Thread by @torstenkathke

This kind of bad faith, lukewarm endorsement, shifting the actual debate in the most sophist manner, is exactly what gives "decent" people cover to vote for Trump and effectively destroy American democracy while clinging to plausible deniability.

Let's dive in:

https://twitter.com/PittsburghPG/status/1322885591797796866

Upfront, the Post-Gazette editorial board acknowledges (because it must since it is so obvious) that Trump has been called "unpresidential," "crude and unkind" and "just not a good man."

What they do not acknowledge is Trump's overt racism and flirtations with the extreme right.

This is just the overture to a symphony of amateurish rhetorical moves and arguments that fall apart if you just glance at them.

The PG acknowledges that “[n]one of this can be justified“ only to then—guess— justify reelecting Trump by “separat[ing] the man from the record“.

The editorial board argues that we should separate Trump the man from Trump the politician who does things.

Let's humor them.

They say: “Under Donald Trump the economy, pre-COVID, boomed, like no time since the 1950s. Look at your 401(k) over the past three years.“

First of all, here's a fact check from before Covid hit:

edition.cnn.com/2020/02/18/pol…

Including this: “While the economy has improved under Trump, the expansion began under Obama. Analysis of the economy should take into account all contributing factors, so it's unfair to ascribe credit for economic growth or blame for economic problems solely to one President.“

So this isn't even true on the face of it, even though it builds on the fiction that the economy *before Covid* matters now, half a year *into* Covid.

Covid won't magically disappear and give Trump back pre-2020 economic growth.

It's a doubly bad faith argument.

“Under Mr. Trump, our trade relationships have vastly improved and our trade deals have been rewritten. Thanks to him, middle America is on the map again and the Appalachian and hourly worker has some hope.”

A: “Vastly improved” means… what exactly?
B: “our trade deals have been rewritten” is not a positive or negative thing. It means they were torn up and, well, rewritten.
C: “on the map again” isn't something quantifiable. It's as vague as “the […] worker has some hope.”

Hope is good, but is it based in anything real? If so, the PG doesn't bother to tell us how or why.

On to the Supreme Court: “His third appointment, Amy Coney Barrett, is the best of all—a jurist whose mind and character and scholarship ARE first class. We hope she stands against both judicial and executive excess.”

Again with the hope. What this is founded on I cannot say, especially since Coney Barrett “said no person was above the law, but also said 'the Supreme Court can't control whether or not the president obeys.'“

Via: npr.org/2020/10/15/923…

So she may well “stand against executive excess” but she has also resigned herself to not be able to do anything about it. How this is a net plus for Trump appointing her is not clear.

On to Covid:

“Has Mr. Trump handled the pandemic perfectly? No. But no one masters a pandemic. And the president was and is right that we must not cower before the disease and we have to keep America open and working.“

No one masters a pandemic. Except perhaps New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan… But sure. The US is different, and one can't expect the president to have a plan or anything.

Except he did and he ignored it. It was put together under the Obama-Biden administration: pbs.org/newshour/natio…

The “must not cower before the disease” language is yet another rhetorical move not worthy of a high school debate class. No one has suggested “cowering.”

What experts have suggested are simple measures to improve outcomes and keep both people and the economy alive.

230,000 deaths later, Trump shows no sign of even wanting to do anything about Covid. Truly, “mastery“ this is not.

“He has not listened well to people who could have helped him. He has not learned government, or shown interest in doing so.”

Right on. Then why are you still endorsing him?

“But the Biden-Harris ticket offers us higher taxes and a nanny state that will bow to the bullies and the woke who would tear down history rather than learning from history and building up the country.”

“Nanny state” and “bow to the bullies and the woke“ are lazy phrases of right-wing coded language.

And “tear down history“ of course refers to taking down Confederate monuments (and the unfounded fear that the Founding Fathers would be next).

Which, historian here, is not how history works. Monuments speak of the time they were built in, not of what they are commemorating.

Related: Which side was Pennsylvania on in the Civil War again? Because if you're against “tearing down history“ you may want to look that up.

“It offers an end to fracking and other Cuckoo California dreams that will cost the economy and the people who most need work right now. “Good-paying green jobs” are probably not jobs for Pittsburgh, or Cleveland, or Toledo, or Youngstown.”

How little do you think of your fellow Pennsylvanians that you believe that “[g]ood-paying green jobs” are probably not going to go to them?

“It offers softness on China, which Mr. Trump understands is our enemy” is ludicrous, considering:

wsj.com/articles/whats…

Let's address the -isms:

1. ageism.

”Mr. Biden is too old for the job, and fragile. There is a very real chance he will not make it through the term. Mr. Trump is also too old but seemingly robust.“

“Seemingly” does a lot of work here. What's the basis for that opinion?

And:

“But in Mike Pence, Mr. Trump has a vice president ready to take over, if need be. He is a safe pair of hands. Sen. Kamala Harris gives no evidence of being ready to be president.”

This sounds *a lot* like

2. racism. Here's why:

The editorial board just argued that Amy Coney Barrett, eight years Harris's junior, is a great fit for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

She has been a judge only since May 2017, and taught and practiced law before that.

Kamala Harris has been a senator since January 2017, California attorney general from 2010–2017, and San Francisco district attorney from 2003–2010.

So each has had a distinguished career in their chosen line of work.

It's fine to criticize either on what they did during those careers.

But it's quite an intellectual feat to happily support one for the Supreme Court, and find another not qualified for the vice presidency.

Let's save he best for last:

“We wish that we could be more enthusiastic and we hope the president can become more dignified and statesmanlike.”

Hope again. Really? After four years of not even minor movement in that direction?

This is so badly argued, it'd be dripping with red if a student turned this in to any of my classes.

But then again, the cohesive argument isn't the point. It's a weak piece, clearly designed only to give cover to people not liking Trump but wanting to vote Republican anyway.

That it might work with some is thoroughly, unbelievably sad.