To understand Donald Trump's surprising ability to remain at the top of the polls, it is necessary to understand why the attacks of his critics misfire. The best place to start is with the continually uncomprehending New York Times. A story on page 1 et seq. levels what its authors must consider devastating criticism of Trump's "95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Trump's Tongue." Trump, says the NYT, has a "particular habit" of using ominous words that include the "divisive … harsh … violent … 'you' and 'we' as he inveighs against a dangerous 'them.'"
There is a lot that is loathsome about the Trump campaign, but aligning himself with his audience in opposition to a "dangerous them" can hardly be one of them, except in the eyes of the New York Times. Matt Motyl, a University of Illinois "political psychologist … who is studying how the 2016 presidential candidates speak," was interviewed and chimes in with, "We vs. 'them' creates a threatening dynamic, where 'they' are evil or crazy or ignorant and 'we need a candidate who sees the threat and can alleviate it.'"
"Right," Trump supporters would say. If it is not you and we vs. them, what is the war on Islamic terrorism all about? If the "they" are not evil or crazy, what are they? Good-hearted beheaders and wise men saving women from dangerous freedom by giving them as slaves to victorious fighters? In short, what the New York Times takes as damaging criticism, Trump supporters see as the truth that Obama will not speak.
But perhaps the Gray Lady is to be forgiven, for these are subjects that lead even the Economist, the impeccably written and more-often-than-not right on the issues magazine, into odd defenses of what it calls "Obama's broad approach to foreign policy." The Republicans' objection to admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States has "deeper roots in panic than in logic." Because look at the objection "in context, 1.5 million refugees may reach Germany this year." Oh. Rather like saying we in America need not fear home-grown jihadists because there are more of them in France. Besides, Obama has pointed out that the Paris attackers had EU passports and could enter America on a visa waiver. Oh, again. So why not tighten the visa-waiver program? Only the urging that "would-be presidents stop pandering to fear," as if identifying the enemy as evil and worse, and taking steps to close a loophole in the immigration-screening program, which even President Obama is now ordering, constitute pandering.
Speaking of the president, he stopped en route to slipping into a tuxedo to attend a celebrity event at the Kennedy Center, to address the American people. He admitted that the California slaughter was a terror attack, but said we have no proof that it was part of a conspiracy. Which must mean the killers were able to save enough from their modest salaries to buy equipment for a bomb-making factory and an arsenal of weapons and ammunition. He reassured Americans that he was constantly reassessing his strategy, and then said he would continue doing what he is doing to fight terrorism -- as if what he is doing is succeeding. And called again for tighter gun control measures, as if the laws in California, where the killers obtained weapons, are not the most stringent in the country.
Not a good night for Americans seeking assurance from the president that he is not as clueless as the papers and magazines they read.