top of page

Liberals should tread carefully when confronting Trumpism

The hiring and firing of Ronna McDaniel as an NBC News political analyst might seem like a small media tempest, but it does force a reckoning with a much larger issue that will come up again and again in this campaign.

Fareed Zakaria

Washington Post

March 29, 2024

Viewpoint Detected:


Fallacies Detected:

Biased Language, Personal Incredulity, Appeal to Emotion

credAIble Evaluation:

The text wrestles with the complex issue of how to engage with Donald Trump and his supporters in the context of liberal democracy, making moderate use of logical fallacies such as Biased Language, Personal Incredulity, and Appeal to Emotion. Biased Language is subtly woven throughout the discussion, particularly in descriptions of actions and individuals. Phrases like "assaulted the constitutional foundations" and "the new populist right’s disdain for liberal democracy" clearly convey disapproval and bias, shaping the reader's perception of the events and actors involved without allowing for a neutral or alternative interpretation. Personal Incredulity is evident in the author's skepticism towards the motivations behind legal actions against Trump and the questioning of whether these efforts are driven by legitimate concerns or are merely political tactics. This skepticism challenges the reader to doubt the legitimacy and intentions of those pursuing legal action, suggesting that these moves are more about political vendettas than justice. The Appeal to Emotion is strategically employed to emphasize the gravity of Trump's actions and the response of his supporters. The mention of "85 million adult Americans" who believe the election was unfair and the portrayal of Trump supporters as victims of liberal disdain are designed to evoke empathy and concern, pushing the reader towards understanding the emotional dimensions of political divides. In sum, the narrative uses these logical fallacies to explore the dilemma faced by liberal democracies in dealing with illiberal forces, suggesting that engagement, debate, and persuasion are preferable to exclusion and legal maneuvering. While it raises valid points about the challenges of addressing the threats to liberal democracy, the use of biased language, personal incredulity, and emotional appeals may lead readers to question the impartiality of the analysis.

bottom of page