There’s been some over-the-top invective and ground-breaking media side-taking this election, but none so far has surpassed the Washington Post’s editorial board, who just claimed “A President Trump could destroy the world economy.”
U.S. leadership of the global trading system has helped stabilize an area of international life that had bred conflict, even war, for centuries. To abdicate in favor of Mr. Trump’s zero-sum mind-set not only would undo the work of generations and lower the United States’ standing among the nations; it also would license other nations to conduct themselves just as selfishly.
What does it mean when a headline screams that the entire world economy could be destroyed by one man? Does it mean that people who oppose this man should feel free and justified to stop this ticking time bomb by any means possible?
If Trump in the White House will “undo the work of generations” and “license other nations to conduct themselves just as selfishly,” then wouldn’t any act to stop Trump be, by definition, unselfish? I think so, and I think that’s exactly what the editorial meant to say.
That means WaPo’s editorial board must be okay if some individuals decided to take things into their own hands and do away with the threat. I think the Secret Service would have something to say about that, and in fact, they should have a discreet conversation with the folks at 1301 K Street.
For a group that holds itself as highly, intellectually and morally, as WaPo’s editorial board, they scarcely could have said anything dumber or more immoral.