[On NPR, August 2016] I can't stomach Trump

[About Donald Trump:] Trump ended up governing very differently than he talked and maybe that was obvious to some people that got Trump, but it was not obvious to me who didn't get Trump in 2016. And so I'm certainly much less afraid of a Trump presidency than I was in 2016, because I understand the vast gulf between what he says and what he does. He talks in a stream of consciousness way and entertains ideas far crazier than what he would actually do. And it may be true that because he talks so crazy, I think the immune system of America reacts to him in a way that we react to no other president.

The problem is, I know Trump, so my optimism has been squashed like a baby bird … Everything bad I had to say about him, I said to his face. … I think he’s very good, very compelling on that show [Celebrity Apprentice] … I really like him because of his absence of filters. I really like the glimpse we get into the human heart we get when someone loses their filters … If he weren’t running for president, you’d be seeing essays from me about how much I learned from Donald Trump and how much I loved being on the show … I’m feeling so, so, so guilty, because I feel like, along with millions of other people, I played right into this. The cynicism of the Clintons, the careful, tightrope walk of all politicians, forced me, as an atheist, to get down on my knees and pray that someone would come along with some kind of authenticity … Well, someone called my bluff, goddamn it. … I’m a pure and utter peacenik. I want a president who sings the praises of people, sings the praises of peace and sings the praises of working together for a great country … Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t have laughed about waterboarding … If you told me right now I could have another eight years of Obama, I would not hesitate to grab at it. … He is unquestionably good and unquestionably smarter than I am, which is putting the bar pretty low. I want a president that is kinder, smarter and more measured than me.

How about the judgment, on 9/11, to keep reading to schoolchildren, when you are told, "The country is under attack"? I mean, talk about being non-partisan; how much of a partisan pretzel do you have to twist yourself into to work backwards to, "Yes, when a president is told the country is under attack, the proper thing to do is to freeze. To choke. To sit there like Forrest Gump." Really. That takes a lot of working backwards to that. ...I know Republicans pride themselves on being loyal, and they are, but loyal to what? To a person? Or to a principle? Because if you defend a president for sitting there for even one second after he's told "America is under attack", you are loyal to a person more than you are to the truth, to a principle, or to your country. If you defend that, you have drunk the Kool-Aid. You are part of a cult. Because any president of any party would have gotten up; Democrat, Republican, Whig -- doesn't matter. "President Van Buren, America is under attack." Would have gotten up. "President Reagan, America is under attack." Would have gotten up. FDR would have gotten up, he couldn't even get up!