True Believers

I read recently about a pro-Trump person who said this: “There is nothing you can say that will make me not vote for Trump.” That was her cheerful response when she was presented with a litany of the candidate’s misstatements, lies, and assorted idiocies She was doing what Trumpists do: Putting her hands over her ears and humming loudly when confronted with the facts. What these folks are hearing from Trump has nothing to do with facts and is coming to them over a different frequency, like a dog whistle. It has everything to do with the none-too-subtle permission he grants them to blame their problems and failures on others and to see themselves as victims. It also has to do with a you’re-not-the-boss-of-me streak of childish resentment and stubbornness which essentially says this: I’m doing what I’m doing not because I think it’s right but precisely because you don’t want me to. This is what we’re up against as we try to stop this man who would be king from smashing our democracy.

And then we have the Bernie Sanders true-believers, with their loose talk about “revolution” and their adolescent demonization of Hillary Clinton. It is not unreasonable to support the political candidacy of Sanders, an intelligent and experienced politician with a good heart, while still having reservations about the wisdom and/or viability of some of the things he advocates. It’s another thing entirely to obsess over him – to worship at his altar to the point of believing that his candidacy will save the country and another’s destroy it. Some Sanders supporters who express rabid antagonism for Clinton – a middle of the road, not-insane politician who comes from pretty much the same place on the political spectrum as Sanders – are now making noises about voting for Donald Trump if they don’t get their way. Down this path lies a what-was-I-thinking moment, as President Trump attempts to make good on his bizarre promises and nonsensical ideas 

For now, though, we have the empty-headed musings of the actress Susan Sarandon, in which she suggested that a lot of Sanders people would be unable to bring themselves to vote for Clinton and would vote for Trump instead, because Trump “will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in then things will really, you know, explode.” Here is New York Times columnist Charles Blow:

“What was Sarandon talking about with her coy language? ‘Bring the revolution’? Exactly what kind of revolution? ‘Explode’? Was the purpose to present this as a difficult but ultimately positive development? The comments smacked of petulance and privilege. No member of an American minority group — whether ethnic, racial, queer-identified, immigrant, refugee or poor — would (or should) assume the luxury of uttering such a imbecilic phrase, filled with lust for doom. Be absolutely clear: While there are meaningful differences between Clinton and Sanders, either would be a far better choice for president than any of the remaining Republican contenders, especially the demagogic real estate developer. Assisting or allowing his ascendance by electoral abstinence in order to force a ‘revolution’ is heretical. This position is dangerous, shortsighted and self-immolating. This is not a game. The presidency, particularly the next one, matters, and elections can be decided by relatively small margins. No president has won the popular vote by more than 10 percentage points since Ronald Reagan in 1984. There is no true equivalency between either of the Democratic candidates and this man, and anyone who make such a claim is engaging in a repugnant, dishonorable scare tactic not worth our respect.”

Note to Sanders fanatics/Clinton demonizers: You are way too far down in the weeds here. Take a breath and see the bigger picture.  You know the idea that Donald Trump would be better for the country than Hillary Clinton -- something a good many Republicans inexplicably continue to believe, or at least say they believe -- is ludicrous.  Shake it off.