Paul Kengor: Michael Cohen, Trump’s buddy turned bad boy |
Paul Kengor, Columnist

Paul Kengor: Michael Cohen, Trump’s buddy turned bad boy

Michael Cohen testifies before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington Feb. 27.

Michael Cohen’s face is everywhere. Reviled by Trump supporters, cheered on by Trump opponents. The media has a new bad boy to tar and feather Donald Trump. But before he was the media’s buddy, he was Trump’s buddy.

Cohen isn’t new news to me. I wrote an article in February 2016 titled, “Trump and the Vulgarians at the GOP Gate.” My focus then, and one of my chief concerns about Trump throughout the 2016 campaign, was certain men of obviously low character that Trump surrounded himself with. Some of these guys were clear political sell-outs, hit-men, bullies. I specifically pointed to a fellow named Michael Cohen.

I remember one of the first times Cohen came across my radar — actually, my radio. It was an exchange on Sean Hannity’s show. The obnoxious voice I heard was that of Cohen, described as Trump’s “wingman,” his right-hand man. He was rude, aggressive — ripping the spokespeople for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who did their best to react in a civil way. I cringed as I listened to his insults.

“Nobody wants them,” sneered Cohen of Cruz and Rubio. “Marco Rubio challenging Donald Trump is like Bambi fighting Godzilla,” he surmised in his thick New York accent. “Marco is trying to be a man (emphasis original) … . The American people look at Marco Rubio and they see nothing. Why? Because he’s done nothing.”

It was scorched-earth rhetoric. Slash and burn. Leave nothing standing. Cohen wasn’t engaging in the typical jousting among party rivals during campaigns; rather, he was like an angry liberal vilifying the conservative movement’s future stars. Actually, that should have been no surprise, given that Trump’s wingman was a lifetime liberal Democrat who voted for Barack Obama.

But most of all, Cohen was vulgar. And if this was a reflection upon his boss, well, that wasn’t good.

For writing that article, Trump loyalists fumed at me and still haven’t forgiven me. A certain type of Trump supporter accepts no criticism whatsoever of Trump.

And yet, it’s striking now to watch those same Trump loyalists turn on Cohen with a vengeance and vitriol that’s chilling. He’s now no longer Trump’s boy but Trump’s rat. He’s a liar, a cheat, a con, a snake. It’s shocking to watch.

For the most obsequious Trump supporters, this willful lack of discernment has been a problem from the outset, leading many critical conservatives to label them Trumpists or blast them as Kool-Aid drinkers. In reality, we all ought to be capable of looking at a man and president like Trump and non-emotionally assessing the good and the bad, from his personality and policies to the people he surrounds himself with. Good grief, no one is always right or always wrong.

And now, here we are in 2019 and this bad guy Cohen that many of us warned about in 2016 has turned on Trump and threatens to take him down for whatever malfeasances Cohen himself might have aided and abetted in 2016. That was a legitimate concern about the guy in 2016. It wouldn’t have hurt Trump loyalists to have listened to some of those criticisms. Their blind support is coming back to bite them right now in Michael Cohen — the “snake” they now denounce but once embraced.

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science and chief academic fellow of the Institute for Faith & Freedom at Grove City College.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.