“America, Alone” is the heading of today’s New York Times email. I thought, are they channeling Mark Steyn?
Obviously not. The Times bemoans the fact that we are fighting Iran alone, with no allies. That isn’t true, of course: we have teamed up with Israel, by far the best ally we could have for this mission. The Times doesn’t see fit to mention Israel’s contributions.
The Times focuses specifically on Germany, France, the U.K. and Poland as countries that are not helping in the Strait of Hormuz. But one can legitimately ask when any of those countries made a material contribution to a war effort–ours or anyone else’s. To the extent that those countries are not currently helpful, it reflects their diminished military prowess and, in each case other than Poland’s, a fear of their own Islamic minorities.
That said, the U.S. does indeed shoulder a disproportionate share of the costs of defending the West, something Donald Trump has been pointing out for a long time.
These days, the Times exists for only one purpose: to bash President Trump. After decrying our alleged lack of allies in the Iran campaign, the paper goes on to critique Trump’s personality:
The anger presidency
Operation Epic Fury is accurate branding for the war, Peter Baker writes. By the president’s own description, everything he does is epic — the most, the biggest, the best. And Trump is certainly driven by fury. Anger is at the heart of much of his work. He chose the name himself.
Here’s one (epic) paragraph of Peter’s analysis:
Anger defines Mr. Trump’s decade on the political stage. Anger at foreigners who come to this country and change its nature. Anger at allies who take advantage of America. Anger at Democrats who cross him. Anger at Republicans who cross him. Anger at appointees he deems insufficiently loyal. Anger at prosecutors, F.B.I. agents, judges, journalists, law firms, elite universities, cultural figures, corporate leaders, pollsters, central bankers and the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
This reminds me of when liberals used to characterize Rush Limbaugh as angry. They always caricatured him ranting into a microphone. That was because they never listened to him: as many said, back in the day, Rush was like your favorite uncle. A benign figure, and more often than not, a funny one.
One reason the Democrats keep losing to Trump is that they don’t understand him, or at least they pretend not to. Caricaturing Trump as uniquely or unusually angry misses the mark about as badly as the same mischaracterization of Limbaugh. Whatever you think of his policies, Trump is a nice guy. And he is genuinely funny.
One wonders, for example, how liberals would process Trump’s press conference yesterday about the Kennedy Center, followed by questions on Iran from reporters. They should have watched it. In truth, geniality and good humor are much more Trump’s trademarks than anger.
Meanwhile, events in Iran are going about as well as they possibly could. To be honest, much as I like the direction of Poland’s current government, I wasn’t counting on the Poles to help us out in the Middle East.
