Fareed Zakaria is no Donald Trump fan, but even he is beginning to wonder why so many fellow liberals seem to reflexively oppose everything the president does, regardless of whether or not they would agree with the action were it taken by somebody they didn’t hate so much.
On the Sunday edition of his show Fareed Zakaria GPS, the CNN host began by calling Trump haters out for what he accurately called “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a judgment-impairing ailment he “didn’t really believe” was real until Zakaria himself found himself on the other side of the fence on one recent issue.
On Syria, Zakaria said, “Trump appears to have listened carefully to his senior national security professionals, reversed his earlier positions, chosen a calibrated response, and acted swiftly.”
After admittedly opposing almost everything President Trump has done, Zakaria actually supported the recent airstrikes on Syrian airfields.
I supported the strike and pointed out in print and on air that Trump was finally being presidential because the action, quote, “seemed to reflect a belated recognition from Trump that he cannot simply put America first, that the President of the United States must act on behalf of broader interests and ideals,” unquote, On the whole, though, I was critical of Trump’s larger Syria policy, describing it as “incoherent.”
But not surprisingly, he has reaped the whirlwind for it.
From the response on the left, you would have thought that I just endorsed Donald Trump for Pope. Otherwise thoughtful columnists described my views as “nonsense.” One journalist declared on television, “If that guy could have sex with this cruise missile attack, I think he would do it.” A gaggle of former Obama speech writers discussed how my comments were perhaps the stupidest of any given on the subject.
Zakaria went on to defend Trump’s actions in Syria as something Obama officials, Hillary Clinton, David Petraeus and others agree with and would have done were they in a similar situation.
Concluding his remarks on the subject, Zakaria wonders aloud of liberals would rather have “what’s better for America or what’s worse for Donald Trump.”
Liberals have to be careful to avoid Trump Derangement Syndrome. If Trump pursues a policy, it cannot axiomatically be wrong, evil and dangerous. In my case, I’ve been pretty tough on Donald Trump. I attacked almost every policy he proposed during his campaign. The week before the election, I called him a “cancer on American democracy” and urged voters to reject him. But they didn’t — he is now President. I believe that my job is to evaluate his policies impartially and explain why, in my view, they are wise or not.
Many of Trump’s campaign promises are idiotic and unworkable. It was always likely he would reverse them as he has begun to do this week on several fronts. Those of us who opposed him face an important challenge. We have to ask ourselves: Would we rather see Trump reversing himself or Trump relentlessly pursuing his campaign agenda?
The first option would be good for the country and the world, though it might save Trump from an ignominious fall. The second would be a disaster for all. It raises the quandary: Do we want what’s better for America or what’s worse for Donald Trump?
Watch the video below:
Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of BizPac Review.
Wake up right! Receive our free morning news blast HERE
- West Point accepts Parkland student’s application to military academy after his tragic death - February 21, 2018
- Nancy Pelosi is in middle of grandstanding at Arizona townhall when question yelled from audience grinds it to a halt - February 21, 2018
- Columbine survivor blows media’s plan to exploit naive students – here’s what happens when they grow up - February 20, 2018