Two magazine covers and 'preaching to the choir' about Trump
Would his supporters care if they truly understood the threat?
Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of the Atlantic, explained a few days ago why his magazine had put out a special issue with a red-alert cover and the cover line: “If Trump Wins.”
“We can’t participate in the normalization of Donald Trump,” Goldberg told CNN’s Oliver Darcy. He added: “I believe that a second Trump term poses a threat to the existence of America as we know it.”
The Atlantic prides itself on a kind of erudite centrism — the high-end magazine version of CNN, more or less. We can debate if that depiction is accurate (that’s a column for another day), but they do see themselves as a big tent.
So, Goldberg’s taking this stand is significant, as is the magazine devoting an entire issue to two dozen articles about how Trump would — in Darcy’s description — “shred norms, weaponize government, warp the rule of law and degrade democracy.”
I’m seeing more of this coverage in other major publications, too. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have done groundbreaking reporting on just what Trump and his allies have in mind.
It’s good to see this move away from covering the looming 2024 presidential election as a horserace and somewhat more as a last stand for America as we know it. I’ve been pressing for this for more than a year. As one example, my last major piece at the Washington Post was titled “If Trump Runs Again, Don’t Cover Him the Same Way.”
So this all seems like progress. But I worry, and here’s why.
Don’t the readers of the Atlantic — mostly — already understand that Trump doesn’t deserve a second term and that giving it to him would be disastrous? Likewise, the readers of the Post and the Times?
What about the people who are ready, willing and all too able to throw their weight behind Trump in the key states that will determine the election? How can the media reach them?
Goldberg nodded to this problem: “I want people to be able to hand this issue to people who are still unsure about the nature of Trump’s authoritarianism.”
Imagining that interaction, I can’t take much solace there. It probably was more effective to have Fox’s biggest name, Sean Hannity, asking Trump during a “town hall” to refute media reports that he would become a dictator during a second term. Does he have any plans “to abuse power, to break the law, to use the government to go after people?” Hannity repeated the question in different words when Trump didn’t address it, and this time Trump responded, “Except for day one.”
After providing that sound bite, Trump explained he was talking about his plans to close the border and “drill, drill, drill.” The MAGA crowd is not going to change its mind. But there are right-leaning people, independents and Biden skeptics a-plenty.
I have two ideas to reach them. Local news, even in its withered state, can be influential. It’s more trusted than national news, and it tends to bridge political divides. I’d like to see local newspapers, TV stations and digital sites be more active on this front.
Second, responsible Republicans — and not just the elected ones — need to speak up more clearly. I realize that Trump has an iron grip on the party, which severely inhibits those who run for office from speaking against him in any way. But it’s important: People are influenced by those who they believe share their beliefs and values. This was important during the Watergate scandal — remember Senator Howard Baker, for example? — and it would help immensely now.
As for the other magazine cover mentioned in the headline: Time magazine has just named Taylor Swift its Person of the Year, a savvy choice since it will sell magazines and not alienate anyone too much. (Imagine the fallout of naming, say, anyone involved in the Israel-Gaza war …)
Meanwhile, Gannett has recently added a fulltime Taylor Swift beat for its chain of papers, and Harvard has announced a course about the pop star. As more than a few noted on social-media, “It’s Taylor Swift’s world. We’re just living in it.” (Getting Taylor to talk about the threats to democracy might be the most effective play of all. Call this my third idea.)
Welcome to quite a few new subscribers since last week. I appreciate you all. Thank you for caring about these issues and for supporting this pro-democracy work.
I’d like to hear your ideas about how to reach potentially swayable people about the threat that Trump presents. I’ll be developing this topic here and in my Guardian columns in the weeks and months ahead.
As the mother of three daughters I can attest to the positive power of Taylor Swift. I would move it up to suggestion #1. Boy bands used to hold sway over young women; now it is Taylor. That alone is hugely significant. Suggestion #2: local news. More stories (which I'm writing) about on-the-ground 'you can see' work emanating from the infrastructure bill, along with other Biden achievements. People in rural areas will get it; they are more thinking than we think. Suggestion #3.....already mined. Better for Democrats to focus on immigration as THE key issue the Republicans will seize on, and one in which they have a legitimate complaint. Sometimes It's useful to have right wing family and friends. They can tell you a lot. But they will never read the Atlantic. Fake news. And so sad.
The U.S. is chock full of people who immigrated to escape authoritarian regimes. They would recognize strongman tactics. If those communities form significant blocs in the swing states, there might be potential to alert and mobilize them.