By now, you’ve seen the Boston Globe’s (satire?) front page that’s supposed to predict what a Donald Trump presidency would look like in a year. [PDF.]
The newpaper, which published an accompanying editorial to explain why Trump must be stopped compared the GOP front runner to a dictator:
If Trump were a politician running such a campaign in a foreign country right now, the US State Department would probably be condemning him.
The Globe also mentions Trump’s view of the media:
[Trump] says he wants to “open up” libel laws to punish critics in the news media and calls them “scum.”
In addition to mentioning Trump “anti-immigrant” stance, The Globe offered what it calls “honorable” alternatives to Trump, such as Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
I am immediately reminded of how Tayyip Erdogan, President of the Republic of Turkey — which is a US and NATO ally — has brought more than 1,800 criminal suits against people , including journalists and children, for insulting him. Turkey has also seized control of several newspapers and television stations.
I also thought about Saudi Arabia, another ally of the US, which has one of the worst reputations for human rights. The US supplies bombs to Saudia Arabia, which in turn has used them to kill civilians in Yemen.
And while there hasn’t been a mainstream proposal for large walls or the “complete and total shutdown” of Muslims entering America, the GOP wouldn’t be considered the most immigration-friendly party.
My Sunday Smack is a series of questions.
Is the Globe’s front page forecast of Trump correct or fair?
Do you think the Globe’s front page project provides any value to the current conversation about the GOP’s 2016 nominee or the party’s future?
How much better (or worse) would a newspaper front page look under Hillary Clinton? Or Romney? Or Ryan?
song currently stuck in my head: “the boy from ipanema (live in sweden)” – sarah vaughn feat. the bob james trio