Sometimes there are two choices in a given situation. The first is clearly the “right” decision, characterized just by evidence, clear criteria and an overarching acceptance. The second is perhaps not a justified choice based on distinct factors, but it certainly feels better to make. Perhaps there is not a perfectly right answer, but then again there never seems to be.
This deliberation most likely played out among the editorial staff of TIME, who deemed President-elect Donald Trump their Person of the Year Wednesday. Donald Trump joins the ranks of People of the Year like last year’s Angela Merkel, 1982’s The Computer and 1963’s Martin Luther King Jr. Adolf Hitler also graced the cover, in 1938.
Immediately, the declaration was met with backlash. Erin McCann, of The New York Times, referred to the event as an “annual marketing gimmick.” Fortune referenced Trump as the “brash billionaire who Americans voted into the Oval Office last month, despite the fact that he has never held public office.”
TIME, however, did not complacently place a demagogue on its cover. Subtle design hints, like a well-placed “M,” (which some said looked like devil horns) or not-so-subtle statements, like declaring the United States “divided” on the cover, showed their contempt for Trump.
Trump replied directly to the statement that the country is divided, telling Matt Lauer, “When you say divided states of America, I didn’t divide them. They’re divided now. I mean there’s a lot of division, and we’re going to put it back together and we’re going to have a country that’s very well healed.”
Despite Trump’s statements, the declaration and its greater ramifications for our nation left many uneasy. For many, particularly in media roles, the hurt of being “blamed” for “allowing” Trump to rise to power is still very fresh. Is this simply another instance of giving him the limelight he so ardently desires?
One consideration stemmed from the criteria TIME used to select Trump as the Person of the Year. TIME Editor-in-Chief Nancy Gibbs clarified in a TIME video that they choose “the individual who has had the most influence on events, for better or worse.”
“It’s hard to argue that anyone had more influence than Donald Trump over the events this year,” Gibbs said in the video.
Gibbs’ statement is not incorrect — Trump has dominated headlines throughout the year. Based on the criteria she specified, Trump should be Person of the Year. Yet, echoing the moral dilemma above, should he?
The criteria itself, perhaps, should be re-examined. Hitler held the title, as well as Joseph Stalin, who claimed it twice, once in 1939 and again in 1942. The title “Person of the Year” comes with a connotation of honorability, something like a role model or at least an admirable character to an extent. Neither Trump nor Stalin embody these ideals, which begs the question of, why? Tradition does mean something, but is it worth the propagation of preposterous policy? Perhaps TIME should not rethink its decision to declare Trump Person of the Year, but rather the criteria to which its editorial board adheres when selecting that individual.
Another fear stems from the normalization of Trump’s policies. By further thrusting him into the public gaze, are we normalizing his outlandish and marginalizing statements? The man will be president, but we should not stand for his proposed policies, which further divide an already divided nation. TIME was correct with that assessment.
Editorially, the decision was to give it to Trump. TIME’s editors likely put personal opinions aside to make this decision, following their solid and clearly stated criteria.
