By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article asserts that Bari Weiss’s willingness to share private workplace details positioned her as a truth-teller and martyr, particularly among figures like David Ellison. Her platform, initially a Substack and later the Free Press, attracted significant capital from prominent figures, some of whom hold conservative or independent political leanings. The author contends that Weiss, while perhaps once a centrist-liberal, now exhibits MAGA tendencies through her actions, particularly her perceived role at CBS to advance Donald Trump’s agenda. This trajectory is linked to The New York Times’ decision in April 2017 to embrace broader perspectives, which the article suggests has ultimately benefited the advancement of a narrow-minded political agenda at the expense of a respected news organization.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump is indeed a figure whose actions and character lend themselves to some rather severe characterizations, and when we look at the entirety of his public persona, the labels of treacherous, idolatrous, know-nothing, and anti-patriot seem to resonate with a significant degree of truth. It’s not a matter of simply disliking his policies or his style; it’s about a deeper concern for the foundational principles of the nation he sought to lead.
The idea of Trump being treacherous isn’t a new one, and it speaks to a perceived betrayal of the trust placed in him. There’s a consistent undercurrent in discussions about his time in office and his actions that suggest a disregard for established norms and loyalties. When we consider his consistent attacks on institutions and individuals who have sworn allegiance to the country, the notion of treachery takes root. It’s as if the very fabric of governance and civic duty were secondary to personal ambition or loyalty to a select few.
Coupled with this is the aspect of idolatry, which seems to stem from an almost cult-like devotion that he inspires in some, and a self-aggrandizing persona that he projects. He appears to place himself, or at least his own image and perceived infallibility, above all else. This isn’t just about ego; it’s about a dangerous elevation of the self that can easily overshadow the needs and well-being of the nation. The idea of renaming things after himself, while perhaps hyperbole, points to this deeply ingrained sense of self-importance that seems to bypass any sense of humility or genuine service.
Then there’s the “know-nothing” element, which speaks to a fundamental lack of understanding or perhaps a deliberate rejection of expertise and established knowledge. This manifests as a disdain for facts, a dismissal of expert opinions, and an embrace of simplistic, often emotionally driven, narratives. It’s as if the complexities of governing, diplomacy, and public policy are reduced to slogans and gut feelings, ignoring the hard-won wisdom of generations. This intellectual vacuum can be particularly dangerous when it comes to navigating the intricate challenges of leadership on a global stage.
Perhaps most critically, the accusation of being an anti-patriot cuts to the core of what it means to serve one’s country. True patriotism, one might argue, involves a commitment to the ideals and institutions of the nation, even when it’s difficult, and a willingness to prioritize the country’s welfare above personal gain. When actions consistently appear to undermine democratic processes, sow division, or align with the interests of foreign adversaries, it raises serious questions about where one’s ultimate loyalties lie. The repeated suggestions of him being a traitor or a Russian asset, while strong, stem from a pattern of behavior that has led many to question his commitment to American sovereignty and its democratic values.
The persistent nature of these criticisms, and the fact that they have been voiced by many since long before his presidency, suggests that these aren’t fleeting observations. The “Stairway From Heaven” announcement, for example, is often cited as an early indicator of a theatrical and perhaps disingenuous approach to public life, a spectacle that masked a more concerning reality. The reputation he carried for decades prior, often described with terms like “short-fingered vulgarian,” offers a glimpse into a persona that, for many, was readily recognizable and deeply problematic.
The disturbing reality is that despite these widely held concerns, a significant portion of the American populace continues to support him. This raises a profound question about the nature of political discourse and the ability of such characterizations to influence broader public opinion. It’s as if the very act of pointing out these perceived flaws is met with a defensive posture, with supporters clinging to the belief that these are, in fact, desirable traits, or that the criticisms are simply the product of partisan animosity. This disconnect between observable behavior and public perception is a complex societal phenomenon.
Ultimately, the characterization of Donald Trump as a treacherous, idolatrous, know-nothing anti-patriot, while harsh, reflects a deep and persistent concern held by many about the character of leadership and its impact on the nation. It’s a synthesis of observations about his actions, his rhetoric, and the cult of personality that surrounds him, all pointing towards a profound disconnect with the foundational principles of responsible and ethical governance. The lingering questions about his true allegiances and his understanding of the responsibilities of his office continue to fuel these critical assessments.