The “Sane-Washing” of Donald Trump

In recent days, I came across what seems to be a new term to describe much media treatment of Donald Trump: “sane-washing.” This is similar to the more common phrase “normalization,” but it extends beyond what we’ve seen for years—the media reporting on Trump as if he is a regular politician who operates within the conventional bounds of political spin and human actions—to covering up (or sidestepping or downplaying) Trump’s apparent cognitive flaws.

A good example occurred last week. As you might have noticed—especially if you read the Dumbass Comment of the Week feature in the most recent issue (the premium version for subscribers)—Trump, while delivering a speech at the Economic Club of New York, went on a long, somewhat nonsensical ramble when asked whether he would support child care legislation if he returns to the White House. He began his answer with a heaping portion of word salad: “Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is.” Then, in nearly incomprehensible sentences, he suggested that the massive tariffs he intends to impose on imported goods—a policy that numerous economists say will cause inflation, increase the deficit, and serve as a massive tax hike for middle- and low-income Americans—will generate money that could be used for child care. Read his response for yourself. It was not the answer of an intellectually sharp (or perhaps competent) person. And it would be reasonable for an American to worry about someone who thinks and speaks in this manner inhabiting the White House.

Yet this is how the New York Times covered Trump’s speech. Under the headline (in the hard-copy edition) “Trump Backs Panel On Efficiency,” it led with the fact that during this address Trump “called for the creation of an economic efficiency commission” that would be headed by billionaire troll Elon Musk and recommend “drastic reforms” for cutting government waste that would save “trillions of dollars.” This was a positive framing of the event. Though the third paragraph characterized Trump’s speech as “sometimes meandering” and the end of the article noted that Trump replied to the child care question with a “jumbled and winding answer,” the most important paper in the land did not shine the spotlight on Trump’s incoherence and inability to fashion a straightforward reply to a basic query.

And that’s not all. Trump is an inveterate liar who broke major vows as a president. He promised legislation to boost the nation’s infrastructure. (Oh, Infrastructure Week, what became of you?) He said he would deliver a plan for a substitute to the Affordable Care Act that would provide better health insurance at a lower price. He said he would build a wall on the southern border that Mexico would pay for. None of that happened.

Given this record, why should the media highlight a proposal for a new commission—a traditional Washington, DC, dodge anyway—over rambling that raises questions about Trump’s mental fitness?

I realize it’s tough to measure Trump’s extremism and his possible mental decline. But these are the main stories of this election, and articles that duck such matters and cast this convicted felon—whose scheming to overturn the last election incited insurrectionist violence—as a conventional candidate doing conventional candidate things (such as making campaign proposals) do not serve the truth.

Moreover, Trump appears to be moving the needle on the nuts-and-dangerous scale. At a Wisconsin rally on Saturday, he made the absurd charge that schools are providing sex change operations to children without their parents’ consent. (Schools don’t even do this with the permission of parents.) He said, “Can you imagine you're a parent and your son leaves the house and you say, ‘Jimmy, I love you so much. Go have a good day in school.’ And your son comes back with a brutal operation. Can you even imagine this? What the hell is wrong with our country?” That day, in a tweet, he vowed that if he is elected president he would order the Justice Department to prosecute and deliver long prison sentences to the supposed election cheaters of 2020 and 2024, including “Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials.” Those involved “in unscrupulous behavior,” he said, “will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.” Given there was no significant cheating in 2020, this sounded like a call for a witch hunt of massive proportion. It was also Trump’s latest move to lay the groundwork for (again) declaring the election fraudulent if he (again) loses.

Also at that Wisconsin event, Trump asserted that criminal immigrants have “taken over sections” of Colorado. He then added that removing immigrants—presumably as part of the mass deportations he has urged—“will be a bloody story.”

Comments like those remarks on in-school transition medical operations and the “bloody” round-ups of undocumented immigrants, as well as his oft-repeated false assertion that in Democratic-run states doctors are allowed to kill babies after they are born, are examples of Trump's severe dishonesty or serious cognitive decline (does he believe this junk?)—or both. These are the stories that ought to be front-paged, not the proposals that he manages to read off a teleprompter.

Occasionally, conventional media does get it right. In July, the New York Times opinion section posted a wonderful compilation of the lows and disasters of Trump’s term in the White House. On Friday, the Washington Post published an accurately framed article on a press conference Trump held that day after he attended a court hearing in his appeal of the verdict that found he was liable for sexually assaulting writer E. Jean Carroll decades ago. The headline: “Trump rants, resurfaces sexual assault allegations for 49 unfocused minutes.”

That Post story was a far more accurate way of depicting this contest than, say, this recent PBS NewsHour tweet:

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have been talking more about their plans for the economy in the days leading up to Tuesday’s presidential debate, where their dueling proposals are expected to take center stage.

There was nothing false or misleading in that social media post. Yet it sets up the two candidates as equals with “dueling proposals,” when one of them is putting forward a plan (those huge tariffs) that mainstream economists characterize as an economy killer. The article made no mention of that and stuck to he-said/she-said pablum: “Trump on Thursday promised to lead what he called a ‘national economic renaissance’ by increasing tariffs, slashing regulations to boost energy production and drastically cutting government spending as well as corporate taxes for companies that produce in the U.S. Harris this week called for increasing corporate tax rates, not taxing tips and Social Security income and expanding tax breaks for small businesses to promote more entrepreneurship.”

Now look at how the Orlando Sentinel reported Trump’s vow to pursue and lock up his foes on phony charges of election interference:

It can be done. Trump’s authoritarian impulses, his cognitive lapses, his false and dangerous accusations, and his lies can be covered as the main event.

The core feature of this election is not the differences in policy between the two candidates, but the differences in decency, honesty, competency, and allegiance to the rule of law and democracy. All politicians spin and say untrue things. Trump is not only the champion of that; he is mounting an extensive disinformation campaign. Lying nonstop about Harris and the Democrats, accusing them of being communists and radicals purposefully seeking the destruction of the United States. Yet the nature of politics in this country and the imperatives and anthropological customs of the media too often lead to characterizing them as equals in an electoral pas de deux. That greatly benefits Trump.

It will be intriguing to see how this plays out on Tuesday night at the first—and possibly the only—debate between the two. Will the traditions of mainstream media compel the ABC News moderators to pretend that both candidates are regular ol’ politicos? Hey, tell us about your education policy—you each get two minutes! Or will they press Trump on his lies, his extremism, his possible cognitive decline, and his past and possibly future attempts to subvert American democracy (while pushing Harris on more conventional debate topics)? An appropriate first question for Trump would be: “After losing the 2020 election, you lied and said it had been stolen from you, and you tried to overturn the results and incited violence. You broke the oath you swore and did not defend the Constitution. What’s to say you won’t do the same—or worse—if you lose this November?”

Going back to Trump’s performance at the Economic Club and his inability to clearly and intelligently discuss a major policy subject, it is madness that someone this incoherent is close to (again) winning the White House and gaining control of the nuclear arsenal. As I’ve noted before, many in the media have not figured out how to meet this challenging moment. This sane-washing of Trump is bad for the nation and just plain crazy.

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

Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, Nationals Park, Washington, DC. As I age, I am obsessed with a particular question: Can we improve in middle age and later years? Yes, we all know that Grandma Moses didn’t begin painting until she was 78. But what about the rest of us? A few months ago, I reported that when I saw 75-year-old guitar master and singer-songwriter Richard Thompson perform at the local and legendary Birchmere club I was surprised to see that he seemed better than usual. Could someone that good up his game at this stage? And it appears to be the case that Vice President Kamala Harris, age 59, has become a more skilled politician than she was during her failed 2019 presidential campaign. (It turns out that being vice president for more than three years—and averaging several events a day—is good practice for running for president.) Which brings me to Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band. These cats have been at it for half a century, and at their show at Nationals Park on Saturday night, they demonstrated for the umpteenth time that excellence, enthusiasm, and virtuosity can seemingly defy time.

Springsteen and the ESB may be the tightest and hardest-working long-running act in rock ’n’ roll. Nothing is phoned in. True, their current concerts are not the four-and-a-half-hour-long marathons of their glory days. At 74 (he turns 75 in two weeks), Springsteen no longer climbs the scaffolding, performs knee slides across the stage, or does reclining back bends in which the crown of his head reaches the stage floor. But he does sing his heart out—belting and crooning—for over three hours, while playing searing guitar licks and leading a large cast of virtuosos.

The dominant theme of his songs from the start has been yearning. For love, for companionship, for fun, for family, for a place of one’s own. Yearning has always been the heart of rock, and Springsteen’s understanding and full-throated embrace of this truth is one reason for his longevity. The core desire expressed in his earlier songs (say, “Born to Run” and “Thunder Road”) still resonates with his fans decades down the road, long after they have moved far beyond the dreams and aspirations of their youth.

At Nats Park, Springsteen and the crew ripped through the old rockin’ favorites that celebrated the defiance of youth and the craving for more. But he also tempered the set with “Ghosts,” “Last Man Standing,” and “I’ll See You in My Dreams”—contemplations on aging and death from his 2020 album, Letter to You. He paid tribute to Clarence Clemons and Danny Federici, two E Streeters who died years ago, and he talked about the deaths of the members of the first band he joined when he was a teen. Springsteen and his fans have been on a long ride together. With their powerhouse playing, Springsteen and the band make it look as this journey can last forever—but, as we all know, no ride does.

This parlor trick is bolstered by how damn good they are—and how there seem to be few limitations to their talents, even as they turn into elders. Springsteen’s vocals have improved over the years, as he has expanded his range of singing styles. Little Steven’s solo on “Prove It All Night” demonstrated he remains a guitar hero. Watching—in amazement—drummer Max Weinberg pound away for over three hours prompted me to believe I could do a triathlon if only I would put my mind to it. A highlight of the evening was Nils Lofgren’s soaring solo on “Youngstown.” Could he, too, be improving as the years add up? For those of us who have been serenaded by Springsteen and his mates for five decades, the E Street Band delivers a powerful message: You can’t defeat time, but you sure can battle against it. And even become better while waging this losing war.

Don’t believe me? Below are some videos from the DC show and their recent Philadelphia performances, including the hard-driving opening number “Seeds”; a raucous “Reason to Believe” in Texas-blues style (with horns!); “Racing in the Streets” with its beautiful piano outro; and the aforementioned “Youngstown.”

There is a sad coda to all this. The day after this show, the story broke that Patti Scialfa, Springsteen’s wife and a longtime E Street Band member, was diagnosed in 2018 with a rare blood cancer, which explains why Scialfa, who is 71 years old, has been largely absent from the current tour, which began two years ago. This news emerged in a new documentary about Springsteen and the band, and in the film Scialfa says, “Every once in a while, I come to a show or two and I can sing a few songs onstage, and that’s been a treat. That’s the new normal for me right now, and I’m okay with that.” At the premiere of the movie at the Toronto International Film Festival on Sunday, her husband said he wants to keep performing until “the wheels come off.” Springsteen still celebrates that we were born to run and now also reminds us that we are born to die.  

The Demon of Unrest: A Saga of Hubris, Heartbreak, and Heroism at the Dawn of the Civil War, Erik Larson. On February 13, 1861, the day that Congress was to certify the electoral vote results of the 1860 election won by Abraham Lincoln, there was concern in Washington, DC, that the electoral count would be disrupted. An angry crowd of Southerners opposed to Lincoln who had flocked to the city gathered at the Capitol and demanded to be let inside. General Winfield Scott had dispatched soldiers to guard the entrances, and the troops demanded to see passes before allowing anyone into the building. Scott also had stored weapons within the Capitol should they be needed and had dispatched troops in civilian garb to disperse among the crowd to prevent violence before it could erupt. The protesters shouted curses at Scott and the guards. Scott stood his ground and declared that anyone who interfered with the count would be “lashed to the muzzle of a twelve pounder and fired out of the window of the Capitol.” He added that he would “manure the hills of Arlington with the fragments of his body.”

The electoral votes were paper certificates that had to be delivered from the Senate to the House, where Vice President John Breckinridge would affirm the tally. The fear was that irate interlopers would swipe these papers and destroy the legal evidence of Lincoln’s victory. One congressman noted in his diary that it was “the weak part of the constitution” that there was no provision for dealing with stolen or destroyed electoral votes. Though members of the mob managed to gain entry to the Senate and House galleries, the count proceeded without interruption. Lincoln was proclaimed the winner, and angry shouts of protest broke out.

The 2020 election was not the only in which white nationalists physically threatened the orderly transfer of power.

I learned this relevant-to-today bit of history while reading the latest work of bestseller Erik Larson, author of The Devil in the White City and other nonfiction works. His The Demon of Unrest chronicles the months leading up to the day in April 1861 when South Carolina militias fired on the federal government’s Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor and triggered the conflagration that would claim the lives of 700,000 or so Americans. There’s little mystery as to where this story is heading, as Larson follows the paths of several key participants: Major Robert Anderson, a former slave owner and commander of the fort; Edmund Ruffin, a pro-secession firebrand who craves the blood of Northerners; Mary Chesnut, the society matron who travels at the highest levels of the Charleston chivalry; James Hammond, a South Carolina politician and ardent defender of slavery who famously declared in the US Senate that “Cotton is King”; and Lincoln and several of his top officials, most notably the somewhat full-of-himself William Seward, the secretary of state.

The Demon of Unrest is a fascinating and elegantly written account of the suspenseful run-up to the disastrous Civil War, full of dramatic twists and turns. I am not enough of an expert on this topic to know whether Larson advances the known history, given there are likely more books on this subject than any other slice of our American past. His focus on this handful of characters gives the book a somewhat disjointed feel. And he doesn’t do much in the way of developing themes or theories related to this profound cataclysm caused by the nation’s inability to resolve a fundamental question. Yet it is a rather good read.

It remains important to understand that time. During this current presidential campaign, one candidate, former Republican South Carolina Gov. Nikki Halley, declined to say slavery was the cause of the Civil War, offering instead the mealymouthed and false explanation that this conflict was about “the role of government.” That seemed a sop to the far right, which has long tried to whitewash the war as a battle over state’s rights, not the South’s racist and brutal enslavement of millions. Larson, who portrays in great detail Southern plantation culture and the South’s obsessive and perverse belief in the necessity and goodness of slavery, dispenses such balderdash. Writing about a so-called “Peace Convention” that was convened in early 1861 to find a way to avoid war, he notes that this soon-to-fail initiative was based on promising the South protection of slavery, including a constitutional amendment that would bar Congress from ever legislating anything related to slavery as it existed in any state or territory. “The crux of the crisis was in fact slavery,” Larson concludes. It’s a pity that still must be stated.