[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just like most political writing, you need to take it with a grain of salt and understand that it is not reporting. What I found interesting was this sentence and possibly many of us are guilty of this.

Like "most political writing" your article has a slant in one direction. The emphasis in the article is on Trump and his words. Those words are supposed to show a symmetry with Smollett's words which is supposed to lead to the moral indictment of the supporters of each man as being the cause of a broken American political life.

But it's a red herring symmetry. There is a symmetry in that both Trump and Smollett are men. In that they are both humans. In that they both have arms and legs. And in an endless number of irrelevant ways.

Claiming that the system is broken because of an irrelevant symmetry of defendant's declarations of exoneration is, ultimately, trying to lay blame for a broken system on Trump and his supporters. If Trump had said nothing, the article would not have been written--even though the Smollett case, in and of and wholly in itself would be evidence of a broken system.

Smollett's case being dismissed in spite of overwhelming factual evidence in which even the prosecutor clearly admits the guilt of the defendant is a sign of a broken system. The investigation into charges against Trump in which actual evidence cannot lead to a dispositive conclusion of guilt is perfectly aligned with a system that is working.

Comments of exoneration by the defendants in either case indicate nothing about the integrity of the system. They're just the opinions of Smollett and Trump. You can put whatever spin you want on Trump's and Smollett's words. But there is no symmetry of a broken legal system between both cases.


"Maybe it’s best not to think too hard about these things. Because if you did, you’d come to the conclusion that American political life is broken and that people who defend one of these men to the hilt while railing against the other—without even a hint of self-awareness—will get exactly the sort of government they deserve."

Actually, thinking hard, in depth, about "these things" (e.g. the justice system) leads to the conclusion that in Smollett's case "American political life" is broken, regardless of what Smollett says. And those that support him to the hilt despite his guilt are a sign of that break.

In Trump's case, the justice system does not seem to be broken. There is no dismissal of charges in the face of overwhelming evidence. Quite the contrary. Regardless of what Trump says.

What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge? I don't see a symmetry between the two. I see an attempt to create an equivalence that doesn't exist--merely by noting the similarity of words about exoneration between Trump and Smollett.

The article is an unnecessary and nonfactual equivalence of Trump's case with Smollett's to create the appearance of why American political life is broken, with the slant that Trump and his supporters are at least half of the problem. God knows who the other half is. Certainly not just little ole insignificant Smollett and his few supporters.

The broken American political life is not caused by the trivia in your article. It is only broken if the base that hold's it together is cracked--you know . . . the "C".