Inside The Mind Of A Trump Defender

I had dinner with my mother last night. She’s an otherwise highly educated person, extremely well-versed in history and literature  (fiction and non-fiction) and a former teacher of both. I got my gift of gab and fanatical grammar policing tendencies clearly from her. Although I think I just made a grammatical error. It’s in that last sentence somewhere. I think I misplaced “clearly.” Whatever. She’ll no doubt point it out in the comments. She once was a “Teddy Roosevelt” Republican. Our esteemed Co-blogger Rodney would love a long chit chat with her about him. She only owns something like five biographies of the man. And yes, you guessed it, my name is Theodore. After him. I italicized “once” because that is no longer what she is. Now she’s nothing more than a dittohead.

I mean no disrespect. Wait, yes I do. A long time ago I remember a very independent thinking woman, who got her ideas on politics from life experience, and a conservative upbringing.  Now I only hear the mouth of Rush. A Republican president is “elected”. A democratic one “got in there” (code for an illegitimate presidency). It’s no longer the Democratic party. It’s the Democrat party  (haha. My phone wouldn’t put up “party” as an option after the word “democrat”. Even it knows that’s incorrect.)

So I began asking her opinion on Trump’s outright fascist proposals. I immediately got a “yeah, but Clinton did it too!” defense. Apparently, according to her, and thus according to Rush, during the Clinton administration while the Democratic party controlled both houses they passed a law granting the president the authority to ban certain “groups” from entry to the US. Now it’s most likely that if this is true, and was ever challenged through the courts, SCOTUS would likely swat this down as unconstitutional after only a couple hours of debate. I pointed this out and her response was, “but it was already a law!” I’m not sure where her knowledge of how our government works went at just that moment, but it had left her brain. I also pointed out that Clinton never did any such thing, and that Trump promises to, but the debate fizzled out instantly.

This is the only defense of Trump’s fascism I’ve yet heard, and it’s like the bark of a dying dog. It knows the ideas are absolutely, unequivocally indefensible, yet it barks softly, embarrassingly. I brought up the Dark Lord Cheney’s condemnation of the new American fascism, and all I got was a “well of course the establishment doesn’t agree”. That’s it folks. A “Bill could’ve done it!” (based on Rush information, so, unreliable), and a “of course the establishment wants him out of the race”. There simply was, is no, nor should there ever be a rational, intellectual defense of fascism. Fascism is unfortunately an inherent political reaction to fear. It is comprised of scapegoating, persecution of the scapegoated, and usually a charismatic narcissist leader who vows that faith in their personality alone will deliver the fearful masses from what frightens them. Let’s hope the American people are wise enough to see through this wannabe monster and reject it. But betting on American wisdom is usually a losing gamble.

Oh, hi mom! I love you! 😉


Skip to toolbar