When Donald Trump is president, it's considered dangerously authoritarian if he accuses someone of treason -- and it's considered heroic "truth-telling" when you accuse Trump of being a treasonous authoritarian.
The latest exhibit is leftist rock star/first-rate tax evader Bruce Springsteen. On a concert stage in Manchester, England, Bruce went full Dixie Chicks by attacking the president on a European stage.
"In my home, the America I love, the America I've written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous administration," Springsteen declared. "Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experience to rise with us, raise your voices against authoritarianism, and let freedom ring."
Wait several drumbeats and out came The Washington Post, with a laudatory article by pop music critic Chris Richards. The headline blared: "Bruce Springsteen is fighting for the America he sings about: On a powerful new live recording, the rock legend isn't warning us about approaching authoritarianism. 'This is happening now.'"
This is what liberal journalists do. When they fail in their mission to elect Democrats, then democracy is vanishing. When Trump attacks the liberal media and seeks to deprive it of government subsidies, the "authoritarianism" is happening. That's funny -- many voters feel that using government money to push for a permanently Democrat-run government is anti-democracy.
Recommended
But at the Post, democracy is always dying in darkness when Trump's in charge. Richards began the piece: "When Bruce Springsteen described the Trump administration as 'corrupt, incompetent and treasonous' from a concert stage in England last week, there was no need to gasp. Springsteen is a truth teller."
Richards ended the piece with the same crusading tone: Springsteen's messaging "confirms that we're not talking about corruption, incompetence and treason in some vague future tense. This isn't a rock star's paranoid ramble about a still-forming authoritarianism. If you've ever believed this man, believe him now."
The Post's front-page motto could be "Paranoid rambling about Trump since 2015."
In between these grand proclamations, Richards put on his "fact-checking" hat: "On Monday, without evidence, Trump posted on social media that Springsteen, Beyonce and Bono were paid by Kamala Harris to appear at her 2024 presidential campaign events."
Without evidence? Shortly after Trump's message, The New York Times offered some facts: "Ms. Harris paid $1 million to Ms. Winfrey's production company for a live-streamed town hall in Detroit, according to campaign-finance records." It wasn't a "personal fee" for Oprah, so it somehow doesn't count.
Likewise, the Times found "Beyonce headlined a rally for Ms. Harris in her hometown of Houston for an abortion-rights event, and Ms. Harris's campaign paid the singer's company $165,000 in November for 'campaign event production.'" Everyone was led to believe Beyonce would sing, but she did not. She did get a check.
The Times also said "no records available yet show any payment from Ms. Harris's campaign" to Springsteen. He endorsed Harris in a video, not on a rally stage. But nobody was fact-checking Springsteen when he claimed the Harris-Walz ticket represented the "working class," as if Bidenomics was terrific for average Americans.
Forbes estimates that Springsteen is a billionaire, since he sold his music catalog for about a half-billion dollars in 2021. But he will sit in a diner and put on a plaid jacket and play himself up as an aw-shucks commoner when he endorses inflation-inflaming Democrats for president. That's not exactly "truth-telling." It's about as authentic as his sketchy tax returns.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member