April 5, New York Times: "Mr. Trump has dispensed with what he considers pointless moralizing and preachy naïveté. He has taken foreign policy to its most realpolitik moment in generations, playing down issues of human rights or democracy that animated his predecessors...."
Donald Trump is certainly no Henry Kissinger, a genuine practitioner of realpolitik.
But... the idea that the Times uses that word to contrast it to "what [Trump] considers pointless moralizing and preachy naïveté," may reflect the paper's own preachy naïveté. Who knows what Trump really thinks or believes. But in this case, isn't it realistic to say that Assad is not leaving anytime soon and that there isn't much the U.S. can do about it?
Does being the world's policeman bring with it a warrant for moral preaching, even moral bullying? Should he have bullied Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi about human rights or Chinese President Xi Jinping? If China proves effective in reining in North Korea's nuclear program won't that do more for human rights and life, than admonishing its leader about human rights abuses? Those aren't rhetorical question!