meeting their expectations. Is that too harsh? Is that prompted by racism and misogyny? Isn’t she somewhat responsible for her public image? In any event, this does seem to be sensitive terrain.

Katrice Mathurin took me to task for the headline: “It’s Time to Unleash Kamala Harris—to Trigger Trump.”

"Unleashed" was an offensive choice of words to use to suggest Biden should use Harris' talents in this campaign. FYI, you're getting eaten up for this—and for your lack of responsiveness about this to your critics of this decision—on Spoutible.

I’ve discussed this story and used the term “unleashed” on MSNBC and on social media without receiving complaints. It seems to me that this is a normal term widely used in politics to describe allowing an official or candidate to mix it up more.

Religion sure gets folks roiled up—particularly when mixed with politics. The recent issue on the threat posed by Christian nationalism brought in both thoughtful missives and hate mail.

James Kissam wrote:

I wanted to express my appreciation for your article. As a former pastor for 28 years, I too have seen the light so to speak on the dangers of religious extremism. I have to admit that back in the early 1990s I participated vaguely in the “Christian coalition” movement when they were trying to influence politics, but I quickly removed myself. It appears to be more extreme today. There is so much more I can say, but it is unbelievable how this movement (Christian nationalism) and others have such a hold on people and how the G-d versus Satan thing plays out. It almost reminds you of the fears of the Middle Ages. I would have thought we as a people or society would have progressed way beyond this. I have tried to open people’s eyes in a nice way, but the majority of those I have come in contact within the community are too programmed to see things any different. Once again, thanks for publishing this article and alerting many to the harm this movement can cause.

Reader Richard Simon suggests we all watch the recently released film produced by Rob Reiner on Christian nationalism called God & Country. I haven’t yet seen it. But he calls it “very scary.”

Chris Hemmerich shared this:

As someone who has been a pastor for 20 years (until last year) I have numerous thoughts on your piece. I am grieved to say that I agree with your concern and the examples you give of Wolfe and Flynn should be deeply distressing to anyone who has actually read the Bible, understands American history and church history. In my last pastorate, I preached and taught against Christian nationalism (which I perceive to be a contradiction in terms) and got a lot of push back from it. Things are happening in churches today that would not have happened 15 years ago. This election will be the first one in which I vote Democrat proudly.

The only thing I would say in a short email is that not all “conservative Christians” want or believe in Christian nationalism. I am not alone. I have many friends, particularly those who care most about the global church, who are horrified about what is happening in this conversation. My hero Pastor Tim Keller opposed it prior to his death, and theologian John Piper took a ton of flack for an article he wrote in 2016 criticizing Trump. If you didn’t read a remarkable article in 2016 called “Nikabriks’ Candidate” from the journal First Things you ought to. Our microphone may have been stolen, but there are still some who are deeply troubled by these grifters posing as Christian much like the German Christian party did in the 1930s.

Now for a few of the many angry letters.

Len Ward emailed:

There are many in this country that are simply Christians. Qualifying us as nationalists is your way to lump all in a pile and eliminate. It's not the other way around. The problem with liberals is that the majority are anti-God and detest anything or anyone that represents Him or His Word. Well here's one for you, the Bible refers to the church as the restrainer. The ones that keep crazy liberals and extreme right wingers in check. Careful about how you categorize and demonize God's people lest you find yourself fighting against God Himself. And until God takes us, we aren't going anywhere.

George Zajic was more succinct:

Hey Corn, just leave the National Nationalists alone you damn, extreme-left, godless, sneaky, filthy jew! Burn in hell.

Howard Bentley chimed in:

Keep lying for your fascist Democrat overlords, you weak coward. You know the ones doing thing illegal for government to do but do it through use of private corporate power. The very definition of fascism and look at you. Doing their bidding while the country burns. You fucking cunts only sow division with your idiotic identity politics. You are weakness you are the problem. Not Christians. Not nationalists. Its’s not a pejorative you fucking beta twat. Take another booster, let some illegals in. Peddle trans idiocy and keep ignoring the 500k kids trafficked by Biden, you fucking pedophile loving fentanyl embracing racist scumbag. 

George and Howard sound like real nice Christians.

Rhonda Shore wrote in to point out I made a terrible mistake. In my appreciation of musician Karl Wallinger, who recently died, I said that he had been the front man of the Waterboys in the 1980s. Wrong. He was a member of the band. Mike Scott was the founder and front man. My deepest apologies to Scott and all others.

“Moxie, ever stop to wonder why humans and dogs get along so well?”
“Can you throw the ball?”
“It’s been about 30,000 years since our species hooked up.”
“Can you throw the ball?”
“After all that time, I think we just have a fundamental understanding of each other.”
“Can you throw the ball?”
“And what we each need.”
“Can you please throw the ball?”
“Ok. Good talk.”

March 19, 2024: It’s time to start worrying about Christian nationalism; Constellation is lost in space…and time; the wonderful musical party Karl Wallinger left behind; and more.

March 16, 2024: Time to unleash Kamala Harris to trigger Trump; Our Land needs you; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Dwight D. Opperman Foundation); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

March 12, 2024: Jared Kushner and the award that’s not good for the Jews; old cops versus new cops in Criminal Record; James Grady delivers a different mystery with The Smoke in Your Eyes; and more.

March 9, 2024: Trump’s back on top, and this is not fine; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Mark Robinson); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

March 5, 2024: The threat to democracy from white rural rage; the common flaw of Maestro and Napoleon; Tierney Sutton’s jazzy take on the racial wealth gap; and more.

March 2, 2024: Barbara McQuade on disinformation in 2024; Richard Lewis, RIP; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Sen. Tommy Tuberville); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 27, 2024: The new “It Can Happen Here” project; the darkness of True Detective: Night Country; and more.

February 24, 2024: The racism is the point; the Smirnov affair; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 21, 2024: The great forgotten betrayal of the Trump years; the fifth season of Fargo gets political; the Black Keys get funky; and more.

February 17, 2024: A refresher on Trump’s porn-star/hush-money case; a farewell message from Alexei Navalny; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Jared Kushner); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.