You’re reading Jennifer Rubin’s subscriber-only newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox.

This week, I discuss the trap in evaluating threats against democracy only through a legal prism, pick the distinguished person of the week and share something we can learn from tennis.

What caught my eye

Four-times-indicted former president Donald Trump has so many criminal counts pending against him (88), as well as three major civil judgments (two E. Jean Carroll cases and one for fraudulent property evaluations in New York), that his threats, lies, attacks and assorted outrages often get framed in purely legalistic terms. Well, his attack on New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s daughter did not actually violate the original gag order because it didn’t mention family members. Oh, his reposting of a doctored photo showing President Biden bound and gagged in the back of a pickup truck does not technically violate 18 U.S. Code Section 871 because he was not inciting action.

Advertisement

Such an approach is deeply misguided. Not every situation calls for us to play “name that crime.” Framing the discussion that way drains Trump’s reprehensible conduct of its moral dimension and minimizes his threat to democracy. He then winds up getting a pass if his behavior cannot be characterized as a violation of a specific statute or court order.

When voters are considering his fitness for office, Trump’s conduct, whether legal or not, should be assessed in the context of democratic norms and moral principles that would apply to any office seeker, especially one running for president. Someone who targets a judge’s daughter on social media or reposts violent imagery of a sitting president is simply unfit for the Oval Office. (As historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat urged, “Wake up people. This is an emergency. This is what authoritarian thugs and terrorists do. Trump is targeting the President of the United States.”)

The burden should not be solely on judges, both those on Trump cases and those observing, to raise the red flag, as Merchan did in expanding the gag order. (“The threats to the integrity of the judicial proceeding are no longer limited to the swaying of minds but on the willingness of individuals, both private and public, to perform their lawful duty before this Court,” he wrote.) The obligation falls on the public, political leaders and media to defend the rule of law and democracy itself, whether or not a specific order has been violated. In short, Trump’s assault on our democracy must be viewed not “merely” as legal infractions; the response must come not only from judges.

Advertisement

Reducing all of Trump’s reprehensible offenses to legalities also gives Republicans an excuse to avoid condemning his behavior. (Well, it’s up to the judge to decide if he violated a court order.) When Trump assaults democratic norms, Republicans rarely come forward to condemn him. Too many interviewers do not press them to take responsibility for the conduct of their nominee. (How can you support someone who targets a judge’s daughter? In what universe is it permissible to show a photo of the president bound and gagged?)

Too often, only former Republican officeholders condemn Trump. “This is one of those things where we can’t move past the headline: Donald Trump shared an image of the president of the United States tied in the back of a pickup truck, bound and gagged,” retired Republican congressman Joe Walsh said on CNN. “I mean, stop there. ... This is way beyond politics. This is an incitement to violence.” Now, that’s the framework for discussing Trump’s serial outrages.

Democrats up and down the ticket would be well advised to press their opponents: Is there any line Trump could cross that you wouldn’t defend? How can voters expect you to uphold your oath in the face of his threats and complaints? Meanwhile, the media, elected leaders and voters should not ignore that Trump’s conduct need not be illegal to be disqualifying.

Distinguished person of the week

It takes a certain level of deranged racism to cite diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives as the reason for a tragic bridge collapse in a city run by African American Mayor Brandon Scott and other African American officials. Never mind that the bridge opened before Scott was born. Logic and facts do not matter when MAGA bigots invoke DEI as a slur. A horrendous accident that took the lives of six workers and might inflict serious economic harm on the entire country simply becomes fodder for spreading White supremacy.

Advertisement

Scott directly confronted the attacks. “We know what these folks really want to say when they say DEI mayor,” he told the Baltimore Banner, a local news outlet. “Whether it is DEI or clown. They really want to say the n-word. But there is nothing they can do and say to me that is worse than the treatment of my ancestors.”

Likewise, in his appearance on “Face the Nation,” Scott was unstinting. “We know that there [is] a lot of racism, folks who don’t think I should be in this job. I know that. I’ve been Black my whole life,” he said. “I didn’t want to be out there that night asking, answering questions about DEI. I’m worried about the loss of life. We know how ridiculous that is.” He repeated that this was no different from calling him the “n-word.” He vowed, “We have to remain focused on the mission at hand and continue from my vantage point to prove those people wrong about people that look like me by doing my job in the best way that I can.”

Scott rightly condemned the opaque language that racists hide behind. Substituting “DEI” for “Black” (akin to substituting “Zionist” for “Jew”) should not exempt bigots from condemnation. Scott’s candor forces the public to confront racist, right-wing rhetoric. That is essential to deny purveyors of hate the thin veneer of respectability.

Something different

Another week, another great professional tennis tournament. Jannik Sinner, the rising Italian star, and Danielle Collins, the elegant American who announced her retirement, won the singles titles at the Miami Open last weekend. Their courtside remarks after the match reminded me that tennis has become a true team sport — and not just in doubles.

Advertisement

With courtside coaching now allowed and high-profile coaches helping turn good players into great players (e.g., Darren Cahill for Sinner, Brad Gilbert for Coco Gauff), fans have become familiar with the squad of skilled professionals behind the best players. Many players have a strategist/lead coach, another day-to-day coach, a hitting partner (or two), a nutritionist, a fitness coach, and sometimes a sports psychologist and a physiotherapist. It takes a village to make a champion.

After matches, gracious players such as Sinner and Collins not only commend their own team and salute their opponent but also recognize their opponent’s team. It’s a rare show of humility in sports, a candid recognition that no one gets to that level on his or her own. Such magnanimity takes nothing away from the athletes’ own skill, hard work and tenacity; indeed, fans can appreciate that besides playing great tennis, these stars effectively manage a small business staffed with different personalities who must work together.

If only politicians and business moguls had the same level of modesty and graciousness, perhaps the myth of the “self-made man” would get a long-overdue makeover. None of us make it entirely on our own.

Every other Wednesday at noon, I host a live Q&A with readers. Submit a question for the next one.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLyxtc2ipqerX2d9c4COaWtoaGVkwbPBzKlkpZmnqHqwwdOrmKCdo2LDqrvLnqWcnV8%3D