Stop Analyzing Trump's Unhinged Ideas Like They're Normal Policy Proposals

The New York Times just ran 1,200 words gaming out the electoral math of forcibly annexing Canada. We're in trouble.

Sometimes a piece of journalism is so wildly off-base that it perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with political coverage. Today's example comes from the New York Times's Peter Baker, who decided to treat Donald Trump's delusional ramblings about annexing Canada as a serious policy proposal worthy of electoral analysis.

---

---

Here's how Baker opens his piece:

As President Trump looks north and repeatedly presses his case to absorb Canada as the "51st state," politically minded Democrats who are otherwise outraged by almost everything else about his agenda find themselves contemplating a potential electoral boon should it ever happen.

Few in Washington take the prospect all that seriously, of course. Canada has made clear that it has no interest in joining the United States, and Mr. Trump seems unlikely to send in the 82nd Airborne Division to force the matter. But if the idea appeals to Mr. Trump's grandiose sense of himself as an empire-building historic figure, it could also undercut his own party's prospects.

This is journalism malpractice.

Let's be clear about what's happening: The President of the United States is openly fantasizing about forcibly annexing a sovereign nation of 40 million people. He's been repeatedly referring to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as "Governor Trudeau" and threatening our closest ally with absorption into the United States. This isn't a policy proposal to be analyzed; it's the ravings of a dangerous authoritarian.

But instead of treating this story as what it is — evidence of Trump's increasingly unhinged worldview and contempt for democratic norms — Baker decides to play electoral college calculator. He walks us through detailed scenarios about House seats and Senate majorities, complete with expert quotes about the Democratic Party's theoretical gains. It's like writing about the thermal properties of the emperor's new clothes while ignoring his nakedness.

This kind of coverage is dangerous because it normalizes the absolutely abnormal. When one of America's most respected political journalists treats talk of forcible annexation as just another campaign promise to be analyzed, it moves the window of acceptable political discourse into terrifying new territory.

Even Baker's caveats miss the point. He writes that "Few in Washington take the prospect all that seriously,” as if the problem here is that the plan isn't feasible rather than that it's being proposed at all. He notes that Trump is unlikely to "send in the 82nd Airborne Division to force the matter,” as if casually referencing the possibility of invading Canada is just another day in American politics.

The real story here isn't about electoral math. It's about a sitting president who talks about invading allied nations while referring to their democratically elected leaders as though they were already his subordinates. It's about the continued deterioration of democratic norms. It's about how the institutions meant to protect democracy — including the press — seem increasingly unable or unwilling to call out authoritarian behavior for what it is.

Instead, we get a piece that reads like sports analysis, complete with Democrats gleefully calculating their potential gains from this completely unhinged scenario. Former Rep. Steve Israel is quoted saying, "I can't believe I'm saying this, but I strongly agree with Donald Trump." Really? This is what we're doing now?

This is how authoritarianism takes root: not just through the actions of would-be dictators, but through the failure of institutions to properly identify and respond to the threat. When the New York Times treats talk of annexing Canada as just another policy proposal to analyze, it's failing its fundamental duty to inform the public about what's really happening.

The press needs to stop treating politics like a game of electoral mathematics and start treating it like what it is: a serious business with real consequences for democracy and human lives. When the president starts talking like a mad emperor, that's the story, not how many House seats his delusions might hypothetically affect.

Baker's piece is more than just bad journalism. It's a perfect example of how the mainstream media continues to normalize Trump's increasingly extreme behavior. And at this point in history, we simply cannot afford this kind of normalizing coverage.