Dennis Prager often criticized Barack Obama for wanting to “transform” America. Prager said America is great, it does not need transforming.
On Sep. 7, 2010, Prager wrote:
The giveaway regarding presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plans for America was his repeated use of the words “fundamentally transform.”
Some of us instinctively reacted negatively — in fact, with horror — at the thought of fundamentally transforming America.
One unbridgeable divide between Left and Right is how each views alternatives to present-day America.
Those on the Left imagine an ideal society that has never existed, and therefore seek to “fundamentally transform” America. When liberals imagine an America fundamentally transformed, they envision it becoming a nearly utopian society in which there is no greed, no racism, no sexism, no inequality, no poverty, and ultimately no unhappiness.
Conservatives, on the other hand, look around at other societies and look at history and are certain that if America were fundamentally transformed, it would become just like those other societies. America would become a society of far less liberty, of ethically and morally inferior citizens, and of much more unhappiness. Moreover, cruelty would increase exponentially around the world.
Conservatives believe that America is an aberration in human history; that, with all the problems that a society made up of flawed human beings will inevitably have, America has been and remains a uniquely decent society. Therefore, conservatives worry that fundamentally transforming America — making America less exceptional — will mean that America gets much worse.
Donald Trump is transforming America.
Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman writes:
Today the New York Times published a “news analysis” titled “From Science to Diversity, Trump Hits the Reverse Button on Decades of Change.” For those who do not read the Times–and I don’t blame you–a “news analysis” is where a reporter writes an op-ed. It is not entirely objective, but instead allows a card-carrying journalist to tell us what he really thinks. Yet, if you read between the lines, you can actually see some admiration: Trump is doing what was once thought impossible. Consider this excerpt:
Mr. Trump’s shift into reverse gear reflects the broader sentiments of many Americans eager for a change in course. The United States has cycled from progressive to conservative eras throughout its history. The liberal period ushered in by Franklin D. Roosevelt eventually led to a swing back to the right under Ronald Reagan, which led to a move toward the center under Bill Clinton.
But Mr. Trump has supercharged the current swing. The influential writer William F. Buckley Jr. once defined a conservative as someone standing athwart history and yelling, “Stop!” Mr. Trump seems to be standing athwart history yelling, “Go back!”
He has gone further than noted conservatives like Mr. Buckley, Mr. Reagan, Barry Goldwater or Robert Taft might have imagined possible. While they despised many of the New Deal and Great Society programs that liberal presidents introduced over the years, and sought to limit them, they recognized the futility of unraveling them altogether.
“They were living in an era dominated by liberals,” said Sam Tanenhaus, author of “Buckley,” a biography published last month. “The best they could hope for was to arrest, ‘stop,’ liberal progress. But what they dreamed of was a counterrevolution that would restore the country to an early time — the Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”
“Trump,” he added, “has outdone them all, because he understands liberalism is in retreat. He has pushed beyond Buckley’s ‘stop,’ and instead promises a full-throttle reversal.”
Indeed, although Mr. Reagan vowed during his 1980 campaign to abolish the Department of Education, which had been created the year before over the objections of conservatives who considered it an intrusion on local control over schools, he never really tried to follow through as president, because Democrats controlled the House. The issue largely faded until Mr. Trump this year resurrected it and, unlike Mr. Reagan, simply ignored Congress to unilaterally order the department shuttered.
One of Trump’s greatest strengths is his ability to not care what elites think. Usually, when the elites calls a conservative a racist or sexist or homophobe or something else, he wilts. When they accuse a conservative of trying to hurt poor people or roll back progress, he caves. When they charge a conservative with standing on the wrong side of the arc of history, he switches sides. Not Trump. He can almost single-handedly shift the Overton window on what topics are open for discussion. And Trump inspires other conservatives to likewise discount what elites think. That mantra has spread.
Things that have been accomplished would have been unfathomable a decade ago. Let’s just rattle off a few high points. Roe v. Wade is gone. Humphrey’s Executor is on life support. Even after Obergefell and Bostock, we got Skrmetti. Despite all the outrage, illegal immigration at the southern border has basically trickled to a halt. Blind deference to “experts” has been irreparably altered by the distrust occasioned by COVID and transgender medicine for children. The federal bureaucracy is being dismantled. Nationwide injunctions are no more. And so on.
A common refrain is that Trump is ignoring the Constitution. During the New Deal and the Great Society, FDR and LBJ did great violence to the Constitution and the separation of powers. They got away with it because they were trying to do the “right” thing. Yet critics expect Trump to behave nicely, and be a good conservative like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney. That’s not what we have. And in Trump’s defense, some (but not all) of his actions are seeking to restore the original meaning of the Constitution, whereas the same could not be said for FDR and LBJ.
ChatGPT says:
1. Trump as a Constitutional Disruptor vs. Restorer
NYT/Baker frames Trump as reversing a century of liberal progress—on science, diversity, globalism, civil rights, and bureaucratic institutions. His actions are presented as an alarming attempt to “repeal the 20th century,” with nostalgia for the Gilded Age standing in for legitimate policy.
Volokh/Grok reinterprets this as the realization of a long-sought conservative counterrevolution. Trump isn’t reversing history arbitrarily—he’s consciously rejecting the post-1960s constitutional regime, which Caldwell calls a de facto new constitution born of the Civil Rights Act and its regulatory offshoots. In this view, Trump isn’t attacking the Constitution—he’s rolling back a 60-year ideological occupation.
Critique: NYT assumes a continuous constitutional tradition. Caldwell insists there are now two constitutions, and Trump is choosing one. The NYT interprets restoration as regression; Grok sees it as constitutional fidelity.
2. The Rule of Law as Sacred Principle vs. Political Tool
NYT upholds the rule of law as an unassailable, neutral safeguard against tyranny. Trump’s defiance of courts, dismantling of institutions, and disregard for process are seen as existential threats to democracy.
Grok/Paul/Schmitt argue the rule of law is never neutral. Paul says it has been instrumentalized by elites to cement judicial supremacy and suppress populist majorities. Schmitt adds that sovereignty by definition includes the ability to suspend law in a crisis. From this view, Trump’s actions (e.g., ending birthright citizenship or shuttering agencies by fiat) are not anti-constitutional, but expressions of a sovereign reclaiming control.
Critique: NYT sees law as binding power. Schmitt and Paul see law as downstream from power. Trump’s defiance, to his supporters, isn’t criminal—it’s corrective.
3. Culture War as Backlash vs. Rebellion
NYT reads Trump’s cultural interventions—on DEI, immigration, transgender policy, and language (“Secretary of War,” “Redskins”)—as irrational nostalgia fueled by grievance. It implies a reactionary mind clinging to a mythic past.
Guldmann/Caldwell/Andrews argue this is not backlash but an insurgency against cultural colonization by the progressive elite. Guldmann frames the post-’60s liberal order as a new clerisy—journalists, bureaucrats, academics—exercising soft dominance. Trump is their heretic. Andrews adds that this revolt isn’t about bigotry, it’s about territoriality—reasserting control over social meaning and national identity.
Critique: NYT reduces Trump’s movement to sentimentality and bigotry. But thinkers like Guldmann and Andrews argue the real issue is cultural displacement—and the desire for reclamation.
4. Trump’s Unilateralism: Authoritarian Drift or Elite Bypass?
NYT sees Trump’s sidelining of Congress and gutting of agencies (Education, USAID, NEA, etc.) as anti-democratic overreach.
Volokh/Caldwell/Schmitt contend that many of these agencies are instruments of elite moral power, not democratic expression. Caldwell argues they arose from a bureaucratic revolution that replaced political negotiation with moralized administration. Schmitt would say Trump’s actions are a reassertion of politics over technocracy.
Critique: NYT treats institutional inertia as democratic legitimacy. The blog post (and your document) treat it as managerial rule hiding behind procedure. Trump’s unilateralism is a challenge to the legitimacy of the clerisy, not democracy.
5. Popular Sovereignty vs. Procedural Legitimacy
NYT repeatedly invokes norms and process—courts, consensus, bureaucratic memory—as the heart of democracy.
Schmitt/Paul argue democracy is not just process; it’s the will of the people. Trump’s actions—pardons, defiance, agency purges—derive legitimacy (in his view) from electoral victory, not elite approval. Schmitt’s sovereign “decides on the exception”; Trump decides what the crisis is, and what must be done.
Critique: NYT treats democracy as rules. Schmitt and Paul say: democracy is decision. When those rules suppress political expression, they become oligarchic.
The New York Times article by Peter Baker—while clearly critical of Trump’s reversals—contains a tone shift from outright alarm to something closer to reluctant respect. Several passages hint at awe for Trump’s ability to do what earlier conservatives only dreamed of:
“He has outdone them all…” — referring to Reagan, Buckley, Goldwater. That’s not just critique; it’s recognition of Trump’s success in achieving a long-elusive conservative goal: dismantling New Deal/Great Society legacies rather than just limiting them.
“Simply ignored Congress to unilaterally order the department shuttered.” There’s a tinge of amazement here. Reagan talked. Trump acted. That power move is noted with a hint of admiration for the sheer audacity and effectiveness.
The entire section quoting Sam Tanenhaus conveys that Trump has not only changed policy but history’s momentum. Saying he’s yelling “Go back!” instead of Buckley’s “Stop!” might sound regressive, but it also highlights that Trump has altered the terms of ideological engagement—something no other conservative has pulled off.
The mention that he is “supercharging the current swing” and that he “understands liberalism is in retreat” frames Trump not as a flailing authoritarian but as someone with strategic clarity and cultural impact.
This is quite different from the 2016–2020 coverage, where Trump was often described as chaotic, incompetent, or unserious. Now, whether begrudging or not, there’s acknowledgment that he has strategic intent, institutional muscle, and historical resonance—even if the NYT disagrees with the direction.
In short: the tone is still disapproving, but the underlying vibe has shifted from “he’s wrecking the system” to “he’s winning.”
Is there a similar vibe in news coverage of Israel’s smashing successes of the past year?
Yes — major outlets subtly mix critique with respect for Israel’s military and economic momentum over the past year.
1. Economic resilience and strength
The Financial Times highlights Israel’s stock market soaring ~80% since October 2023, crediting strong tech, R&D, and investor confidence despite geopolitical turmoil. That reads less like neutral reporting and more like impressed validation of Israel’s stability under fire.
2. Military achievements framed as strategic dominance
AP notes Israel has effectively dismantled Iran’s proxy networks, calling it a “vindication” for Netanyahu.
3. Political capital acknowledged: Reuters reports 83% support among Jewish Israelis for Netanyahu’s Iran strike, crediting it with reviving his political standing. That conveys grudging respect for his strategic calculation.
4. Balanced concerns about consequences. While coverage acknowledges the strong achievements, many articles caveat that long-term outcomes remain uncertain or risky — caution without dismissive tone.
Takeaway: News coverage mirrors the NYT’s nuanced tone on Trump: not exactly cheerleading, but a steady sense of reluctant admiration. Israel is frequently portrayed as effective, durable, and strategically formidable — even by outlets that highlight humanitarian costs or future risks. The tone isn’t celebratory, but it’s unambiguously impressed.
