OPINION:
Sean Hannity has become the new whipping boy for Donald Trump’s rise, and I’m not sure why.
He’s a self-admitted television talk-show host and unabashed supporter of Mr. Trump. So what? At least he’s honest in his columnist status — meaning he doesn’t disguise himself as an “unbiased” reporter — and speaks his views.
That’s why Dana Milbank’s column in Tuesday’s Washington Post is so ridiculous. Mr. Milbank is also a columnist, just on the other side, he unabashedly supports Hillary Clinton (perhaps he doesn’t admit it freely, but if you read his columns it becomes clear).
“He [Hannity] can’t decide whether he’s a journalist or a Trump operative,” Mr. Milbank wrote, adding, richly, “The overt campaigning for Trump by the likes of Hannity, [Roger] Alies and [Stephen] Bannon does no favors for conservatism. And Hannity’s collusion with the candidate and his peddling of conspiracy theories in support of Trump undermine the many serious journalists at Fox News.”
Does Mr. Milbank consider himself a “serious journalist”? Or even pretend to know what conservatism means? He rarely writes an article critical of Mrs. Clinton, and has yet to write a good word on Mr. Trump. He’s been practically joyful in reporting on the demise of the Republican Party.
But that’s OK, because he’s a columnist, he makes his living writing his opinions. As does Mr. Hannity — that’s why Mr. Milbank’s criticism of him is so hypocritical and outlandish.
Mr. Milbank is not alone. Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens dedicated an entire column to Mr. Hannity’s supposed misdeeds this month. Mr. Stephens has been in the Never Trump crowd since its beginnings, and when Mr. Hannity blamed him and others like him for a potential Trump loss in November, well, that was too much for Mr. Stephens to take.
“Mr. Hannity has never made a secret of his feelings for Mr. Trump, which is the love that dares to speak its name,” Mr. Stephens wrote. “But his comments were also a revelation, and not just that it has dawned on him that the Republican nominee is likely to lose and lose big. Like members of a cult who discover too late that their self-proclaimed messiah is mortal after all, rationalizations are required.”
Unlike these two columnists, I don’t believe Mr. Hannity single-handedly gave rise to the nomination of Mr. Trump. It also wasn’t Fox News. Or the other pundits and radio hosts supportive of Mr. Trump.
It was the 13 million voters who were fed up with the status quo, overlooked by the GOP establishment and lusting for a change. The GOP somehow became the party of the Chamber of Commerce, not the middle class, and Mr. Trump’s rise was a rebuke of that.
Time would be better spent understanding why the tide turned Mr. Trump’s way, not to criticize those supportive of him. Why — although globalism has decreased the cost of most goods — do Americans feel they’re at a disadvantage? Why did House Speaker Paul Ryan’s “A Better Way” fail in comparison to Mr. Trump’s “Making America Great Again?”
Columns should be spent evaluating the answers to those questions, rather than attacking Mr. Hannity. He’s entitled to his opinions, just like I am mine, and you are yours. We, the American public, are smart enough to sift through it all.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.