What I really believe

A manifesto.

I got an e-mail from a TV producer recently with a seemingly simple question: She wanted to “kind of understand where you are on the political spectrum.”

I quickly responded the way I always have to those sorts of questions: I aim to be fair and, generally, neutral when writing about politics.

But, the question nagged at me. Because I have spent a lot of time over these past few years thinking about it — and trying to arrive at a conclusion that feels both authentic and honest.

As I have written in this space, I was raised in the journalistic tradition of being purely objective. That is, serving as a referee in the perennial fight between Democrats and Republicans — doing my best to offer down-the-middle analysis of what I was seeing and hearing.

It wasn’t a huge stretch for me. I wasn’t raised in a particularly political household. (My parents were, ostensibly, Democrats but weren’t outspoken about it — nor was politics something we talked much about.) I wasn’t involved in the College Democrats or College Republicans. Unlike many young professionals in Washington, I never worked for a member of Congress on Capitol Hill.

My first job in Washington was for a nonpartisan political handicapper. Then into straight journalism for the next 20+ years.

And, to be honest, until 2016, I never thought that much about it. Sure, people were always trying to figure out who I voted for (I never voted) or who I really wanted to win but I dodged that stuff pretty easily. Just kept playing the umpire role — calling balls and strikes.

Two things happened in 2016 (and early 2017) that changed all of that.

First, Donald Trump won. Second, I went to work at CNN.

Suddenly, what I believed, politically speaking, wasn’t a back-of-mind issue. It was front burner — every damn day.

Most of the reason for that was (and is) Trump. He understood that vilifying the mainstream media — and CNN in particular — was good politics for him. And so, he leaned in hard to the idea that CNN (and everyone who worked there) was a mouthpiece of the liberal left.

CNN played a part too. Rather than ignoring Trump, then CNN President Jeff Zucker, who hired me and who I remain a big fan of, punched back. CNN launched the famous/infamous “this is an apple” ad campaign — a clear response to Trump’s attacks.

Sides were taken. You were either for Donald Trump or for CNN. And, if you were for CNN, then you were, necessarily, cast by the president as the opposition — a leading member of the “fake news” who wanted to destroy him because they disagreed with the direction he was leading the country.

I was very much on Team CNN. (Ironic!) I wrote daily — and sometimes multiple times a day — about Trump. (He was president, after all!) And the vast majority of those pieces were critical of him.

That led me to be labeled by the Trumpists as suffering from a major case of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” I was obsessed with Trump! I needed him! I couldn’t NOT write about him!

And, honestly, that was the charitable view of me! The less charitable one was that I really believed in nothing other than what I perceived my bosses wanted. I was writing anti-Trump stuff because I was being ordered to do so. And I wanted to keep my cushy job (like I said — ironic!) so I did their bidding.

Even a few people I knew — mostly Republican consultants — would tell me I had changed. That I had gone from being a neutral observer when I was at the Washington Post into a partisan at CNN. That I was now rooting for a side. I lost at least one friendship with a source over it.

When CNN cast me off at the end of 2022, there were some — mostly on the Trump side of the ledger — who concluded that I was a sacrificial lamb, dumped by then CNN president Chris Licht, who was trying to move CNN beyond its “anti-Trump” brand.

(Sidebar: I have thought A LOT about the “why” behind being let go. I honestly don’t believe it had anything to do with Licht wanting to send a message. I wasn’t high profile enough to be a sacrificial lamb! I think they needed to cut costs. And I was a juicy line on an Excel spreadsheet. Period.)

Regardless, I suddenly found myself with LOTS of time on my hands, time where I could do something I hadn’t done in a very long time: Critically examine my career.

This was a painful process of second guessing. Had I been too anti-Trump? Had I changed? Was I just a partisan masquerading as a journalist? In short: Were the critics right?

Here’s where I landed.

Prior to Trump, I had covered politicians who existed on an established spectrum of beliefs and, generally, operated under an established set of rules and principles.

That is, George W. Bush and Al Gore represented, obviously, different visions for America in the 2000 campaign. But, while Bush was considerably to the ideological right of Gore on the political spectrum, they both were well within the mainstream of overall political thought. They represented different flavors of ice cream, sure. But it was still ice cream.

Trump was anchovies. Or, maybe more appropriately, a big juicy hamburger. The food item doesn’t really matter. The point was (and is) that he didn’t exist on the traditional political spectrum. His views — Muslim ban, “shithole countries” and on and on — didn’t fit into the linear model I had used to gauge all of the politicians I had previously covered.

And it wasn’t just his policies that were different. While politicians have always shaded the truth for their benefit, Trump simply lied and lied and lied. He was never ashamed of that fact. He embraced it! Then there were the conspiracy theories. The bullying. The dark vision of America. The willingness to trample on any and every tradition. The rule-breaking. And norm-busting. And the pride he (and his people) took in doing all of it.

I had never seen anything like this. Not even close. And, in truth, I was ill-equipped — especially in the early days — to handle it. I still believed we were playing a game with established rules. That I could still call balls and strikes. Meanwhile, Trump had taken the ball, thrown it into the stands, cut the bases to shreds and declared himself the forever winner.

That reality necessitated a different approach, journalistically. I wasn’t anti-Trump. I was pro-facts. Anti unproven conspiracy theory. Pro objective reality. Anti authoritarian flirtation. Pro democracy.

Zucker put it well in an interview last month. “As I said all the time, we were not anti-Trump. We were pro-truth,” he said. “If that came off as anti-Trump because he didn’t tell the truth, I’m not going to apologize for that.”

That’s what I believed (and believe). Which is not to cast myself as perfect or pure. I made plenty of mistakes during the Trump years — both in under- and over- estimating him.

What I didn’t do is become a partisan. I STILL think Democrats do plenty of dumb things and have plenty of issues in the prescriptions they offer for the country.

But, I ALSO believe that Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign (and what he says he will do if he is put back in office) represent an active threat to the American democratic experiment.

That is not an opinion. It is a fact.