On his Sunday program, CNN's Fareed Zakaria asserted that the relationship between conservative/Republican leaders and the grassroots was "similar" to the "dynamic" between moderate Muslims and Islamists: "A main cause of the rise of extremism in the world of Islam has been the cowardice of Muslim moderates, who...chose not to condemn bad ideas and ugly rhetoric....It is now clear that a similar dynamic has been at play in the world of conservatism." He claimed that "some of its most distinguished mainstream members" of the conservative movement "have embraced the rhetoric and tactics of the extremes." [video below]
Zakaria cited a "memo put out by Newt Gingrich's political action committee that decade [the 1990s] [which] urged Republican candidates to use savage rhetoric against their Democratic opponents," and linked it to Donald Trump's attacks on his opponents in both parties. The liberal host later contended that "Republicans have fed the country ideas about decline, betrayal, and treason. They have encouraged the forces of anti-intellectualism, obstructionism, and populism. They have flirted with bigotry and racism. Trump merely chose to unashamedly embrace all of it — saying plainly what they were hinting at for years."
The CNN host led his opening commentary with his "rise of extremism in the world of Islam" comparison. He continued by both commending Mitt Romney for attacking Trump, but blasting him for receiving the billionaire's endorsement during the 2012 presidential race. He wildly claimed that Romney "fed the fires" of birtherism regarding President Obama by cracking later in 2012, "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate."
Later in this first segment, Zakaria cited the Wall Street Journal's theory for the rise for Trump as a set-up to liken Trump to past demagogues: "The Wall Street Journal editorial page opined, 'The oldest truism in politics is that demagogues flourish in the absence of leadership.' I must confess to never having heard that truism, and wondered how it would explain the rise of Father Coughlin and Huey Long during Franklin Roosevelt's reign; or Joseph McCarthy under Dwight Eisenhower." He concluded with his "anti-intellectualism" blast at Republicans/conservatives.
The host then turned to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and the Wall Street Journal's Brett Stephens for their take on the Trump issue. Krugman turned up Zakaria's rhetoric to 11 by blaming William F. Buckley for the rise of Trump:
ZAKARIA: What do you think? What caused Trump?
PAUL KRUGMAN, OP-ED COLUMNIST, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think it's — it's just coming out into the open something that's been really a part of modern conservatism in America for a very, very long time. When I read Bret's column, I was — I almost fell off my chair. Bill Buckley as the epitome of the clean — you know, clean conservatism, none of this — this is the Bill Buckley who wrote, 'The South must prevail — white community in the South is entitled to take such measures that are necessary to prevail in areas in which it does not predominate numerically, because the white community is the advanced race.'
I mean, this is — this has been part of how America's right has gotten people out to vote for it for many, many years; and Trump is just splitting up the package. He's saying, you can have all of that without having to buy into supply-side economics.
Moments later, the liberal writer oddly asserted that "the Republican base doesn't actually care about any of the economic principles that the Republican elite has been espousing. They probably never have." He pointed to the Trump phenomenon as his resoning.
Later in the program, Zakaria asked Krugman, "Does it worry you that Donald Trump agrees with you? In his Super Tuesday press conference, the one public — he talked about two public issues: Planned Parenthood is good, and public infrastructure is crumbling." The guest replied by extending his attack on Trump to all of his fellow Republican contenders: "Look, my view on the Republican side is that Donald Trump is a very frightening guy — and so are they all." He added that "on the places where he deviates from Republican orthodoxy on economic policy, he's usually right."
The transcript of Fareed Zakaria's lead commentary, along with the relevant portion of the Krugman/Stephens segment, from the March 6, 2016 edition of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS:
[CNN Graphic: "Fareed's Take: Who's responsible for the rise of Donald Trump?"]
FAREED ZAKARIA: First, here's my take: a main cause of the rise of extremism in the world of Islam has been the cowardice of Muslim moderates — who, for decades, chose not to condemn bad ideas and ugly rhetoric. Fearing that they'd be seen simply as ideological weaklings, they avoided confronting the cancer in plain sight. It is now clear that a similar dynamic has been at play in the world of conservatism.
Mitt Romney should be congratulated for making a speech calling Donald Trump a phony and a fraud. But where was he when, in 2012, Trump was pushing his nasty and utterly false campaign casting doubt on President Obama's American citizenship? By Trump's side in Las Vegas, as E.J. Dionne reminds us in his book, 'Why the Right Went Wrong.'
MITT ROMNEY: There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life. Having his endorsement is a delight. I'm — I'm so honored and pleased to have his endorsement.
[CNN Graphic: "Where was Romney when Trump was pushing birtherism?; Romney was delighted to have Trump's endorsement in 2012"]
ZAKARIA: And while he generally eschewed birtherism, Romney fed the fires later that year by joking, 'No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate.'
There have always been radicals on both sides of the political spectrum, but what is different about the conservative movement is that since the 1990s, some of its most distinguished mainstream members have embraced the rhetoric and tactics of the extremes. A memo put out by Newt Gingrich's political action committee that decade urged Republican candidates to use savage rhetoric against their Democratic opponents. Some of the recommended words were 'failure,' 'pathetic,' 'disgrace,' and 'incompetent.' In the last month, Donald Trump has called Mitt Romney a 'failed candidate;' Jeb Bush 'pathetic;' Lindsey Graham a 'disgrace;' and President Obama 'totally incompetent.' Perhaps, he read the memo.
[CNN Graphic: "Mainstream GOP has embraced the rhetoric of the extremes; The establishment GOP revolt against anti-establishment Trump"]
It is courageous of dozens of Republican foreign policy leaders now to sign an open letter condemning Trump publicly and refusing his candidacy. But over the last decade, I can recall conversations with many of these individuals in which they refused to accept that there was any problem within the Republican Party — attributing such criticism to media bias. We still see this denial by some commentators with their truly bizarre claims of the rise of Trump is really all the fault of President Obama.
The logic varies. For some, it is because he has been so weak. The Wall Street Journal editorial page opined, 'The oldest truism in politics is that demagogues flourish in the absence of leadership.' I must confess to never having heard that truism, and wondered how it would explain the rise of Father Coughlin and Huey Long during Franklin Roosevelt's reign; or Joseph McCarthy under Dwight Eisenhower. For others, however, it's because Obama has been too strong — abusing executive power and elevating himself to center celebrity stage. Apparently, having Oprah share the stage with you leads to authoritarian populism.
Here's a much simpler explanation for Donald Trump: Republicans have fed the country ideas about decline, betrayal, and treason. They have encouraged the forces of anti-intellectualism, obstructionism, and populism. They have flirted with bigotry and racism. Trump merely chose to unashamedly embrace all of it — saying plainly what they were hinting at for years. In doing so, he hit the jackpot. The problem is not that Republican leaders should have begun to condemn Trump last year. It is that they should have condemned the ideas and tactics that led to his rise when they began to flourish in the last century.
(...)
ZAKARIA: What do you think? What caused Trump?
PAUL KRUGMAN, OP-ED COLUMNIST, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think it's — it's just coming out into the open something that's been really a part of modern conservatism in America for a very, very long time. When I read Bret's column, I was — I almost fell off my chair. Bill Buckley as the epitome of the clean — you know, clean conservatism, none of this — this is the Bill Buckley who wrote, 'The South must prevail — white community in the South is entitled to take such measures that are necessary to prevail in areas in which it does not predominate numerically, because the white community is the advanced race.'
I mean, this is — this has been part of how America's right has gotten people out to vote for it for many, many years; and Trump is just splitting up the package. He's saying, you can have all of that without having to buy into supply-side economics.
BRET STEPHENS, DEPUTY EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, I think it's — I mean, I'm not certainly going to defend what Bill Buckley wrote 50 years ago; but I think it's incredible to suggest that — say, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal that has been arguing for free trade; has been arguing for a liberal immigration regime; I think has been arguing for a responsible foreign policy that opposes dictators like Putin — suddenly should be blamed for the rise of Trump. I mean, I think we are the editorial page on the right that has been most outspoken about this kind of populism — which, by the way, on economic grounds, actually is much closer to Professor Krugman, in its support for — or opposition to entitlement reforms — its skepticism about free trade — than it is to us.
I mean, people have — I'm not the first to point out that Donald Trump, on economics, with the exception of the immigration question, is really a figure of the left — or maybe of traditional blue collar union Democratic views. What he mixes into that is a — kind of a toxic bigotry — hatred of Mexicans; hatred of Muslims. So he brings together two different streams, but the suggestion that, somehow, the conservative — quote, 'establishment,' is responsible for a guy they are doing everything in their power to oppose — I mean, it's not 1 it's not a sensical argument.
KRUGMAN: Well, a couple of things: one is, I — the discovery that you're making is that the Republican base doesn't actually care about any of the economic principles that the Republican elite has been espousing. They really — they probably never have and — but this is now coming out into the open because, again, as I said, the package is being split up.
The whole — the idea that this is about economics really does not hold up in the face of the data. If you look at where are the areas where Trump has the greatest support, they are not very well correlated with economic conditions. They are very well correlated with racism. And so, it really is — this is — the racial enmity, if you like, that has been a big driver of politics in America, mostly done to the benefit of one party — and not the Democrats — is now fueling Trump. So — but among people I talked to, it's become kind of a running joke. Every time we see some very overt racism among Trump supporters, they say look at that economic anxiety. Come on! This is not — there's economic anxiety out there. It feeds into everything. But that's not what Trump is riding on.
