- Share via
Perhaps the most frustrating thing about being a conservative critic of Trumpism is that you often start by agreeing with Trumpworld about ends while disagreeing about means.
This pleases nobody. The left, broadly speaking, considers the ends as illegitimate as the means, and the pro-Trump right thinks that if you’re against the means you really don’t desire the ends. I’m against the abuse of power, even for my own “side.”
Why Republicans should be the very last to agree with Trump’s economic ‘explanation’ that America is a great, big department store.
For instance, I’ve argued for decades that liberal media bias is real and a problem. I think you can exaggerate the problem, particularly these days (Fox has dominated cable news for decades). But, yes, the MAGA crowd is right that much of the “legacy” media is often reflexively hostile to Republicans. But that doesn’t mean I support the way Trump’s Federal Communications Commission is bullying various media organizations for being critical of Trump, or that I applaud Trump’s jihad against the Associated Press for refusing to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.
A poll finds that 68% of registered voters in California disapprove of the president’s job performance and believe the country is on the wrong track.
Or consider Harvard. If you read its own report on the antisemitism situation at the university, it’s hard to disagree with many of the administration’s criticisms. Harvard has been intolerant of internal dissent, and its educational philosophy has been absurdly left wing. For instance, a mandatory class for students at the Harvard Graduate School of Education has deployed a grotesque chart (page 150 of the report), “The Pyramid of White Supremacy,” equating free trade agreements with “slavery,” and “colorblindness” with “racial profiling.” It suggests that the Anti-Defamation League is engaging in “coded” rhetoric for “genocide.” Meanwhile, the Harvard Law Review seems to be practicing flat-out racial discrimination.
But as Charles Lane of the Free Press recently put it, “Harvard had it coming. That doesn’t mean Trump is right.” Trump is not only threatening to withdraw billions in federal grants from Harvard, he wants to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status. These are draconian “remedies,” raising a host of different ethical, prudential, legal, policy and constitutional issues. Suffice it to say, I think defunding cancer research to own the libs seems like overkill. Removing Harvard’s tax-exempt status is probably illegal. And even it’s not, it’s insane to do it via executive order, setting a precedent conservative will rue.
Is wasteful water use causing shortages? The Natural Resources Defense Council is urging the U.S. government to enforce a rule that requires ‘beneficial’ use of Colorado River water.
I could make similar arguments about everything from Trump’s threats to law firms to his attacks on NATO. Heck, I’ve been in favor of annexing Greenland — peacefully! — for a long time. But I think threatening military force (as he did again this weekend) is grotesque.
The arguments are also good for making a point beyond “Trump is awful.”
The old story of liberal media bias has gotten worse, for a number of structural reasons. Back in the days when big newspapers, a few news magazines and three broadcast networks defined the mainstream media, audiences were broad and diverse. This encouraged news outlets to play it more down the middle. They didn’t always succeed, but there were institutional safeguards and incentives to prevent straying too far left or right. For instance, advertisers for baby formula did not want to sponsor content
that might offend any swath of the market.
The president, on his Truth Social platform, called for a steep tariff on movies made overseas. Hollywood has been hurting as foreign governments offer rich incentives to filmmakers.
Cable and the internet balkanized the media landscape. The incentive structure changed with it. Instead of seeking to appeal to a broad audience, outlets switched to a strategy of appealing to a “sticky” narrow slice that was more ideological. Liberals can see this plain as day with Fox News but strain to acknowledge the dynamic with MSNBC.
As journalism became more ideological, so did journalists. Many news organizations drew their talent from elite schools of the sort that taught “The Pyramid of White Supremacy.” It should be no surprise that their coverage of, say, the George Floyd protests was informed by their educational experience, often defending or downplaying the violent destruction of property. In the same way that fish don’t know they’re wet, a lot of journalists couldn’t see how far left their institutions had drifted. But conservatives could — and dreamed of punishing them for it.
That’s why he should be in a U.S. court, not a Salvadoran prison: He, like anyone accused of a crime, needs a chance to be convicted or cleared.
The story of the universities is different, but a similar dynamic has been at play. Groupthink around a slew of ideological commitments festered. They lost sight of their own obligation to be institutions for all Americans. Much like the media, Harvard and others have exploited their traditional status to advance ideological agendas. And much like the media, they invoke their traditional status as a kind of forcefield against outside pressure or criticism. Harvard — and higher ed generally — abused their positions and invited an inevitable correction. The form of the Trump correction is as lamentable as the need for one is true.
Again, this view annoys people who see American politics as an endless war between heroes and villains. But it is that view that got us here.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- Jonah Goldberg acknowledges that liberal media bias is a real issue, particularly in legacy outlets, but criticizes Trump’s methods of addressing it, such as using the FCC to bully critical media organizations or attacking the Associated Press over naming conventions[1][2].
- He agrees that institutions like Harvard have problematic ideological leanings, citing examples such as the “Pyramid of White Supremacy” curriculum and discriminatory practices at the Harvard Law Review. However, he opposes Trump’s threats to defund the university or revoke its tax-exempt status, arguing these measures are draconian, legally dubious, and set dangerous precedents[1][3].
- Goldberg supports the conservative goal of challenging ideological groupthink in academia and media but warns against abusing power to achieve these ends. He emphasizes that Trump’s approach—such as threatening military force over annexing Greenland—undermines constitutional principles and risks normalizing authoritarian tactics[1][3][4].
Different views on the topic
- Pro-Trump conservatives argue that aggressive measures are necessary to counter systemic bias in institutions like Harvard and the media, viewing Trump’s actions as a justified response to decades of liberal overreach[1][2].
- Some defend Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy and trade, contending that traditional conservative adherence to free markets and international alliances has failed to protect American interests. This aligns with Trump’s tariffs and skepticism of organizations like NATO[2][3].
- Critics of Goldberg’s stance claim his focus on procedural conservatism ignores the urgency of dismantling deeply entrenched ideological biases. They argue that Trump’s willingness to wield executive power boldly is the only way to achieve meaningful reform[1][4].
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
