OSC’s The unbearable smugness of Trump

Ex navy aviator Frank Turek on their Cross-examined podcast (or radio show for people Statewide) shared an excellent article I’d like to repost for readers here, since with societal pressures bearing down upon Trump voters and conservatives generally, methinks the article a timely one. Now, to briefly aid my friends and neighbours in their Christian life, for insomuch as they’re a support and guidance to me, I too wish to biblically inform their daily life, I’d have to lay my cards on the table concerning Donald J. Trump. President elect Trump isn’t just a flawed man, they’re an utterly unregenerate sinner, they’re to quote Trump himself “a bad dude”, which explains why so many believers, both liberal in political outlook and conservative, either refused to vote Trump or did so holding their nose the entire way through. Educated Christian people recoiled at the prospect of a Trump presidency because he’s an adulterer, even a man who boasts of seducing the wives of other men, meaning, they didn’t long give a hoot when they said “until death do us part” to their first wife, nor did they mean it when they’d said the exact same words to their second wife, furthermore, they don’t care about your covenant promises with your husband or wife! Because he’d try and seduce your other half too.


Educated Christians don’t fancy Trump because they’ve posed on the cover of Playboy magazine, and says “two Corinthians”, by which he meant second Corinthians, while attempting to promote himself in Christian collages. In short, they’re an often unfortunate man led by their various lusts into behaving poorly, about which other men, especially immature men, are sympathetic, although not yet fooled, as shown by Trump’s continued unpopularity within Christian communities. So, if Trump truly isn’t popular, why are they being sworn in. Largely it’s because people didn’t want to vote for the high priestess of Moloch, people didn’t want to vote for a lady who promotes murdering partially birthed babies, and, insofar as I’m concerned, that’s a fair complaint. Let’s listen into the conversation by way of popular culture:

Chances are you didn’t want Clinton, nor Trump, you didn’t want either because they’re clinically out of touch with what ordinary people believe and value, they’re simply not worth your vote nor mine (albeit my votes are way over here in England). For people who wanted Trump in some fashion, I’d imagine many did so simply as a show of discontent, which should please more liberal voters, since Trump voters and yourself now share a common distaste for “the Donald.” Nonetheless, let’s take heart, honestly, president Trump could be by far the greatest leader ever, it’s possible, not probable, but possible, then again, they could be assassinated days into their presidency by an amateur socialist fruit loop screaming “Love wins! Love wins!” at the top of their lungs (God knows). For new readers to the blog, you can read more of my conversations with said fruit loops by clicking the “OSC” category below. In closing however, having hopefully shown equal weights and measures in my treatment of both Trump and the Clinton camp, let’s dive into that very interesting article which Frank Turek shared, which I’m hoping should be a help to my democratic friends out there.

― T. C. M

By Will Rahn.

The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.

This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’d be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.

So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.

And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.

It’s a profound failure of empathy in the service of endless posturing. There’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?

We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice.

You’d think that Trump’s victory – the one we all discounted too far in advance – would lead to a certain newfound humility in the political press. But of course that’s not how it works. To us, speaking broadly, our diagnosis was still basically correct. The demons were just stronger than we realized.

This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!

That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It’s similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits. Journalists exist primarily in a world where people can get shouted down and disappear, which informs our attitudes toward all disagreement.

Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological.

That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong.

As a direct result, we get it wrong with greater frequency. Out on the road, we forget to ask the right questions. We can’t even imagine the right question. We go into assignments too certain that what we find will serve to justify our biases. The public’s estimation of the press declines even further — fewer than one-in-three Americans trust the press, per Gallup — which starts the cycle anew.

There’s a place for opinionated journalism; in fact, it’s vital. But our causal, profession-wide smugness and protestations of superiority are making us unable to do it well.

Our theme now should be humility. We must become more impartial, not less so. We have to abandon our easy culture of tantrums and recrimination. We have to stop writing these know-it-all, 140-character sermons on social media and admit that, as a class, journalists have a shamefully limited understanding of the country we cover.

What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.

We have to fix this, and the broken reasoning behind it. There’s a fleeting fun to gang-ups and groupthink. But it’s not worth what we are losing in the process.


22 thoughts on “OSC’s The unbearable smugness of Trump

    • Making a sound judgement isn’t to be confused with being judgemental, I’d simply write for a person who didn’t like my pointing out the obvious that they ought to read Matthew chapter seven, which points out we are to remove whatever is in our eye, with which we’re better able to help our brother. Not being a boasting adulterer or a baby killer I’d like to think that plank is very much out of my eye.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Well, GP, there’s a certain amount of shared capability when a person supports others in slaughtering their unborn sons and daughters, like Hilary has, in the same way to the way in which Hilary covered up and even attacked the unfortunate women her husband appears to have raped. Hilary need not murder her own children to be deserving of a firm rebuke, even a rebuke in love, since she fights for that behaviour in the lives of others. Reread the article by Will Rahn, my friend, the entire thrust of the article is to not be judgemental, but rather to judge aright, and to be sympathetic to our neighbours in spite of their political differences.


      • No need to apologize, GP. I’m glad you and I can write without feeling irate or behaving cruelly to one another. We’re simply men, just like how Trump and Bill are men, we’re in need of help, sometimes help against our enemies, but mostly help from ourselves. We’re deeply flawed as people, and sometimes those same flaws overwhelm, that goes for men and women, young and old. You’re already in my prayers, my friend. I’ll be visiting your blog and hope you’ve found Jesus in your life. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • That sounds like an excellent early years education. I’m not yet sure where you’re writing from, although I’ve been made aware there’s often an awful hatred of Catholics in the States, especially in what’s commonly described as the evangelical community (which again is an umbrella term). It’s a kind of hatred I, being Irish, and thus having many Catholics in my family, don’t share. An educated person on their faith might shout “Aha, OSC! You’re only sympathetic to people in the Catholic community because you’re in their midst!” Well, that’s mistaken. Rather, I’m understanding to my Catholic friends because I’ve watched their eyes light up at the thought of God’s grace, and I’ve been witness to their deep love for the Father. Mere Christianity really is an excellent starting point, and of course our studies and disagreements would continue from there. If you haven’t already read or listened to the writer’s fine work, I’d be happy to link you below.


      • In a very real way, it’s not even talk of faith which gets people into trouble, for example, for me to talk about a nebulous “belief in God” really wouldn’t bother people in my immediate company. Perhaps it’s far different in your experience. Likewise Islam, the celebration of Diwali and many other religious/political events are publicly supported, not simply by special interest groups, but by the government. They cause no controversy though, not in the eyes of government officials and the policy makers. If I’d put my finger on a subject which has been deemed taboo, it would have to be the person of Jesus Christ.


  1. Hello!
    Pleasure to meet you and thank you for taking time to visit my blog page and having a follow. I took a read to this particular post here and it was very intriguing to say the least. I find most of it very funny and like that you say what you mean and don’t hold back. Some may not be fans (as one reader said before me) but also, we can’t live to make everyone happy either! Fuck, not everyone likes fitness/health but hey.. I do what I can on my blog 😛 When you talk about topics such as these, you are opening up a can of worms and you handle all your comments very well! tastefully 😉 I am a fan of your style in this writing.


    Liked by 1 person

    • “Can we disagree without being disagreeable?” Was always one of my favourite quotations, and I’ve yet to seriously flunk that test online, although if I’m snippy, I’m snippy. Thank you for taking the time to compose such an excellent comment, I’ve done my best to share my faith “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). Here’s hoping you’re having a nice morning, I’ve just gotten finished watching a few of your videos! The first of which was “Monday Motivation- Society isnt your boss” which, during the opening 20 seconds or so, I’d said to myself “What a softly spoken flower!” #turns up volume# Although it turns out the video just doesn’t have sound. My mistake. 😛

      Liked by 1 person

      • That is quote I have never heard before, but one I that I think I will live by as well – so should many others.
        I didn’t know the video didn’t have sound, that is my mistake. I had no one mention, so I am happy you have! thank you for taking time to watch my YouTube videos!


    • The media create the narratives, you could write. “Christians being murdered, raped and systematically exterminated across the Middle east for their religion, that’s not news! Now, cats vs. cucumbers, that’s in the public interest.” You can just imagine these hopeless men and women in their bubble patting their own backs red raw. Consider the case of Reuters, for example, who used Photoshopped images of “peaceful protestors” being harassed, the only problem was, the original images had the youths carrying knives and drawing blood. Terrorism, peaceful protest, who’s to say, Reuters is who.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s