Donald Trump sat down with oil executives and told them that if he wins, he'll scrap a slew of President Biden's clean energy and other environmental regulations they don't like - as long as they raise $1 billion for him. The response? Crickets. Trump's pay-for-play move was frequently described as "transactional." The right word is "corrupt."
Last weekend, at a rally in Wildwood, N.J., he pledged to halt offshore wind farms. All of them. Right away. "We are going to make sure that that ends on day one," Trump said. "I'm going to write it out in an executive order." It was consistent with a remarkable statement he was reported to have made to the energy execs: "I hate wind."
No investigative reporting is required to see what Trump would do. His campaign website goes on and on about how he would "stop all Joe Biden policies that distort energy markets," describing the president's approach as "industry-killing, jobs-killing, pro-China and anti-American."
The right's propensity to deny climate change runs so deep that in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis and his fellow Republicans in the legislature have written their denial into law. Last week, as Anna Phillips reported in The Post, DeSantis signed a bill that removes most references to climate change in state laws and, for good measure, bans offshore wind turbines in state waters and weakens natural gas pipeline regulation.
There could hardly be a clearer contrast between Trump and Biden, or their parties. You might think that the environment, and climate in particular, would be playing a large role in the 2024 debate. Yet for all the good work reporters are doing on these issues, there is a strange, substantive vacuum in this campaign.
Citizens are getting plenty of information concerning Trump's latest polling numbers and, yes, lots of news on his hush money trial. About what he'd do if he wins again: not so much.
There's a raging argument over whether journalists have a special obligation to defend democracy against Trump's threat to it. For the record, I think they do. But that debate understates the challenge Trump presents to political coverage of all kinds. Let's count the ways.
By violating so many norms simultaneously while throwing out so much chaff in any given week, he dodges accountability. He is the only public figure in memory who dodges one scandal by getting enmeshed in a new one. Before the first scandal sinks in, the second sucks up all the oxygen, and then along comes a third. His $1 billion ask of super-rich oil guys was barely a blip.
Trump's party has been complicit in helping him obliterate ethical standards. Republicans, from House Speaker Mike Johnson on down, raced to New York to create a carnival of deflection. These advocates of "law and order," "traditional values" and local control ignored the charges against Trump - rooted in sordid personal conduct joined with public corruption - by attacking the idea that a prosecutor might dare try to bring a former president to justice.
The routinization of lying has a dulling effect of its own. It no longer matters that responsible journalists of every political stripe report that Trump lost the election he falsely continues to claim he won. Here again, Republican elites play his game by either hedging on what happened in 2020 ("Well, there really were problems, you know …") or supporting his lie outright.
The politics of spectacle that Trump excels at is the enemy of a politics of substance. Take that New Jersey rally where he pledged to block offshore wind farms (he also promised to go after electric cars). This didn't get much attention because of Trump's praise for "Hollywood's most famous cannibal," as a Post headline writer succinctly put it. "The late, great Hannibal Lecter is a wonderful man," Trump declared. Try arguing that climate change should have been the lead of the story that day.
There is, finally, a problem that transcends Trump, on climate especially but on other issues as well: The best way to avoid a serious discussion is to transform a cause you oppose into yet another culture war skirmish.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is real and poses a grave danger to humanity. Those trying to evade tough measures to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels dismiss technical expertise and invent hidden motives. The climate movement, they say, wants to enhance the power of big government. It hates cars, doesn't care about people working the oil fields and despises the "American way of life." Case closed.
Trump is thus both a cause and a symptom of the distemper in our national life. On the climate and so many other questions, the nation has about five months to realize that very big things are at stake in November's choice. If we fail, Hannibal Lecter would be a fitting symbol for what happened to our democracy.
Follow E.J. Dionne Jr. @EJDionne on X (formerly Twitter).
No comments:
Post a Comment