Is a politician’s — or potential politician’s — relationships with women fair game for journalists? The New York Times thinks so. Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private is based on “over 50” interviews with women who’ve interacted with the real estate mogul. It adds fuel to the fire of those stoking accusations of misogyny against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Mr. Trump’s first wife’s accusation that her husband raped her is, perhaps, the most serious. Here’s the thing . . .
The investigative report indicates that Mr. Trump consistently views sex — and sexual appeal — as a commodity, rather than, say, the physical expression of love. Which it certainly can be. A commodity, I mean. And certainly always will be.
In any case, The Times article implies — but doesn’t state outright — that Mr. Trump “abused” his wealth and power by trading it for sexual gratification.
This angle on Mr. Trump dovetails with a more general perspective, stated by the candidate himself: everything is negotiable. Taxes, immigration, walls, foreign policy, rules of engagement for military, the use of torture, sex, everything. Americans’ natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, too?
TTAG commentators have made that very point under previous Trump-related posts. Our gun rights wouldn’t be safe in a Trump administration, they say.
On the positive side, Mr. Trump starts from a position of [now] complete support for the Second Amendment’s ban on government infringement on gun rights; from calling for the end of federal “gun-free zones” to national reciprocity for concealed carry. Ms. Clinton’s starting point: civilian disarmament.
I don’t see any “answer” to this political conundrum. Better the devil you don’t know than the devil you do? I guess so.