Criticism of Trump’s Helsinki trip is warranted — but within reason
There was plenty to be unsettled about in President Trump’s meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin on July 16.
Trump’s apparent deference toward an authoritarian like Putin was one problem, particularly when contrasted with his combative relationships with leaders of more traditional allies like those of Canada or Western Europe.
But the most remarkable (and remarked upon) takeaway was his statement regarding Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election that he doesn’t “see any reason why it would be” Russia.
Trump’s denial only served to reinforce a perception that Trump is unwilling to stand up to the Russian government even when it’s warranted.
His abrupt reversal the next day did little to restore or build confidence in the president.
“The sentence should have been: ‘I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t, or why it wouldn’t be Russia,’ sort of a double negative,” he said. “So you can put that in, and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.”
It didn’t. If anything, his muddled correction just reinforced the perceptions of his critics.
But instead of spurring levelheaded, sober analysis of the situation, Americans have found themselves bombarded by critics of the president seemingly competing for who can most strongly condemn the Trump-Putin meeting.
Former CIA Director John Brennan suggested Trump’s performance “was nothing short of treasonous.” On MSNBC, former Watergate prosecutor Jill WineBanks compared the summit to Kristallnacht, the 1938 pogrom against Jews in Nazi Germany that hinted at further horrors to come.
California Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Dublin, compared Trump’s meeting with Putin to imagining FDR meeting with the Japanese after the Pearl Harbor attack, or George W. Bush meeting with Osama bin Laden after 9/11.
Not to be outdone, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi promoted the idea that Trump’s behavior at the summit “proves that the Russians have something on the president, personally, financially or politically,” as Pelosi put it.
And finally, the idea that it’s “treasonous” for a president to meet with Putin doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. For all the talk of and concern about Trump’s deference to Putin, Trump’s actual policies toward Russia — from sanctions on Russia to arming Ukraine to pulling away from the Russianbacked Iran deal — don’t align so neatly with the idea he’s a puppet of Putin.
When presidents do wrong, they should be called out and should be expected to correct themselves. But harsh rhetoric from one side will only promote unproductive responses from the other, further complicating political discourse and entrenching partisans into warped worldviews, discouraging communication with those of differing perspectives.
Now that Trump has invited Putin to a summit in Washington, D.C., we can probably count on more of the same.
— Los Angeles Daily News,
Digital First Media How to have your say: Letters and guest columns will be considered for publication. Please include name and daytime phone number, plus any affiliations that would place your opinion in context. All correspondence is subject to editing.