Deafening Silence
- Apr 30
- 2 min read
The other day, after she wrote that "People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate," political operative Steve Schmidt wrote an article on his Substack page about Melania Trump and her "selective sensitivity" and silence. It was absolutely superb. Thoughtful, detailed, blunt, scathing and unrelenting. The overall theme was that as much as she wants to give the impression of being and above it all, a "futurist" visionary, separate of Trump's cruelty, her "silence" speaks loudly and helps enable it.
I could easily just quote the whole thing, it was that good. I’d provide a link, but I believe it’s behind a paywall. A friend who subscribes sent me a guest copy. So, instead, I’ll just mention a few passages that leaped out most to me. Starting with the very beginning.
It opens --
"Melania Trump’s demand to fire Jimmy Kimmel seems unsurprising from the first third wife to become an American First Lady in our 250-year history. Severe, unsmiling and brutally indifferent Melania is a perfect match for her husband, who recently declared that he isn’t a rapist or pedophile on “60 Minutes.”"Melania Trump’s demand is un-American."The former model, who was reared in a Slovenian backwater under a communist government, seems ill-acquainted with the First Amendment to the Constitution. It seems increasingly likely that Paolo Zampolli and Jeffrey Epstein didn’t think the Constitution was necessary at her finishing school."How did Melania come to the United States again?"Oh."Autocrats hate laughter, and Jimmy Kimmel can make the American people laugh like no other when it comes to the demented geriatric with swollen ankles, who fancies himself Jesus Christ."
It's at points like this that I always like to interject a reminder that, when questions arose on her immigration status, Trump said that Melania would hold a press conference on the subject "in two weeks." That was in 2016, a decade ago.
I'm still waiting. Though not expectedly. (However, I'm also waiting for some reporter to at least bring it up...)
Two other passages stand out, among many of them. One is very short. Just one line. However, in only a few simple, but impactful words, Schmidt explains why Melania's silence carries so much more depth and meaning that she likely wants it to appear. He writes --
"Indifference isn’t passive. It’s active. It’s a choice."
And the other that I especially liked was that although it was about Melania and her limited range of "outrage" -- the First Lady who wore a jacket that dismissively had written on it, "I don't really care, do you?" (which I believe might be translated from the original French, "Let them eat cake") -- it addressed a larger reality with the Trump administration. And a significant reason why his approval is 34% and plummeting. Because the public is finally catching on --
"There's something particularly galling about the selective outrage.
"Where was this sensitivity when her husband mocked a disabled reporter? Where is it when he hurls insults at women, journalists, immigrants, and political opponents? Where is the call for accountability then?
"It doesn’t exist because the standard isn’t principle. It’s loyalty. It’s self-interest. It’s grievance.
"The rules apply only in one direction."
Comments