January 28, 2019
Last August, Washington Post nonfiction book critic Carlos Lozada wrote a very dismissive essay on six “sycophantic pro-Trump books,” proclaiming none of them were “useful,” since they didn’t seek to convince the middle. He concluded: “For most Americans, it is the ballot box, not the bestseller list, where such determinations [judging Trump] are made, and where moralism and self-interest can and should mix. And it’s not hard to picture voters in 2018 or 2020 looking around, taking a breath and deciding they’ve had enough of the wackadoos.”
Now, Lozada has sort of managed the opposite, reviewing seven books on impeachment, and none of those are judged not “useful” because they only speak to Americans who deeply want impeachment….because Lozada is one of those “wackadoos.” (Okay, he manages to hint Bill Press’s partisan take is “less persuasive.”) His headline asks: “Can impeachment appear legitimate in a hyper-partisan universe?”
And the Post thinks it’s thoughtfully outside the hyper-partisanship. (Guys, read your front-page motto again.) Or see the illustration of this article, with Trump being launched skyward out of his chair in the Oval Office.
The central point arrives deep in this 2,983-word essay, where Lozada betrays his very low opinion of Trump’s voters, which he has also compared in other articles to….cancer cells and explosives. Trump voters could ruin the fun of impeachment:
Today, it is tempting to imagine that Trump’s impeachment and removal would take the country back to a saner, simpler time. This illusion ignores the enduring forces that brought Trump to power as well as the risks of impeachment itself…
[Jeffrey] Engel warns that impeachment “disrupts the American political landscape as few other events do, leaving scars for generations.” A failed impeachment drive could encourage the…