Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

The thing that gets lost in what’s happening because of the Trump administration is that its multitudinous bizarre and disturbing activities, activities that are occurring at a never-ending pace, are having the effect of normalizing bizarre and disturbing things, things that aren’t what this country is truly about. We are about freedom. About standing up for the little guy. About doing things that are right because they are right, not because there is a financial advantage to be gained. About supporting our friends around the world. About having power but not abusing power. About being decent and honest.

Which leads to a series of questions, and I am confident that you have more:

Since when is it appropriate for a president of the United States to repeatedly produce unhinged social media posts in which he attacks anyone who disagrees with him with language and epithets that are normally the stuff of elementary school playgrounds?

Or for the president of the United States to threaten to have the FCC pull the licenses of broadcast networks because they’ve aired something he doesn’t like?

Or for the president to sue a major newspaper because it reported on him in a way he doesn’t like?

This is not the behavior of someone who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, is it, you know, First Amendment and all that?

How is it normal for the president to have a portion of the White House torn down without getting the permits that anyone in the District of Columbia needs in order to do work on their homes, to say nothing of any of the vetting required to do something to historic buildings?

Is it a sign of anything outside of self-aggrandizement for the president of the United States to have his name not only affixed to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a name that was passed by Congress and signed into law in 1964, but to have it placed in front of the name of a president who died while in office?

When did it become acceptable for the president to send armed personnel into American cities over the objections of the people responsible for governing those cities?

How is it that the president of the United States can claim without any evidence and plenty of evidence to the contrary that a woman in Minneapolis who was shot to death “violently, willfully and viciously ran over the ICE officer”?

Why is it OK for the president of the United States to attack a sovereign country and seize its president and wife, at first claiming the attack was predicated on concerns about “narco-terrorism” (a made-up term that sounds scary), then admitted it was because he wants the oil in that country?

How is it even thinkable that a president of the United States would consider additional imperialist actions like seizing Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark — a NATO ally?

When will all of this be admitted to be what it is, which is something decidedly not good for any of us?

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.