A Line-by-Line Analysis of the Hilarious 'Case for Trump'

[Nevilledog]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/08/hugh-hewitt-case-for-trump-deserve-reelection.html

Hugh Hewitt occupies a rare place in the media ecosystem. The white-haired, genial talk-radio host who used to host a show on MSNBC, was the subject of a somewhat flattering 2005 New Yorker profile, and still writes a column for the Washington Post, and at least purports to engage with audiences outside the right-wing alternative-information ecosystem. Yet unlike the vast majority of conservative pundits in the mainstream media, he has not turned on Donald Trump. He has lavished the president with almost unbroken loyalty, even as he attempts to maintain his veneer of intellectualism.

Hewitt has written a case (he calls it “the case”) for Trump’s reelection. If it were possible to fashion a coherent, fact-based argument for Trump’s reelection, Hewitt — by dint of his unique role — would probably be its author. Instead, he has written a column that persuasively negates the very possibility that a coherent pro-Trump argument can or could be made.

Its most remarkable aspect is its complete refusal to address the evidence of Trump’s misconduct and incompetence. You might think a self-styled definitive case for Trump’s reelection might at least pause to rebut the fact that, say, the special counsel described his extensive criminal behavior and the House impeached him for abusing his power. Of course, the list of Trump’s crimes is so extensive, Hewitt couldn’t be expected to refute all of it in such a small space. No, what’s amazing is that, by confining himself to the positive case for Trump while ignoring the negative, Hewitt runs out of things to say. And so even his brief 800-word summary is heavily padded.

This masterpiece of anti-persuasion rewards careful study. I have reprinted every word of it below, interspersed with my comments.

*snip*