How, this time, Trump may actually have gone too far

His proposed ban on an entire religious class shocked members of the media and the political establishment. But will the intense blowback translate into an erosion of his support?

Randall Hill/Reuters
US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump waves to the crowd at a Pearl Harbor Day rally aboard the USS Yorktown Memorial in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, December 7, 2015.

Donald Trump appears to have finally gone too far – not for his supporters, but for shocked members of the US media and political establishment. Some of them have responded to Mr. Trump’s proposal to ban non-citizen Muslims from entering the United States with a level of criticism unheard in American politics since the days of populist demagogues George Wallace and Huey Long – and perhaps not even then.

Jeb Bush called Trump "unhinged." Lindsey Graham said he was "downright dangerous." Hillary Clinton tweeted out "Love trumps hate."

Such tough words might be expected from political rivals. But Dick Cheney isn’t running for president in 2016, and he said that Trump’s proposal “goes against everything we stand for and believe in.”

Journalists, who have struggled with how to handle Trump’s outrageous and at times demonstrably false statements, went further in some instances. The New York Daily News ran a cover illustration of Trump beheading the Statue of Liberty. Former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw broadcast a scathing commentary concluding in Arlington Cemetery, saying Trump’s Muslim ban is “a dangerous proposal the overrides history, the law, and the foundation of America itself.”

At BuzzFeed on Tuesday editor-in-chief Ben Smith issued new guidelines for employees about how to discuss Trump on social media.

“It is, for instance, entirely fair to call him a mendacious racist,” wrote Mr. Smith.

Wow. Will this outpouring of vitriol affect Trump’s political standing in any way?

Well, it’s unlikely to quickly erode his poll numbers. For one thing, condemnation for his proposal is not universal among top Republicans. Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas commended Trump for “focusing America’s attention on the need to secure our borders.” For another, Trump voters are predisposed to back a Muslim entry ban. Republicans who think Muslims pose an immediate threat to the US are much more likely to support Trump than are less concerned members of the GOP.

The more interesting and fateful question is whether the blowback on the proposed entry ban helps cap Trump’s share of the GOP electorate at its current 20 to 30 percent range. That would likely lead to a fairly quick exit from the race once actual voting starts in February.

That limitation is entirely possible.

As we wrote yesterday, Trump so far is playing the media like a piano. With his outrageous statements, he’s perfected the ability to draw attention to himself, particularly after a bad poll or two.

And to this point tone hasn’t mattered. Good or bad, attention is all Trump needs. It has kept him in the public eye at a time when Americans really aren’t paying much attention to politics.

But that won’t last forever. It may not even last through January. Trump’s problem is that he needs to continually up his ante to dominate Republican news coverage. You can see that in his proposals, which have become progressively more outré. First it was a wall along the southern border. Now it’s a blockade aimed at an entire religion.

Each step up the escalation ladder makes his supporters love him all the more. But it risks driving away uncertain voters and solidifying the opposition of anti-Trump Republicans.

“It’s a perfect strategy to produce early polling leads. When it comes to winning nominations, however, it’s a loser,” writes political scientist Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg View.

Once voting starts losing candidates will drop out. The non-Trump vote will coalesce around others. If Trump’s 30 percent is indeed a ceiling, at some point a rival – Cruz? Marco Rubio? – will forge ahead to victory.

Unless that’s not how it works. We’ll end with the obligatory Trump caveat: We’ve been wrong about his political fortunes before, and to this point his campaign has progressed like no other in the modern era.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.