Liberal comedian Bill Maher is under fire from the left and some in the media over his recent White House dinner with President Donald Trump. The dinner was organized by the musician Kid Rock, a mutual friend of Maher and Trump. The host of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher has frequently — and often ferociously — criticized Trump.
At the start of his show on Friday, Maher detailed the dinner two weeks ago. The main gripes with Maher’s monologue are twofold.
First, there is a contention with Maher’s argument that meeting with Trump and disagreeing with him civilly is good for liberals and the nation. Second, there is a contention with Maher’s claim that while Trump plays a “crazy person” on TV, he is not a crazy person in private. Maher’s critics are incensed here that he may have slightly undercut the narrative that Trump is a demented psychopath ever plotting the Constitution’s desecration. Their fury also belies the fact that many others have described Trump’s private persona in ways similar to Maher.
No rest for fury, however.
At the Washington Post, Leon Krauze suggests that “Bill Maher went to Washington. He got played.” Rather hyperbolically, Krauze compares Maher to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his ill-fated effort to secure peace with German dictator Adolf Hitler via the 1938 Munich Agreement. Krauze also compares Trump to General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin, Cuban President Fidel Castro, and Chairman of the People’s Republic of China Mao Zedong. He says that “by agreeing to meet with Trump, allowing himself to be privately charmed by a charismatic leader and then sharing his softened new take on the president, Bill Maher has made the task of holding Trump accountable that much more difficult.”
Really? Trump is Hitler? Has holding Trump accountable become more difficult because one of his critics had a respectful dinner with him?
Give me a break.
Trump will be held accountable in the way that he has always been: by the Constitution’s checks and balances and by robust scrutiny of his policies and actions. But that doesn’t mean Maher shouldn’t have dined with him. Indeed, Krauze’s flamboyant historical comparisons of Trump make Maher’s key point for him: while name-calling absurdity might be a key marker of Trump’s public persona, relying on similar tactics to deal with him is pointless. Nor, as the 2020 and 2024 elections attest, do those tactics actually serve an effective political strategy.
Yes, we should emphasize that Trump dishonors his office and his oath with his public tirades against his fellow citizens and close allies. Yes, we should emphasize that Trump appears determined to variably disregard the law and see how far he can stretch it. Yes, we should admit this is bad for America.
Nevertheless, the ability to meet and disagree respectfully is intrinsic to the still-young American experiment. It is good for America that Maher and Trump have just shown a shared example of how this is still possible. Neither Trump nor Maher appear to have ended their political disagreements since this dinner. On the contrary, Maher emphasized that he remains ardently opposed to many of Trump’s policies. The difference between Maher and too many of his fellow liberals is that he has recognized that there’s no alternative to talking. As he put it, what’s the alternative? “Don’t talk?”
Moreover, always approaching Trump through the prism of existential fear and absolute fury suggests a rather pathetic regard for America’s enduring system of checks and balances. Perhaps I’m delusional, but I strongly suspect that Trump will soon learn that it is the Supreme Court that says what the law is and which can enforce the law against his wishes.
It would be one thing had Maher gone to the White House and come out saying Trump is right about everything. But that isn’t the case. Maher lamented the “nasty crap” that Trump had posted to social media the night before the dinner. He said he had criticized several of Trump’s policies to his face, including telling the president, “I’m not going to pull my punches that presidents get to propose a third term for themselves. [Trump] understood that and without animus.” Maher added, “That doesn’t mean he’s not going to try to do it.”
PUTIN’S CHRISTIAN NATIONALIST MIRAGE
All this said, the easiest repudiation of Krauze’s suggestion that Maher “was played” is the most basic one. If America is so far gone that a Republican president and a liberal comedian should no longer be able to disagree amicably, then this dinner is the very last thing we have to worry about.
Regrettably, perhaps that’s Krauze and company’s point. But if so, they need to pause, take a breath, and recognize that their breathlessness is at odds with the sentiment of the vast majority of the people and the enduring power of their institutions. And that petulant fury carries no positive dividends.