Trump and His Allies Tried to Topple the Government
To the Washington Post editors, it’s not even worth mentioning.
Introduction
Originally published at The Journal of Uncharted Blue Places.
If you have trouble reading longform content online, try reading it there.
A Malignant Essay
On Sunday, the Washington Post editorial board published one of the most vapid essays their opinion page has ever mustered. Veteran television writer David Slack summarized this abomination best:
“Welp, I have just cancelled my @washingtonpost.com subscription over this absolute trash by their Editorial Board that paints the differences between the two candidates as subtle shades of grey and conveniently leaves out that one candidate tried to violently overthrow the government.”
Whitewashing the Truth
You might think this is an exaggeration—if we hadn’t all been watching both the Post and the New York Times whitewash the supposed “differences” between the man whose attempted coup caused deaths inside the U.S. Capitol and the Democrats who would challenge him. The Times has fluffed the adjudicated rapist, tax cheat, and seditionist to a nearly self-satirizing level; the Post manages to come out slightly better only in comparison.
Dimmed Lights on Democracy
As the campaign has worn on, the paper that kept splashing Democracy Dies in Darkness as their top-of-page motto after Trump’s coup attempt has spent considerable time dimming the lights themselves. How do top news editors bend themselves so easily into pretend forgetfulness and invented nuance when faced with nation-shaking scandals and crimes?
One candidate is a criminal who still faces trial for using a militia-infused mob to thwart the constitutional transfer of power. His closest allies are unapologetic in their declarations that they have the right to attempt the same again and push through fascist acts. The other is a Democrat.
Intentional Ignorance
This is not a question of ignorance or stupidity. It is an act of intent that turns the potential installation of a seditious conspirator and felon supported by what experts identify as the most substantive fascist movement in a century into this:
“Labor Day marks the traditional start of the presidential campaign season — yet, by this point in the calendar, the major candidates have usually been running for months. Not so this election cycle. This race has one new candidate, and both she and the old one are scrambling to define their differences.”
A Vapid Description
Imagine living through Jan. 6, 2021, recoiling from Trump’s act, insisting your paper would stand against that Darkness—only to return to drooling horserace critiques four short years later. Imagine writing any of this next part and not curling up with a bottle afterwards, ashamed to look your family in the eye:
“Following President Joe Biden’s exit from the race in July, Vice President Kamala Harris has had to quickly assemble a national campaign. Already, some differences between her and former president Donald Trump are stark. Ms. Harris offers an optimistic view of the country and its future and has largely refused to respond to Mr. Trump’s jabs. Mr. Trump has chosen to make ‘American carnage,’ the term he coined in his 2017 inaugural address, his guiding theme. Hints of moderation that came after his near-assassination in July seem a thing of the past.”
Distinct Differences
In character, style, tone, outlook, dignity, and, yes, race and gender, the two candidates are distinct. What a rousingly valueless description of “some differences.” One candidate adopts a style and tone that mirrors nearly any other past presidential candidate. The other stews in conspiracy theories and raves that if his opponent wins, it can only be because our democracy is fraudulent and our elections rigged against him.
Policy Distinctions
The distinctions between them on policy substance, however, are somewhat fuzzier. Really now. That is to be the premise of this high-minded editorial titled “America has two presidential candidates. Let’s compare them,” which sounds like a high school book report title. The policy distinctions between the Mainstream Political Figure and the venomously misogynistic compulsive liar who attempted a coup against the government: those policy distinctions are fuzzier, you say.
Overthrowing the Government
What’s their policies on overthrowing the United States government if not enough Americans accept white nationalism, mass deportations, and Grandpa Asshole’s Delusion-O-Rama? That seems by far the most consequential policy distinction between them!
Trump’s Agenda
Aside from specifics like building the border wall, conducting mass deportations, and raising tariffs, Mr. Trump has never detailed much of an agenda. His supporters at Project 2025 have prepared a pointedly conservative plan for his second term, though Mr. Trump distanced himself from it after it became a political liability. As for Ms. Harris, the charitable view is that she has had little time to develop detailed proposals. The less generous take is that she wants to avoid revealing many specifics, lest she alienate one constituency or another. Coasting on “vibes” has worked well for her so far; she has taken a slim lead in national polling and surveys suggest she has become competitive in all the battleground states.
Harris’s Campaign
Oh no, we’ve reached wearing thin territory. Harris not running the precise campaign the nation’s editorial pages want her to run is, to be fair, so frustrating to our nation’s top-of-top editorial deciders that you can almost see why it would have blotted out the policy fuzziness of “The other candidate staged an actual real-world attempt to nullify an American election by spreading a fully invented propagandistic hoax claiming his loss was invalid, working with co-conspirators to present ‘alternate’ electoral slates to the U.S. Congress, and bullying his vice president to SWITCH THEM OUT at the official counting, relying on the implied-and-then-real violence of his purposefully assembled militia-steeped mob to intimidate lawmakers into going on with it.”
Common Elements
What do we know so far? Sparse as they are, the plans the candidates have released share some common elements, reflecting the populist turn in the country’s politics. Mr. Trump pandered to Nevada workers by proposing to waive taxes on tips. Ms. Harris copied him. Neither candidate has a plan to right the country’s escalating debt trajectory. Though on this score, Mr. Trump presents a more troubling agenda; the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model reckons that he would add $5.8 trillion to the primary deficit over a decade, while Ms. Harris would add only $1.2 trillion.
Setting Insurrection Aside
Shut up shut up shut up shut up oh my God there is no level of shutting up that could possibly make up for this esteemed group of professional knowledge-havers searing our eyeballs with a take like “setting the attempted overthrow of the government aside, what are the candidates’ positions on the national debt?”
That may be the most f–king Editorial Page thing ever written. Sweet Jeebus, a descent into fascism is one thing and sure we do know that Trump and Republicans blew a giant blood-spurting hole in the national pocketbooks the last time he was in office.
FAQs on Washington Post’s Coverage of Trump’s Coup Attempt
The Washington Post has faced criticism for its handling of a recent article discussing policy differences between candidates, with some accusing the publication of erasing Trump’s coup attempt. Here are some frequently asked questions and their answers:
1. What is the controversy surrounding the Washington Post’s article?
The controversy revolves around the Washington Post’s decision to focus on policy differences between candidates while allegedly downplaying or omitting references to Trump’s coup attempt.
2. What is Trump’s coup attempt?
Trump’s coup attempt refers to the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, where a mob of his supporters stormed the building in an attempt to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
3. Why is the Washington Post’s coverage of Trump’s coup attempt important?
The coverage is important because it highlights the significance of holding public figures accountable for their actions and ensuring that historical events are accurately documented and understood.
4. How did the Washington Post address Trump’s coup attempt in its article?
The article did not explicitly mention Trump’s coup attempt, leading some to accuse the publication of erasing or downplaying this significant event.
5. What are the implications of erasing or downplaying historical events like Trump’s coup attempt?
Erasing or downplaying historical events like Trump’s coup attempt can distort public understanding and potentially allow similar incidents to occur in the future by ignoring their significance.
6. What are the policy differences between candidates that the Washington Post focused on?
The article discussed various policy differences between candidates, including their stances on healthcare, economic policies, and environmental issues.
7. How did readers react to the Washington Post’s coverage?
Readers reacted with criticism and concern, arguing that the omission of Trump’s coup attempt was a significant oversight that undermined the article’s credibility and historical accuracy.
8. What is the role of media in documenting historical events?
The media plays a crucial role in documenting historical events by providing accurate and comprehensive coverage, ensuring that future generations understand the context and significance of these events.
9. How can readers ensure they get accurate information about historical events?
Readers can ensure they get accurate information by critically evaluating sources, looking for multiple perspectives, and being aware of potential biases or omissions in reporting.
10. What steps can be taken to address concerns about media coverage of historical events?
Steps to address these concerns include holding media outlets accountable for accuracy and completeness, promoting diverse perspectives, and engaging in open discussions about the importance of historical documentation.
