By Matt Underwood This Is Not How a Normal President Speaks. It’s a phrase that resonates, isn’t it? A simple statement that encapsulates a feeling, a collective realization that something is fundamentally off. And it’s not just about the presidency; it’s about the person. It’s about the way this individual presents himself to the world, the words he chooses, the cadence of his pronouncements. It’s about the whole picture – from the casual boasting about the size of a dead golfer’s… well, you get the idea, to the outright defiance of established norms.
It’s about recognizing that “my own morality” as the sole check on power is not just a red flag; it’s a blaring air raid siren. It’s a declaration of unchecked authority, a dismissal of the very foundations of a democratic republic. The constitution? The people? They are reduced to simply a means of legitimizing his desires. This isn’t just a deviation from the norm; it’s a full-spectrum assault on everything we thought we knew about the role of a leader.
And the echoes of this sentiment resonate across the political and social spectrum. One can’t help but note the way that his words are the way a toddler speaks. Or how a person with advanced dementia repeats stories over and over. “More than anyone has ever seen before,” he repeats incessantly. It’s a verbal tic, a pattern, a symptom of something deeper, and the effect is more disturbing than amusing. It creates an atmosphere of reality-distorting, where truth is replaced with a repetitive string of self-aggrandizing statements.
The reaction of some is a profound weariness, a sense of “here we are again.” This isn’t a new phenomenon. The pattern was visible long before the first election. The normalization of this rhetoric, the sanitization of his words by the press, has been a contributing factor, a slow-motion unraveling of the standards of public discourse. The New York Times, for example, is called out for their history of sanitizing his statements, as if to downplay the impact of what he was saying.
And of course, we are reminded of the basic human decency he has shown a complete disregard for. A normal president doesn’t casually mention impressive genitalia of dead people. A normal president doesn’t give the finger to citizens. A normal person doesn’t speak the way he speaks, period. This is not about being different; it’s about a complete disregard for the standards of human interaction.
But what now? What does the recognition that “This Is Not How a Normal President Speaks” actually mean? Does it translate into action? Some feel that the response from the Democrats is simply wringing hands when action is needed. There’s a call to arms for action. There is a sense of urgency. The time for academic debate is over. The focus must be on finding the new leaders who will take a stand.
The implications are disturbing. The suggestion that he sees the presidency as a personal fiefdom, an exercise of unchecked power, is not a mere critique; it’s a warning. It’s a reminder that democracy, the republic we hold so dear, can be undermined from within, not just from without. The country is in trouble. And not everyone seems to be aware or concerned.
Ultimately, the core of this conversation lies in confronting a simple, undeniable truth: this isn’t normal. It’s not acceptable. And it demands a response. It means a need for everyone, not just those in power, to take a stand. The need for those who see the damage to speak out and hold their leaders accountable is paramount.