Did Donald Trump really shatter political norms?

It is inconceivable that Ronald Reagan would have had a pornographic "star" speak at the 1984 Republican National Convention.

140 years ago, President Grover Cleveland was was alleged to have fathered an illegitimate child. He was taunted with the ditty "Ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!" A political ally of President Thomas Jefferson called President John Adams a hermaphrodite during the 1800 campaign for President. Supporters of President John Quincy Adams alleged that President Andrew Jackson's mother was "a common prostitute" during the 1828 election.

Late last month, The New York Times bemoaned President Donald Trump's "willingness to continue to shatter longstanding norms of political speech." This leads one to ask some questions. Have you seen how the Left talks about Trump? Do you recall the gleeful reporting and social media commentary over the alleged "pee tape" in 2016? Come on. I am not defending Trump, but stop clutching your pearls and pretending this is "new" or that this is a departure from "norms." It is not, and everyone knows it.

Yes, Trump himself has been crude and crass. It is inconceivable that President George W. Bush would have spoken publicly the way Trump does. (In fact, it was a minor scandal when Bush refereed to a reporter as a bodily orifice in September 2000 during what Bush thought was a private conversation that was picked up by a "hot mic.") It is inconceivable that Ronald Reagan would have had a pornographic "star" speak at the 1984 Republican National Convention.

Trump has indeed changed the nature of the Republican Party, from a more policy-oriented party in the 1990's and 2000's to a more pugilistic party that scolds the "old guard" for not engaging in crass personal attacks. That is "why we lose," according to the Trumpian wing of the party. Of course, as I have explained before, that is not true. Plus, Republicans were not "losers" before 2016. Republicans should be willing to keep some aspects of the Trumpian "at least he fights" mantra, but negative politics needs to be much more focused on policy, character and record, not needless personal venom.

But the New York Times' schoolmarm routine is both ineffective and historically inaccurate. The so-called "newspaper of record" should be well aware of the second point. There is much to criticize about Trump and what he has done to the Republican Party, but spare me the sight of you clutching your pearls and ignoring over two hundred years of American history, much less the vicious attacks that Democrats launch at Trump and his family.

---