Politico wants to be considered objective. LOL.

Politico editor-in-chief calls Trump 'greatest American figure of his era' due to his influence

John Harris said Trump's political opponents should face the fact that Trump is not a 'momentary anomaly'

Politico global editor-in-chief John F. Harris argued in a new piece that President Donald Trump's second victory proves that he has dominated American politics so thoroughly that he will likely be counted among the country's most consequential leaders.

Harris clarified that he was not describing Trump as a righteous or evil character, nor was he saying that Trump has been a successful president, but he reiterated that his impact is monumental either way.

"He is a force of history," Harris declared in his column published Tuesday.

The editor-in-chief said Trump's second inauguration on Monday puts the president in an "entirely new light" -- he is now "holding power under circumstances in which reasonable people cannot deny a basic fact: He is the greatest American figure of his era."

Harris explained that assessment of Trump is "an objective description about the dimensions of his record," noting how the president began by "dominating" the GOP nearly a decade ago and now dominates "every discussion of American politics broadly."

He noted that Trump's second victory proves he is "not a fluke" despite his opponents in the media hammering his flaws for almost ten years. "He is someone with an ability to perceive opportunities that most politicians do not and forge powerful, sustained connections with large swaths of people in ways that no contemporary can match," the editor-in-chief stated, adding that he himself has been "slow" to see this power.

Harris went to say that Trump's political opponents must do away with their strategy to paint Trump as a political aberration. "They cannot push Trump to the margins, by treating him as a momentary anomaly or simply denouncing him as lawless and illegitimate," he stated.

"Opponents have no choice but to acknowledge he and his movement represent a large historical argument -- and then rally similarly large arguments to defeat it."

Here's a link to the full op-ed.

Some quotes:

Time to Admit It: Trump Is a Great President. He's Still Trying To Be a Good One.

The most consequential presidents divided the nation -- before "reuniting it on a new level of understanding."

By John F. Harris

John Harris is founding editor and global editor-in-chief of POLITICO. His Altitude column offers a regular perspective on politics in a moment of radical disruption.

Donald J. Trump in his second inaugural address was everything his supporters hoped he would be: Breathtakingly expansive about his intention to reshape the vast federal government around his vision; raucously jingoistic in proclaiming that the country will do whatever it wants to advance its interests around the world; openly triumphal in asserting his belief that his survival from an assassin's bullet and his victory show he is God's chosen instrument to lead an American revival.

Trump was also everything his adversaries feared: Messianic in tone; lovingly protective of his grievances; wholly uncharitable to the people, sitting just feet from him under the Capitol Rotunda, who he defeated so convincingly.

In one light, it was all quite familiar.

But the second occasion of Trump taking the oath of office also put him in an entirely new light. For the first time, he is holding power under circumstances in which reasonable people cannot deny a basic fact: He is the greatest American figure of his era.

Let's quickly exhale: Great in this context is not about a subjective debate over whether he is a singularly righteous leader or a singularly menacing one. It is now simply an objective description about the dimensions of his record. He began a decade ago by dominating the Republican Party. He soon advanced to dominating every discussion of American politics broadly. Now, his astonishing comeback after his defeat by Joseph Biden in 2020 and the notoriety of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot makes clear there are certain things he is not and one big thing he is.

He is not a fluke, who got elected initially in 2016 almost entirely because of the infirmities of his opponent. He is not someone the American public somehow misunderstands -- as though Democrats and the news media have not spent 10 years forcefully highlighting the risks of his record and character.

He is someone with an ability to perceive opportunities that most politicians do not and forge powerful, sustained connections with large swaths of people in ways that no contemporary can match. In other words: He is a force of history.

He notes that even Democrats may find Trump's victory "liberating," as it has liberated them from their delusions:

That is because they can no longer place confidence in a strategy that once looked plausible but now has been exposed as illusion. They cannot push Trump to the margins, by treating him as a momentary anomaly or simply denouncing him as lawless and illegitimate.

Some voters bought that but not enough to win an election. Opponents have no choice but to acknowledge he and his movement represent a large historical argument -- and then rally similarly large arguments to defeat it. Trump in 2020 showed himself ready to undermine democracy for his own purposes. Trump in 2024 showed that he is also a potent expression of democracy.

...

One more signature shown by the most consequential presidents: Uncommon psychological toughness. Have you ever known someone who was facing legal hurdles? In many cases, even if people ultimately win the case, they end up being consumed and shrunken by the searing nature of the experience. Imagine running for president amid huge civil suits, criminal prosecutions, and even felony convictions -- then emerging from this morass as a larger figure than before. No one needs to admire the achievement to recognize that Trump is possessed by some rare traits of denial, combativeness and resilience.

My mind goes back to a conversation, just before Bill Clinton began his second term, with the liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. He had inherited a tradition from his father, also a renowned scholar, of conducting surveys of historians asking them to rank American presidents from best to worst. Clinton was promising in his second term to be a great national unifier. Schlesinger, who wished greatness for Clinton but mistrusted his ideological centrism, was skeptical.

"Great presidents are unifiers mostly in retrospect," he told me. Most great presidents, he later wrote, "divided the nation before reuniting it on a new level of national understanding."

This is the same sentiment uttered by FDR: "All our great presidents were leaders of thought at a time when certain ideas in the life of our nation had to be clarified."

FDR also said: "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made."