The Compelling Reality of Donald Trump: A Challenge for Those Who Observe Politics

This month, eight years ago, Donald Trump declared that the debate surrounding President Obama’s national origins had been resolved on his own. He took himself in having answered all the questions that had been raised by what Hillary Clinton had said years before.

The facts shocked those who knew them. They were aware that the so-called “birther conspiracy” had been concocted by a number of Obama’s detractors to contend that he was not qualified to serve as president since he was born in Kenya or another nation. A number of Obama detractors, most notably Donald Trump, had been fostering and maintaining it for years. One could even argue that Trump’s use of the birther myth helped him make the leap from star of TV reality shows like The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice to a legitimate political contender.

In reality, what Trump was declaring in September 2016 was his resolve to put an end to the discourse surrounding a non-issue that he had assisted in sustaining for years. However, he insisted on replacing one lie with another after eventually admitting to the first, portraying himself as the story’s protagonist. We should all be acclimated to Trump’s dependence on lies by now, nearly ten years after he first entered the presidential race.

But in 2016, it seemed that the birther flip-flop merited further attention. It was absurd rather than just obvious.

Or so we believed. Undoubtedly, it would devalue the man, even in the eyes of those who admired him. And in certain circumstances, it might have done so. However, it had no effect on his course. A few weeks later, he shocked everyone when he was elected president by the Electoral College. In the early days of Trump, it was argued that the media treated him seriously but literally. It’s difficult to argue against the fact that many of us took him too literally and too casually. Numerous members of Trump’s “base” were reported to take him seriously but not literally at the same time. That was effective for him, and in 2024 those sentiments will undoubtedly remain much the same as they did in his first two campaigns.

A decade ago, the media had grown accustomed to politicians who could face consequences, if not outright embarrassment, for factual errors and even slight instances of ignorance. At the time, Trump appeared resistant to both, and he still does.

The most heinous aspect of Trump’s campaign, however, was his readiness to make extremely significant statements that had nothing to do with reality, accept criticism without question, and then continue as if no one had ever pointed out a mistake. This aspect of the Trump character appears to be an integral component of his appeal, rather than a disqualifying one.

Giving truth the Trump treatment

Following a debate with Vice President Harris this week that he didn’t seem to take very seriously, Trump declared he wouldn’t engage in another one with her. He claimed he had won the first two debates handily, so there was no need for a “third debate.” He was bringing up their June 27 debate with President Biden, who was then the presumed Democratic nominee.

That may not have come as a surprise because Trump didn’t mention Harris once during his name-checking of Biden at this week’s debate with Harris.

However, Trump’s assertion that he had won both debates caught us off guard. Few would contest his victory in their encounter on June 27 with Biden, who appeared so degraded as to be difficult to identify.

The perception, however, was completely different following Trump’s contest with Harris, who had won the Democratic nomination with no opposition following Biden’s withdrawal on July 18.

In the initial CNN surveys following the debate on Tuesday, almost two-thirds of viewers said that Harris performed better than Trump (even if they had no intention of voting for her). A significant portion of Republicans refused to concede that Trump had prevailed in the match.

Nevertheless, Trump was the one to tell reporters the day following the debate that he was not interested in facing Harris again because he had “won the debate according to every poll — every single poll, I think.”

Rather of using randomized scientific samples like real pollsters do, the only internet surveys that Trump won were those conducted using self-selected website samples. Trump mentioned a poll in which he claimed to be winning 98% to 2%.

A strong majority of respondents, however not as huge as in CNN’s poll, believed Harris to be the victor, according to actual polling firms like Reuters and YouGov. Just 31% of respondents in YouGov and 24% in Reuters chose Trump as their favorite candidate.

Trump has distinguished himself from other traditional contenders with his willingness—or compulsion—to make completely implausible statements. It nevertheless presents a challenge to the political establishment and the media, including a significant segment of the Republican Party and conservative outlets like Fox News.

Extreme superlatives are frequently used by Trump to describe his allegations. Biden allegedly had “the worst inflation” ever, while Trump maintains that he had “the best economy”—two claims that are easily refuted. Among the relatively recent presidents, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, saw stronger and longer-lasting economic growth in the country. The late 1970s and early 1980s saw much higher and more persistent inflation.

But despite making such absurd claims, Trump has never seemed concerned. Not only that, but he is seldom content to just inform his audiences that yellow is green. It’s got to be the greenest green that’s ever existed. Merely stating that something is down does not suffice; it needs to be lower than it has ever been.

Another area of expertise is the staggering declaration of the extraordinary. Consider his teasing remarks regarding the quantity of undocumented immigrants living in the United States. He began talking about millions on Tuesday night, made reference to 21 million, and then declared the it was unquestionably much higher than the official 11 million government estimate. After saying it was more like 21 million once more, he went on to say he believed the number was “a lot higher than” that.And all of this without a single bit of concrete proof or even a suggestion as to why these radically divergent figures would exist.

Trump’s personal gaffes in the June 27 debate against Biden were eclipsed by the incumbent’s errors. Nonetheless, Trump got his fair share of trolls. During the Biden administration, he claimed that “110%” of the employment had been taken by illegal immigrants.

Inferring that Trump was not giving much thought to what he was saying, that would imply they had taken more jobs than were created. In fact, when he starts quoting numbers, he usually appears far more concerned with the potential shock value of the data than with whether or not it adds up.

Previously, this type of conduct could have been written off as typical political discourse, which most Americans assume will be exaggerated and simplistic. The polls show that despite their opinions on Trump’s relationship to reality, almost half of Americans still want to vote for him.

With the advent of fact-checking over a generation ago, periodicals have been able to break free from the “he said, she said” formula and present a unique perspective. The majority of newspapers and major broadcasters were deeply ingrained in the principles of “middle of the road” reporting in the later decades of the 20th century, as media owners pursued ever-larger and more varied audiences.

The challenge of fact-checking

When opposing viewpoints were given equal weight and consideration, stories were deemed balanced. It was up to the voter or news consumer to decide which side was more deserving, accurate, or right. For both the consumer-voter and the journalists themselves, that was never totally gratifying. An increasing number of media outlets began doing “fact-checks,” sometimes known as “fact-checking,” in an attempt to gather and verify the facts on immigration, health care, trade, unemployment, and other topics that sparked debates.

This turned into a full-time job for several journalists. For many years, the official guru of fact at The Washington Post has been veteran reporter Glenn Kessler. Many election cycles ago, Politifact was invented by the Florida-based Poynter Institute, which is connected to the St. Petersburg Times (now known as the Tampa Bay Times).

For decades, NPR and PBS have been fact-checking debates and other significant moments in national elections, both online and on television. Both shops’ fact-checking departments were very busy this week.

Thus, during the discussion, when ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis corrected some facts regarding a specific claim or statement, they were continuing a tradition that has become more widespread in broadcast journalism.

Many Trump supporters viewed their efforts as pointless, unjust, and indicative of Democratic prejudice because they did not believe that there was much of a need to correct what Harris stated. According to Trump, there were “three against one” in the discussion.

The anchors argued that Harris’s comments were insignificant in comparison to Trump’s claims that Ohio allows abortions after birth and that Haitian immigrants eat people’s pets.

Of course, that’s a judgment call, and it’s precisely the kind that traditional journalists were taught to steer clear of. The fact that Trump has altered the regulations himself is largely responsible for their current sense of need to place those calls. It should come as no surprise, though, that individuals who feel mistreated—especially Trump himself—protest against the changes the media have made.

This is a radical shift in how we use the three-letter term “lie,” which we were taught as journalists to never use. We could say that a politician was spreading false information or distorting the truth. However, we were unable to advance to the point of imputed motive. Perhaps the officer simply misunderstood the allegations and honestly thought his opponent was guilty of them. It was one thing to say he was mistaken, but it was quite another to label someone a liar.

For the most part, the sector has changed that policy as a result of Trump. The phrase was being used by certain TV anchors in 2016—at least on late-night shows. Since then, it has been commonplace for mainstream news outlets to use the terms “lies” and “lying.”Trump has once again put down the gauntlet to confront both fact-checkers and commentators with his new depiction of what transpired in the Harris debate in front of 67 million TV viewers this week.

Trump supporters are now challenging the definition of a fact, making even the process of fact-checking contentious. Nowadays, it’s considered divisive to even consider fact-checking.

Furthermore, the more we discuss how divisive things have become, the more divided they become.