Selective outrage. That was then; this is now.

The current wailing and gnashing of teeth among the left is an example of selective outrage served up with a large helping of hypocrisy. It's also indicative of why Trump is POTUS. Discuss?

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

It’s now just a bit over two weeks into Donald Trump’s second term, and to the delight of my friends on the right and the dismay of my friends on the left, I have to admit that he’s exceeded my expectations. There it is. I admit it.

Now it’s Trump we’re talking about here, so the bar was admittedly set low, but Trump’s cleared it, in my opinion, with plenty to spare. I’m actually quite impressed. Perhaps it takes a guy like Trump, replete with flaws, to do what needs to be done to stop our slow swirl around the bowl. So far, I’m down with it.

Not to rub it in, but I’d also say to my friends on the left that it wasn’t people like me who are responsible for Trump in the first place; it’s people like you. Trump’s most effective allies are most anyone left of John Fetterman. Decades of progressive overreach in government, the courts, academia, and the federal bureaucracy not only made Donald Trump possible; it made him inevitable. Trump, more than anything else, is a correction to the excesses and failed policies of the far left. The fact that it’s come with a vengeance is just a bonus for everyone who was fed up.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth over Trump pretty much doing exactly what he said that he would do if elected makes it difficult for me to not laugh out loud at times. Especially given the rank hypocrisy as compared with the standards for the previous administraion. So far, Trump is the only president of my lifetime, which goes all the way back to Eisenhower, who’s done exactly what he said that he would do as a candidate. Trump gets respect from me even on items upon which we profoundly disagree simply because he’s doing what he said that he would do—making him an exceedingly rare commodity in politics. I admire, at least, his pluck.

But there is a humanitarian within me. Progressives, I feel your pain. I’ve never been too much on dancing in the end zone after a score. I’m with Jim Brown on that; you should act like you’ve been there before. I do not wish to perform a Trump shuffle before spiking the ball. I know that this has all been tough; all that I can say is be brave. But you’ve got to knock it off with all of the hyperventilation and doomsaying that you call “resisting.” It’s not only ineffective, but a bad look. Most Americans think that we are on a better course than we were a month ago, and I happen to mostly agree with them.

Let’s just go down the list of the issues on fire, shall we?

To hear it told, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to lead Health and Human Services is an existential threat to our very survival. I disagree. For the record, I am no fan of RFK Junior. I think that he’s wrong on the safety and efficacy of most vaccines. And while I’m not a fan of what passes for the average American’s diet, foods are personal choices for everyone that are none of my business. We have access to great food and nutrition in America and lots of information about it. It’s up to you to avail yourself of it. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. So he’s not wrong about nutrition, but it should not be the government’s job to get in the middle of it.

One area in which RFK Jr. and I substantially agree concerns the often pernicious nature and influence of Big Pharma in our health care. Although Big Pharma has, without a doubt, accomplished some amazing things, it’s also very keen on convincing us to consume quantities of expensive drugs in perpetuity instead of diet, exercise, and other drug and supplement-free ways of leading a long and healthy life. I’m sure that the reason I see off-label use of drugs promoted on every other TV commercial I watch has everything to do with Big Pharma’s genuine concern for my well-being and absolutely nothing to do with their financial bottom line. No siree.

So yeah, on balance I’m less than scintillated by RFK running HHS. But, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth, he’s far from the worst disaster in that department, and I don’t even have to think that far back for an example. Two words: Rachel Levin. You think that RFK is out where the buses don’t run? Check out Levin. Not only did the recently departed HHS assistant secretary prioritize risky and unproven gender transition treatments for very young children, but Levin also actively worked to suppress proper medical studies that ran afoul of Levin’s preferred narrative. A lot like most of Trump world, RFK appears to be reasonably sane compared to the alternative.

Panama. Great song by Van Halen, geopolitically another of the many outrages, according to the media, filling the zone in Trump’s first month in office. Shortly after control of the Panama Canal re-emerged as an issue under Trump, I watched various media reports painting Trump’s claims concerning Panama as the preening of a circus chimpanzee hankering for some MAGA biscuts. No mention in these reports of gigantic ports that China has built at either end of the canal to project power and influence over a vital piece of western infrastructure, and no mention of the series of memoranda of cooperation signed between Panama and China to cement this influence. Then, before the reporters’ microphone cables could even be coiled and put away, Panama decided to abandon the current agreement once it expires (shortly) and will apparently no longer be charging U.S. military vessels for transit. Gee, I wonder why? This, to me, sounds like a win.

Birthright Citizenship. When Trump issued one of his first executive orders, Protecting The Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, attempting to usurp the 14th amendment, I rolled my eyes. Here’s where, I thought, Trump starts his long journey off the rails. Then I read an opinion piece from one of my favorite legal scholars, Jonathan Turley: Spoiling for a Fight: Why Challenging Birthright Citizenship May Be a Win-Win Strategy for Trump. It turns out that there are six words in the 14th amendment, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” that have never really been properly adjudicated. The clear intent of the 14th amendment was to guarantee citizenship for slaves; it’s decidedly less clear that it applied to non-citizens from other countries. And while I think that Trump’s interpretation faces an uphill battle, it’s not as crazy as it first sounds after you look into it.

Matt Gaetz—Trump’s first nominee to be his attorney general. I’m glad he’s gone. Finding any upside for this guy would have been many bridges too far. Score one for the left, albeit short-lived.

Tariffs. In my view, tariffs are like using a sledgehammer to drive a tack into sheetrock. I’m not for them. But the threat of a tariff, that’s something else. And I’m happy that Trump is willing to take risks to stanch the illegal drugs and people pouring over our borders. I’m willing to see where this goes.

Blanket J6 pardons. I was and am still against this. While I think that it’s entirely plausible that many of J6ers were overprosecuted, especially in light of the leniency and outright amnesty afforded many left-wing protestors responsible for far more egregious behavior, many J6ers are clearly guilty of the offenses with which they were charged. I think there’s, at best, an argument to be made on a case-by-case basis, but not for a blanket pardon. I get the left’s heartburn over this.

But where, I wonder, was the heartburn from the same quarters just a few weeks ago over the excessive and unusually perverse use of the presidential pardon for thousands of heart-attack serious felons in the name of equity—something to which Biden’s own justice department objected? Where was the outrage over preemptive pardons for family members and government officials who, by any reasonable standard, deserve at least some scrutiny? I guess it’s a case of that was then; this is now.

Let’s digress for just a moment. I believe that there were three issues that put Trump over the top, by a lot as it turned out, in the last election: the economy, illegal immigration, and DEI. Polling bears this out. I think that the most effective ad in the last campaign cycle was Trump’s “Harris is for they/them, President Trump is for you.” So the laments from the media and the left over these issues fall on a lot of deaf ears besides my own. On the economy, we’ll have to see. But as for the others, DEI isn’t legal, and neither is illegal immigration. Good riddance to them both. Trump is just doing what Biden refused to do—enforce the law—something that seems wildly popular among Americans. The left can continue to follow these issues down their respective rabbit holes all they want as long as they are content with getting clocked in elections. As things now stand, that’s not going to particularly bother me.

Along that line, there’s a meme going around on social media about DEI that has the logo on the Bluesky social comforter written all over it.

If you oppose “DEI” you should have to use the full phrase instead of the letters. Be brave & say, “I oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Bonus points if you admit which part of that you don't like. Making it into an acronym (look it up, MAGA) transforms it into a thought-terminating cliché (again, look it up, MAGA). Be proud of your conviction, but be specific for all to know. If it’s diversity, say it’s diversity. If it’s equity, say it’s equity. If it’s inclusion, say that.

Having read, for comprehension, George Orwell’s 1984, and being acutely aware of the parallels between Orwell’s dystopian world and our own, particularly for the past four years, my response.

If you oppose MoP, you should have to use the full phrase instead of the letters. Be brave & say, "I oppose the Ministry of Peace." Bonus points if you admit which part of that you don't like. Making it into an acronym (look it up, PROGS) transforms it into a thought-terminating cliché (again, look it up, PROGS). From now on, be proud of your opinions, but be specific. Let everyone know if it's ministry you don't like, or if it's peace.

As a professional snarkster, I never tire of this. It’s like hunting for fish in a pond with dynamite.

Lastly, there’s the Sturm und Drang concerning Elon Musk and DOGE’s role in reshaping the government. While I might disagree with his methods, I have no problem with the overarching goal of dismantling superfluous parts of a bloated government that compels me to pay taxes to support a lot of nonsense with which I profoundly disagree. I’ll gladly pay my share for public safety, national defense, some social services, public infrastructure, scientific and medical research, and a legal system, but beyond that, we gotta talk. I’m not for being compelled to support transgender operas in Columbia (even though the amount was exaggerated, it was still too much) or transgender comic books in Peru. Neither are most of you. So the hue and cry over this manifests around the Interwebs as “Who elected Elon Musk to do anything?” is probably rich (if you will pardon the pun) to you as well.

Indeed, who elected Jill Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ron Klain to run things the last four years? Last time I checked, no one.

Associated Press and Idaho Press Club-winning columnist Martin Hackworth of Pocatello is a physicist, writer, and retired Idaho State University faculty member who now spends his time with family, riding bicycles and motorcycles, and arranging and playing music. Follow him on Twitter @MartinHackworth, on Facebook at facebook.com/martin.hackworth, and on Substack at martinhackworthsubstack.com