“Oh, He’ll Change After We Get Married.”

To be fair, men make the same error and both sexes make it in relationships before marriage.  But only some have made this mistake regarding the Presidency.

You see it from the lefty L.A. Times Editorial Board in the kick-off to their remarkably pompous series on “Our Dishonest President.

The Board thunders: “The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a catastrophe’ … Still, nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck. Like millions of other Americans, we clung to a slim hope that the new president would turn out to be all noise and bluster, or that the people around him in the White House would act as a check on his worst instincts, or that he would be sobered and transformed by the awesome responsibilities of office.”

Why?  Why on Earth did you think that?  You’re likely wrong that the people around him aren’t acting as a check on his worst instincts.  But you observed the life and campaign of 70-year-old Donald J. Trump and know that any hope he would suddenly transform was pure wishcraft.

The same malady persists among some righties, like author Brad Thor:

During the campaign, Thor argued for Trump by comparing him to a drug being offered out of a crappy clinic in Mexico, one that’s the subject of lawsuits over its side effects.

How does that scenario typically work out?  I’m thinking “side effects.”

Had the passengers wrested control of Flight 93 from the terrorists, what were the odds that amateurs would have made a smooth-as-silk landing?

If people had argued that conservatives should vote for Hillary Clinton because she might pivot to her original Goldwater Girl persona as President, or at least not pocket the silverware, the laughter would have been deafening.

Ross Douthat admits that his proposal — that Trump create a think tank inside the White House “to brief the president regularly on how Trumpist premises should shape any given legislative deal” — is an implausible idea.  (Douthat fails to notice that Trumpism has little constituency in Congress.)

Although I suspect some staff turnover is inevitable (as it seemingly is with every Presidency), Douthat recognizes the root of the implausibility of his idea is in Trump’s character — his inability to evaluate arguments, accept advice, or even convincingly project the notion that the administration is about more than his glorification and narcissism.

I can blame Trump for that, and often do.  But I also don’t care to excuse those — Left or Right — who now want to pretend that we should expect much better than this.  The parties could have and should have done better.  Primary voters could have and should have done better.  In that respect, I can’t blame Trump any more than I blame the scorpion or the tiger.

PS: Consider subscribing to WHRPT in the sidebar (the posts come straight to your inbox; no muss no fuss). And following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing!