If you've ever watched the Golf Channel (I know, I know), you may have seen the occasional interview with Jack Nicklaus. He comes across as the epitome of homespun, genteel, aw-shucks decency. When, in 2016, he said he supported Trump, I started wondering whether Nicklaus could be as decent as he seems. Nicklaus announced today that he voted for Donald Trump once again.
But perhaps decency or its lack is not the point.
Most of us who are anti-trump see his insults, personal morality, lies, and encouragement of violence as such outlying misbehavior that we can't believe that Trump supporters dismiss them. They have told me that they don't see Trump's behavior as out of the ordinary compared to other politicians.
This is an interesting phenomenon. Now, I will admit that anyone from anywhere on the political spectrum will inflate his opponents' shortcomings to a degree, and will similarly inflate his own candidates' good points. Personally, though, I think there is a limit beyond which anyone should go to defend the behavior of someone who shares his ideology.
The problem comes when a person is so wedded to a worldview that he or she is impervious to even the most massive evidence against a politician who seems to share their outlook.
In an argument with an acquaintance, when all of my statements about Trump's absolute lack of character were denied, I figured that nobody could argue with a list of Trump's own vile quotes. So I listed some of them. I included his denial of John McCain's heroism, his referring to Megan Kelly's menstrual blood, his many negative comments about various women's personal appearance, his promises to pay the legal fees of anyone at his rally who would rough up a protester, etc.
The person I was arguing with told me it was foolish to quote the candidates, because she could quote other candidates whose statements would refute my argument. Never mind that no other candidate or politician says anything nearly as awful as what Trump says. Trump, to me, is in another universe.
I started to wonder about my own perceptions at that point! Perhaps the folks she's used to in her own local political experience really do talk like that. So I said, "Well, maybe things are different in Texas."
Well, my acquaintance's reaction to that proved one thing to me: she knew an insult when she saw one. She claimed that such a comment was beneath me... or perhaps not.
So, after all that, I come to my point about decent folks who support this most indecent of candidates: they are apparently immune to any evidence that attacks their hero. I have come to believe that some people feel the need to defend anyone who seems to support their ideology, no matter how odious the person is. The worldview must be defended at all costs. Now, this makes me think, actually, that the person's worldview is fragile, so the walls surrounding it must be impenetrable. Nothing must get in.
I like to think that my tendency to give my liberal compatriots a break has a limit, and that I could not defend a Democrat who behaved like Donald Trump. I do not believe that Trump's lack of character alone is a threat to conservative ideas. They must stand or fall on their own. Politicians' misdeeds say something about the men and women themselves; they do not bring down the entire edifice of the ideology they support.
One doesn't have to support Donald Trump to be true to conservatism. Ask any Never Trumper.
