By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following President Trump’s press conference, his renewed calls for annexing Greenland and Panama, and renaming the Gulf of Mexico sparked predictable reactions. While some Republicans celebrated his “big visions,” media figures downplayed the seriousness of his threats, attributing them to “branding” or “trolling.” This “sanewashing,” as some critics call it, minimizes the danger of Trump’s increasingly extreme rhetoric, potentially influencing voter perceptions and underestimating the risk of his actions. The lack of strong pushback allows the erosion of checks and balances on his power, further normalizing his behavior.
Read the original article here
The relentless stream of outlandish pronouncements from Donald Trump continues, and the media’s response remains a consistent narrative: downplaying his most extreme ideas as mere “trolling” or clever “branding.” This persistent strategy, however, risks normalizing behavior that should be met with alarm. It’s not just about catchy slogans or attention-grabbing stunts; it’s about a pattern of increasingly dangerous rhetoric and actions.
The convenient dismissal of Trump’s pronouncements as mere trolling ignores the very real impact of his words. Suggestions of annexing Canada or Greenland, for instance, are not merely provocative statements; they represent potential threats to international stability and the sovereignty of other nations. Such casual disregard for established norms is presented as harmless entertainment, effectively sanitizing alarming proposals.
This “sanewashing” isn’t accidental; it’s a deliberate strategy deployed to blunt the impact of Trump’s dangerous rhetoric. By framing his pronouncements as playful antics rather than serious policy proposals, the media subtly normalizes behavior that should be viewed as deeply concerning. This normalization allows potentially harmful ideas to seep into the mainstream discourse, where they can gain traction among those who may not fully grasp the severity of the implications.
The argument that Trump’s erratic behavior is simply a reflection of his personality, a “dumpster fire of a brain,” as one commentator put it, fails to adequately address the broader issue. While his personality certainly plays a role, it’s equally important to recognize how easily his actions are exploited by those who see him as a useful tool in their pursuit of far-right agendas.
The media’s complicity in this sanewashing extends beyond simply downplaying his words. Headlines that reduce serious policy implications to overly simplistic descriptions (“Trump wants to redraw the map of the Western Hemisphere”) trivialize the potential for conflict and international instability. This narrative avoids acknowledging the real-world consequences of Trump’s words and actions, further contributing to the normalization of his extremism.
The concern isn’t just about the media’s role; the public shares responsibility. A significant portion of the population seems willing to overlook Trump’s increasingly unhinged behavior, either through apathy, willful ignorance, or a belief in some unseen mechanism that will prevent him from acting on his threats. This passive acceptance allows dangerous ideas to flourish.
The danger lies in the implicit message that such behavior is acceptable, even for a leader of a nation. This normalization is not just a matter of media bias; it reflects a broader societal tolerance for extremism, a dangerous trend that undermines the very foundations of democracy. If outrageous statements become simply another day’s news cycle, then the line between acceptable and unacceptable political discourse becomes increasingly blurred.
The consequences extend beyond the political realm. Trump’s erratic behavior impacts the economy, as evidenced by market fluctuations linked to his policy pronouncements. His comments on tariffs, for example, have demonstrably negative impacts on market confidence. The cost of ignoring this pattern of erratic behavior extends far beyond mere political theater.
Trump’s continued presence in politics isn’t just a threat to individual nations; it poses a risk to the global order. The potential for conflict, fueled by his volatile pronouncements and his tendency to disregard international norms, represents a clear and present danger. The consistent effort to downplay his rhetoric as mere “trolling” not only underestimates the gravity of his words, but also allows his actions to continue with minimal accountability.
The sanewashing isn’t a new phenomenon; it’s a recurring strategy used to manage the narrative around Trump’s behavior. What is particularly striking, however, is the persistence of this strategy despite the ever-increasing severity and frequency of his extreme pronouncements. The continued willingness to frame dangerous statements as jokes or merely provocative gestures is deeply concerning and directly contributes to the normalization of unacceptable behavior in the highest office. The danger is not just that he’s an idiot; it’s that his idiocy is treated as a form of political strategy, thereby legitimizing and potentially perpetuating harmful behavior.