If you can’t say something nice…
… maybe that’s just fine.
There’s this move that callers constantly use where they demand that the host names “one good thing” the president has done. Often they’ll explicitly say that if the host can’t do so, they’re just biased, suffering from TDS, or “grifting” or whatever.
Implicitly, they’re saying a fair critic can always find the bright side. That sounds reasonable on its face, but it’s the kind of thing you tell to your children about the neighbor. “Hey, he’s sometimes annoying, but if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”.
These debates are not about keeping the peace on the cul-de-sac. This is about the supposed leader of the free world. Courtesy is not designed to protect power from scrutiny.
The entire point of elective office is accountability, not harmony. You don’t expect your food inspector to tell you all the things your kitchen did well before saying “I’m writing you up for several critical violations”.
The instinct itself is virtuous. There’s real benefit to tolerating imperfections in people who are close to you in some way. It has no business as a standard for evaluating a presidency. Our hosts often entertain this position in good faith, and while that’s respectable, this angle doesn’t really deserve their energy at all.
Ultimately, it’s signaling. “I’m the reasonable adult in this conversation who sees both sides, and I’m fair. This host is simply being rude at this cocktail party.”
But it’s not a cocktail party. It’s not about who’s perfect, and it’s not about accepting people as people despite their imperfections. It’s about someone’s fitness to be the president of the United States, and that deserves hard-hearted critique.