Let’s be clear: We brought this on ourselves.
It’s what we get for playing fast and loose with our civic responsibilities in 2016.
It’s what Republicans get for being too feckless to put nation above party.
It’s what voters get for acting like Hillary Clinton was Cruella de Vil in a pantsuit and sensible shoes.
And it’s what news media get for normalizing the abnormal in the apparent conviction that to do otherwise would prove — gasp! — bias.
Shame on CNN for giving Trump millions of dollars in free advertising, for covering his rallies with a wall-to-wall urgency denied less entertaining presidential aspirants.
Shame on The New York Times for framing him and Clinton as candidates both carrying baggage, when her baggage was clearly carry-on while he was dragging steamer trunks behind him.
Shame on The Wall Street Journal for its prissy equivocations in declining to define as “lies” repeated falsehoods from the most prodigious liar in U.S. history.
A pox on every one of us, every reporter, editor, anchor or producer who failed to frame Trump’s rise as the danger it transparently was.
Too many news professionals duck the idea of making such judgment calls in deference to some largely mythical beast called “objectivity.”
What they forget is that there is no such thing as news without judgment.
Reporters must be fair, yes, and balanced.
But that does not mean they may not report the obvious.
Trump certainly was that.
He never hid his ignorance or his malfeasance.
To the contrary, they were part of his appeal.
But too few journalists were willing to say that. Instead, they became addicted to the sugar high of ratings and attention he produced — what crazy thing would he say or do next? — and promoted it, ignoring the threat it posed.
As former CBS CEO Les Moonves infamously gloated, Trump’s candidacy “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”
Now, again, the bill for that bacchanal comes due.
Should we take this latest threat seriously?
Of course we should. Trump and his followers would storm the National Archives and run the Constitution through a shredder if they could.
The better question is: How will journalists report it if that happens?
Will they parachute into red state diners for a “both sides” view of shredding the Constitution?
Or have we finally learned our lesson?
Do we finally grasp that in the face of a clear and present danger, one must report it with the gravity it demands?
We can only hope.
Democracy matters. We should all be biased in favor of that.