Trump: Insulter in chief

OPINION:

Each time one thinks President Trump has reached the lowest level possible in insulting his enemies, he finds new depths to plunge.

After a 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court, which included three conservative justices he appointed, the president called the justices “fools,” a “disgrace to the nation” and “unpatriotic.” His critics might say such language is a disgrace to the presidency. Calling people names, especially names that are incendiary in content, wins no arguments and creates opposition instead of a fair hearing for one’s counterarguments.

The president also claimed the court’s decision is “disloyal to the Constitution,” when the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., cited the Constitution, which the majority said does not grant the president the right to unilaterally impose tariffs under the emergency provision he cited. That right, under the separation of powers clause, is granted to Congress.

The court might be reasonably criticized for the length of time it took to issue its ruling after billions of dollars had poured into the Treasury. It might also be criticized for saying nothing about whether any or all of that money should be rebated to the countries that paid it and to the companies that experienced price increases for their products as a result of higher tariffs.

Past Supreme Courts have been criticized by presidents who disagreed with their rulings, but nothing like this president has done. Name-calling is juvenile, unhelpful in achieving one’s goals and a bad example, especially to young people.

There is enough coarse language in the culture without the president adding to it. Last week, CNN ran a story called “politics and profanity.” It was about how increasing numbers of male politicians are now using bad language to apparently boost their macho bona fides (though, increasingly, female politicians are joining their male colleagues in the F-bomb gutter).

Once, politicians kept their cursing mostly private. Now they do it openly. They are not alone. Films, TV and other “entertainment” contain filthy language that once would have caused a TV station to lose its license or a film to be censored by a now-defunct board that imposed a censorship code.

Both Mr. Trump and President Biden have used profane language during their respective tenures and campaigns in the past decade. The trend is widespread. Some think the earthiness makes politicians more honest and relatable.

We once thought politicians were supposed to set an example because they were elected to represent the people. Although hypocrisy is always around, “the people” mostly expected their leaders to speak what was once called “the king’s English” and with a minimal level of respect.

Arguments for tariffs could include that nearly 100 countries apply baseline tariffs on U.S. goods. It is unfair that we don’t reciprocate with tariffs on them. The U.S. also has comprehensive free trade agreements in force with 20 countries.

The day after the court ruled, the president announced a 15% “global tariff.” We’ll see whether that survives court challenges. He might even get Congress to approve them if he tried a measure of kindness and respect for our institutions rather than pouring gallons of vitriol on them when some disagree with him.

The president should also try to attack spending, which has created an unsustainable $38 trillion debt. That would improve the economy more than tariffs ever could.

• Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book, “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (Humanix Books).