By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Wall Street Journal editorial board condemned the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, deeming the action detrimental to America’s global standing and competitiveness. The administration’s actions, including withholding funds from Columbia University and terminating grants for Harvard, stem from accusations of antisemitism on campuses and demands to reform DEI programs. The Journal argued that this approach harms America’s ability to attract top international talent, contrasting it with the administration’s other protectionist policies. Harvard subsequently obtained a court order allowing continued enrollment of international students while the case proceeds.
Read the original article here
The Wall Street Journal editorial board’s assertion that the Trump administration acted contrary to the “Make America Great Again” promise is a statement deserving of careful consideration. The claim itself isn’t particularly shocking, given the numerous policy decisions made during that period which seemed to directly contradict campaign promises and traditional conservative principles.
The suggestion that the Trump administration’s actions inadvertently benefited China by alienating allies and creating global instability is a significant point. Such actions, coupled with protectionist trade policies, arguably weakened America’s international standing and its economic competitiveness, leaving room for China’s influence to expand. It’s reasonable to question whether these actions truly served American interests or rather, served the interests of other global powers.
The criticism leveled against the WSJ for its apparent belated surprise at the Trump administration’s actions highlights the role of media in shaping public perception. It suggests that perhaps the WSJ, and other media outlets, played a part in creating the conditions that enabled such actions to occur in the first place. The accusation that the WSJ, and other right-leaning publications, didn’t offer sufficient scrutiny of Trump’s policies beforehand, is a valid point, highlighting a potential failure in journalistic responsibility.
The argument that Trump’s policies were consistently contrary to the interests of the American people is also a valid consideration. His handling of the pandemic, his disregard for democratic institutions, and his embrace of divisive rhetoric all contribute to this argument. To many, these actions seem more focused on self-promotion and the consolidation of power, than on the welfare of the country and its citizens.
The surprise expressed by the WSJ editorial board seems misplaced to many. The claim that Trump’s actions were predictable, based on his past behavior and pronouncements, points to a failure of foresight on the part of the board and perhaps a selective interpretation of information during the campaign and early years of his presidency. This lack of consistent critical analysis from influential voices might have contributed to the normalization of his behavior, allowing him to pursue his policies with less opposition.
The discussion extends to the broader political climate and the role of misinformation. The comment about “morons” electing Trump underscores the concern that political polarization and the spread of false or misleading information created an environment conducive to his rise to power. This lack of critical thinking and media literacy created a fertile ground for the acceptance of policies that many believe have harmed the United States.
The accusation that the Trump administration’s actions actively undermined America’s standing in the world is important to analyze. The focus on protectionism, the withdrawal from international agreements, and the strained relationships with allies all point to a deliberate effort to isolate the US, thereby weakening its global influence. The long-term effects of such actions on America’s economic and political power remain to be seen, but early indicators are not positive.
The issue of the WSJ’s past endorsements and analyses adds another layer of complexity to the situation. The criticism highlights the inconsistency of their current stance given their previous support for Trump. This inconsistency weakens their current criticisms and raises questions about their journalistic motivations, fueling accusations of hypocrisy. The editorial board’s past statements are being used to discredit their current position. The suggestion that they are only now expressing surprise as a way to reposition themselves politically is certainly worthy of scrutiny.
It’s important to note that the comments suggesting a potential second civil war are alarming. While such a dramatic outcome isn’t certain, the political division and societal unrest experienced during the Trump administration, combined with ongoing social and economic challenges, present valid reasons for concern. This underscores the serious long-term consequences of the political and social climate of recent years. Therefore, the WSJ’s delayed criticism, while seemingly justified, cannot be divorced from its role in the broader political landscape that enabled the situation in the first place.