Anti-Trump Brain Virus Case Study: The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin

Not all of the unrestrained anti-Trump zealots are progressives and Democrats. There are a lot of conservatives who detest him sufficiently to surrender their integrity, fairness and common sense as well. The Federalist’s Sean Davis has chronicled a revealing example: Washington Post pundit Jennifer Rubin.

Blogger Rubin is one of the rare in-House Post conservatives. Her 2016 columns regarding Trump were only slightly less vehement than mine, and once he was elected, she threw restraint to the wind. Before that, however, Rubin was one of the few reliably critical voices regarding President Obama and his feckless and bumbling Presidency.

One of the more frequent targets of her acid pen was the Paris climate deal. In a column mocking Obama’s “phony accomplishments,” Rubin wrote  that a Supreme Court decision on environmental regulations proved “how ephemeral Obama’s Paris climate change deal is.” Before that, Rubin  suggested  the accord was a cynical and transparent effort to take attention away Obama’s failure to deal effectively with radical Islamist terrorism, writing, “The president has no answer, so he goes to Paris to talk about climate change.”  Then she cited  the climate change pact as evidence that Obama and former Secretary of State John Kerry lived in a “fantasy world” where “a piece of paper”was a signature accomplishment “even if it achieves nothing.” Rubin accused them of selling the progressive base a “bill of goods” on the Paris deal, while Rubin called it “footprints in the sand.” Still later, Rubin cited approvingly Oklahoma’s Senator Jim Inhofe , the most infamous climate change skeptic in the the U.S. Senate, when he said that the Paris climate change deal was “devoid of substance.”

But Rubin really detests President Trump. For a man she hates to embrace her opinion is so unbearable that her only way out is to reverse the opinion. Before Trump announced that he was quitting the 2015 deal but had hinted that he would, Rubin transformed into a Paris accord booster, and declared that such a move would be a disaster. She wrote:

No, Trump’s pullout from the international accord would be a political act — one that signals solidarity with his climate-change denial, right-wing base that revels in scientific illiteracy. Being a climate-change denier — which entails dogmatic opposition to the Paris agreement — is a dog whistle to the far right, a snub to “elites,” who in this case include academics, government and private scientists, technology chief executives and others whose livelihood depends on accurate data. (Between “2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW [anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming]. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity.”)

This would also be an international dog whistle, reflective of Trump’s rejection of the Atlantic Alliance and the bonds of cooperation that tie Western democracies together. R. Nicholas Burns, a career diplomat, is quoted as saying, “From a foreign policy perspective, it’s a colossal mistake — an abdication of American leadership. The success of our foreign policy — in trade, military, any other kind of negotiation — depends on our credibility. I can’t think of anything more destructive to our credibility than this.”

How could President Obama be so wrong to sign what Rubin termed a phony pact, yet President Trump such a villain and a fool to repudiate it?

Simple: if Donald Trump does it or says it, it’s horrible by definition, and previous conclusions and analysis is inoperable.

Writes Davis,

What changed that could possibly explain Rubin’s complete reversal on the necessity of a deal she once said was “ephemeral,” “phony,” “fantasy,” and “devoid of substance?” Nothing. It’s the same deal today as it was when it was agreed to in 2015. The only difference between then and now is that Trump eventually endorsed Rubin’s take in its entirety. And because Rubin now calibrates her political compass to the opposite of whatever Trump is doing, she feels compelled to vociferously support a vapid agreement she at one time opposed on the merits.

Bias makes you stupid. It also makes pundits untrustworthy, and it’s stunning that neither Rubin nor her editors noticed her sudden reversal sufficiently to recognize that some explanation was mandatory. Maybe they think “Trump” is explanation enough.

They probably do.

25 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Around the World, Environment, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Research and Scholarship, Science & Technology

25 responses to “Anti-Trump Brain Virus Case Study: The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin

  1. This is a GREAT blog post Jack!

    It’s a fabulous representation of how the mindset of the anti-Trump resistance (in general) has completely flushed all reason and logic and is relying on being Political Attack Dogs.

  2. Even conservatives can be blinded by their political bias. Rubin does not understand WHO foisted Trump on us, and so is now a useful idiot.

  3. Oliver K. Manuel

    Nothing better illustrates the power of propaganda than the public clamor for scientifically flawed AGW !

  4. Chris

    I remember Rubin flip-flopping quite a bit back when she was a huge Romney supporter in 2012. I’d like to give her the benefit of the doubt that she has reasons for changing her position, but she should explain what those reasons are.

    That said, she was wrong about the deal before, and she’s right now.

    • And that could well be, which is why I scratched out “hypocrite.” She can change her mind. But just doing a U-Turn without an explanation doesn’t help at all.

    • Chris, can you explain WHAT was in the Paris Accords? What were the consequences of agreeing and not following them? Where was the money to be spent?

      Serious question

      • Mrs. Q

        Basically the Paris Agreement (Prince died the day it was put in place so most folks missed it) is another step towards the UN’s Agenda 2030 (before called Agenda 21). Investigate the pros/cons of the their climate goals…
        If you’re a thinking man, which I think you are, you may find some of the UN’s goals to be wanting.

        • Oh, I understand Agenda 21 quite well. I have researched it in depth, using the UN and global elites’ own words. I wondered if Chris had a clue what he was so upset about.

          • Mrs. Q

            Probably not. I don’t think most folks are aware of the Earth Charter, Madame Blavatsky’s influence, or using environmentalism to control the masses via the “great cleansing.” Yup it’s good to know who the real enemy is. I knew you were a smart cookie ;).

      • crella

        Most people can’t, probably, but if Trump withdraws from it it must be a shining hope for humanity that only a moron like Trump would deem unnecessary…

  5. I can’t be believe how many posts I had to go back to find one even remotely related to the Trump-Russia leftwing melt down.

    What a relief. Except we get to go through it all over again starting tomorrow.

    Dear knee jerks across the board- testimony hasn’t even begun. Quit claiming vindication of your pre-conceived world view.

    • But 97% of knee-jerks agree!

    • Comedy released his opening statement. Read it… nothing to what the press have been yelling, once again. Trump did not do anything close to impeachable.

      Now watch the progressive media spin.

      • Testimony begins today. I’ll withhold my conclusions.

        • Though I will go ahead and make this conclusion-

          It will not matter what comes out in the testimony, we’ve seen the pre-ordained narrative that WILL NOT change with a large component of Leftists who have been so consumed by hatred they’ve surrendered their last ounce of rationality. They will conclude *anyway* that anything Comey says is proof of Trump’s *insert negative conduct*.

          We’ve seen it demonstrated by individuals on here that they refuse to be objective and will let their hatred govern their thought processes.

          Comey could outright prove Trump is squeaky clean in this regard and could outright prove that the most contact anyone had with anyone from Russia was within the bounds of normal administrative action, and those members of the Left will find one line of testimony to spin as smoking gun proof of Trump’s guilt of something.

          What really will be the test is if right wingers can approach anything negative Comey may Say with a level of objectivity.

          • I understand that the GOP will be asking Comey about how Hillary gets a pass for doing the same thing Reality Winner did. (Could you HAVE or more hippy name?)

            Note that the same statute was invoked, and that it does not rely on ‘intent,’ but the fact. You can be prosecuted for a secret document stolen from your home safe (just not as likely) as quickly as for handing one over to ISIS, as far as the law reads.

            That was how they explained it when I swore my clearance oath, many moons ago. I can STILL go to jail for talking about which frequencies a 50 year old mobile radar tracking vehicle could use, and we have not had that system in inventory for 25 years: the only thing that matters is that you must protect sanctioned information for life regardless if it is public knowledge or not. Tom Clancy caused no small consternation when talking about weapons capabilities in his early novels (Red Storm Rising, The Hunt for Red October) and he simply put the pieces together from public documents and speculative analytical reports like Jane’s. Some things in those very public novels I can neither confirm or deny even today, as part of my oath.

            Hillary absolutely broke a law she swore an oath to uphold. She is liable regardless if she intended to break that law or not. She has been around government policies and procedures her entire life. Is she that stupid? She is either stupid or a crook, and neither qualifies her for president. No, setting up the server was an attempt to circumvent open records requests. (I suspect since she was selling access to the State Department; the smoke points that way) There is no other reason to do what she did, and voters knew it. She then transparently lied, spun, changed her story, and was condescending to those who asked legitimate questions. This elected Trump. ‘Wipe the server with a cloth,’ indeed…

            The Clintons are above the law we mere mortals must follow, and thus my avatar: slickwilly.

          • texagg04 wrote, “Testimony begins today. I’ll withhold my conclusions.”

            Ditto.

            texagg04 wrote, “It will not matter what comes out in the testimony, we’ve seen the pre-ordained narrative that WILL NOT change with a large component of Leftists who have been so consumed by hatred they’ve surrendered their last ounce of rationality. They will conclude *anyway* that anything Comey says is proof of Trump’s *insert negative conduct*.”

            I really can’t wait for the Frankenstein Comprehension translations from the anti-Trump’ers of what Comey says.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s