A little after 9 P.M. on Tuesday night, Donald Trump released a triumphant tweet that, unlike the majority of his other declarations about the Governmental election, had a traceable relationship to the reality: “Wow! Michigan simply refused to accredit the election results!” The elections board of Wayne County, which includes Detroit, had deadlocked after its 2 Republican members declared suspicions of irregularities. The crisis was over rapidly, however; the board reversed itself and certified the outcomes. In a public remark, a Michigan business owner, Ned Staebler, exposed the Republican members’ arguments and informed them that “the Trump stain, the stain of bigotry … is going to follow you throughout history.” The address went viral, passing 2 and a half million views in 3 hours.
Democratic procedure had actually thrived. Americans made fun of their President on Twitter. Something had actually changed. The unthinkable, once again, had taken place– and even though it was rapidly reversed, we now knew that it was possible. The next day, the Wayne County Republican commissioners asked to “ rescind” their votes licensing the election results. According to Robert Costa, who has been reporting on the election for the Washington Post, the debacle in Michigan is consistent with the strategy of Trump’s individual election lawyer, Rudy Giuliani “What they desire– in MI, PA, NV, other states– is for the vote to not be accredited,” Costa tweeted “Their end game: attempt to force it to your house.” Giuliani and his group know that no number of recounts can provide Trump the votes; their objective is to toss wrenches in the works On Thursday, Trump welcomed Michigan Republican leaders to the White House, presumably to go over ways to decertify election results, and Giuliani convened another unhinged interview, in which he made a slew of incorrect and bizarre claims about the election in Michigan and somewhere else.
Across a reassuringly wide political spectrum, observers hold that Trump’s refusal to concede the election results is not identical to a coup attempt. In the Washington Inspector, Timothy Carney wrote, “Trump is a con man, and his insistence that he can reverse the election is his newest grift.” In The Country, Jeet Heer argued that, while Trump’s behavior is concerning, “it is extremely various than a coup. It is more accurately viewed as a cover-up,” including that Trump is “thinking about keeping his con game afloat.” My coworker Susan Glasser positioned the question “Is it a coup or a con?” to a lots of her smartest Washington sources, and they, too, tilted the needle closer to “con.”
They are probably right. Then again, we in the media do not have a fantastic record for acknowledging coups when they are looking us in the face. One of the best reviews of American journalism, still taught today since it stays appropriate a century after its publication, is an essay by Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz, “A Test of the News,” which examined the Times’ failure to cover the R