I’ve known David Frum almost since I first came to Washington. A mutual friend of ours once described him thusly: “David is one of the handful of people in this town whose intellect is genuinely intimidating.” That appraisal always struck me as pretty much correct. That’s not to say that Frum is personally intimidating—he’s very much a good guy. But rather that whenever he says something I disagree with, I begin my assessment with the assumption that I am likely mistaken. Which is what happened last week. Frum participated in an Intelligence Squared debate in Washington arguing against the following proposition: We should give Trump a chance to succeed as president. I know what you’re thinking: How could you be against giving Trump a chance? Heck, how could you be against giving anyone a chance? In any situation. “Give the other guy a chance” is practically part of the American credo. Shouldn’t Trump skeptics (like myself) at the very least, as Clive Crook says during the debate, not close our minds “to the possibility that he might do some good things”? But as I said, Frum is worth taking seriously even when you think he’s totally wrong. I’d encourage you to watch the entire debate—it makes for highly interesting viewing. (The actual debate starts around the 20:00 mark.) But if you don’t have an hour to devote to it, let me sum up Frum’s chain of argument. 1) When is it that you can stop giving a president a chance? The phrase “give Trump a chance” is a bit nebulous, but what it boils down to is something like this: “We assume his intentions are good; we give him the benefit of the doubt; and we want to work with him first, rather than oppose his program.” So when is it reasonable to retreat from that position and consider the president an opponent who should be countered? Conservatives might ask themselves when they reached that position vis a vis Barack Obama. Frum’s argument is that surely at some point, between Inauguration Day and Election Day, citizens have to reach a verdict on their view of a president. So what’s at issue isn’t “You have to give a Trump a chance because it’s the right thing to do.” But rather, “You should not reach any conclusions about Trump just yet.” In other words, according to Frum, what we’re really haggling over here is timing. I find that part of his argument entirely persuasive. 2) With that behind him, Frum moves on to claim that with many presidents, the important information needed to decide whether or not to give them a chance lies in the future. But that with Trump, everything we need to know about him lies in the past. It’s an interesting argument. And though I’m not totally convinced by it, I don’t dismiss it, either. And conservatives who would dismiss it ought to, again, think about how they regarded Barack Obama in the early days of his administration. 3) Is there anything to be gained by not giving Trump a chance? This is where Frum makes his strongest, and most disturbing, points. He maintains that we will not find out the true extent of Russian involvement in the 2016 election—or the true state of Trump’s financial interests—unless we are in an oppositional position. He says that “giving Trump a chance” necessarily means that those two mysteries will never be solved. These are solid, practical arguments. 4) But Frum’s philosophical argument is even more compelling. We must storm-proof our democratic institutions, he says. Frum recalls an early description of America’s Constitution as “a machine that would go of itself.” Yet “it’s not a machine,” he insists. “It’s not a mechanism. This phrase ‘checks and balances’ that you hear? There’s no mechanism. There are no checks. There are no balances. There are only people. Meeting their responsibilities as citizens. Or failing to meet their responsibilities as citizens.” That’s stern stuff. And if you’re a Constitutional conservative—as opposed to simply a Republican team player—it’s impossible to ignore. It’s especially difficult to dismiss because Frum is not an alarmist. In his long essay on Trump in this month’s Atlantic, Frum says that “fascism” of the 1930s variety is no longer the threat. Donald Trump is not Mussolini. Instead, modern economics and the media have created a world in which democratic institutions across the world are being undermined by a soft authoritarianism. The worry is not that America becomes Il Duce’s Italy, but rather Victor Orban’s Hungary. As I said, I’m not entirely convinced by Frum. But he’s always worth taking seriously. But enough politics. The new episode of the Substandard podcast comes out tomorrow. We talk about the Super Bowl and sports movies. As always, you can subscribe on iTunes here or Google Play here. You’ll thank me for it. Best, JVL |