A columnist for the New York Times just admitted that President Donald Trump is a "normie Republican," whatever exactly he means by that term. 

The columnist is Jamelle Bouie, and he recently released an article titled "Face It. Trump Is A Normie Republican."

It had to be a difficult article for the Times to publish, considering its notable anti-Trump bias.

The problem, though, is that Trump has just been too successful.

"Normie Republican"

In the piece, Bouie essentially tries to argue that Trump is just another Republican politician accomplishing the sorts of things that Republicans seek to accomplish.

The piece begins:

Perhaps the most underappreciated fact about President Trump is that he is a Republican.

People know he is a Republican, of course, but this is often treated as incidental to his political persona. He is a Republican, sure, but he’s not a Republican in the way that Speaker Mike Johnson or John Thune, the Senate majority leader, are Republicans.

Bouie went on to write that, despite this, "the most salient detail about Trump as an actual officeholder is that he is a Republican politician committed to the success of the Republican Party and its ideological vision."

The writer went on to provide some examples of Trump being " little more than a vehicle for the policy agenda of the most conservative Republicans, willing to sign whatever they might bring to his desk."

Bouie, as an example, referred to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

It's not a pro-Trump piece

As you may be able to see, Bouie is no supporter of Trump or Republicans. Overall, he is saying that the fact that Trump is a "normie Republican" is a bad thing.

He goes on, for example, to draw a parallel between the presidencies of George W. Bush and Trump.

He writes:

When George W. Bush left office in 2009, the United States was mired in two wars and the global economy was in free fall. When Donald Trump left office after his first term, the United States was mired in a deadly pandemic and its economy was recovering from a free fall. (And this is to say nothing of Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election in a desperate bid to stay in office.)

From this, Bouie concludes, "That’s two Republican presidencies over 20 years that ended in disaster. There is no reason to think that Trump’s second term will be the exception that breaks the rule."

Bouie, of course, overlooks any and all counterarguments, such as the fact that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between Trump's first term and the coronavirus disaster. What else would you expect from the Times?