Bubbling rage against Donald Trump and the political elite who protect him from criminal prosecution has the power to topple the former president's campaign, an American historian and scholar argued Thursday.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat spoke with the Guardian's Margaret Sullivan about what they described as the media's false equivalency fallacy equating President Joe Biden's poor debate performance with Trumps' four criminal cases, authoritarian rhetoric and campaign agenda, and problematic first presidency.
"Mass protest movements had electoral consequences in the 2018 and 2022 midterm elections,” Ben-Ghiat said. Sullivan notes the scholar "is convinced that we are ripe for another round – and the stakes are higher than ever."
Ben-Ghiat argued Thursday that Republican aggression is not a sign of strength but their inability to fight an increasingly liberal sentiment among American citizens.
ALSO READ: Republicans weaponizing ignorance is a dangerous game
“Part of the reason for so much aggression from the GOP and the courts to take away our rights, including the right to free and fair elections, is because America is becoming more progressive," Ben-Ghiat reportedly said. "Republicans cannot win without lies, threats and election interference, including assistance in that area from foreign powers."
The Guardian columnist also condemned the assistance she feels Republicans have received from the mainstream media's recent coverage of Biden's age issues, which she argues are not worse than "Trump’s criminality and authoritarian intentions."
Sullivan slams debate moderator CNN's decision not to fact check the presidential candidates and "Trump's barrage of lies" in real time.
She calls the New York Times editorial calling for Trump to resign "another example of targeting the president and letting Trump off the hook."
ALSO READ: Republican dodo birds have a death wish for us all
Sullivan notes, "To my knowledge, only the scrappy Philadelphia Inquirer has written a similar editorial about Trump."
Ultimately Sullivan feels news coverage does not accurately reflect the growing sense in America that Trump is a problematic candidate.
"Too much of the politics coverage is out of whack with reality," she writes. "The media is baying for Biden’s head, but – with some exceptions – seems mostly bemused by Trump or at least habituated to how dangerous he is."
On July 4, Sullivan urged Americans to remember the power they hold.
"One friend, active in voter protection efforts, praised 'all of the grassroots volunteers working to preserve democracy who I am sure will continue in all the ways possible if Trump wins,'" Sullivan writes.
"She mentioned the flood of small-dollar donations that followed Biden’s debate debacle, and credited 'the courageous judges, court personnel, jurors et al who are working, despite the risks to themselves, to see that justice is served in the cases against Trump.'"
Sullivan also suggests Americans concerned about the Supreme Court contextualize their concerns by acknowledging the system as a whole still stands.
"Just over a month ago, Trump became the first former US president convicted of felonies," Sullivan writes. "Trump allies who wanted to charge that the courts have been weaponized found it harder to make that argument less than two weeks later when Hunter Biden, too, was convicted in a jury trial."
