Well the wild-eyed, locust-eating, cave-dwelling Trump supporters are at it again. They have previously ignored the positions that their candidate has taken that do not fit their wishful thinking about him. On every issue, from amnesty to xenophobia, Trump supporters seem not so concerned about the position their candidate takes, but how loudly he takes it. And their only reasons for supporting the billionaire real estate developer seems to be his money and his mouth. The former, in their opinion, makes him somehow more saintly than other candidates, the latter makes him somehow more authentic. This would be all fine and good if they allowed for the same from his detractors.
The recent dust-up among Trump supporters over National Review's symposium issue, Against Trump, is illustrative of the complete hypocrisy endemic in support for The Donald. It appears from the stand point of Trump supporters that their candidate is the only one who is allowed to speak his mind and have an opinion. Those who would pierce the thin vale of reality that surrounds his candidacy are persona non grata in the opinion of the robotic crowds that slavishly follow Mr. Trump from campaign stop to campaign stop.
I can not say that I have never seen anything similar in American politics to the disconnect between Donald Trump's supporters and the reality of the man himself. I saw the same devotion to an empty slate in 2008 as it applied to Barack Obama. In both cases the votaries of these two candidates are supporting what they hoped their candidate would be, and not what they actually are. They wish so hard for a savior that they attach that label to a man who plies the electorate with platitudes and manipulates the emotions of the malleable. After all, emotions are a very powerful force in the human, much more powerful than the intellect.
And so it is the emotions-over-intellect syndrome that causes Mr. Trump's supporters to demonize National Review's contributors for having a different opinion. And it is the emotion-over-intellect syndrome that causes otherwise smart people to twist themselves into pretzels when asked to explain their support for Donald Trump. The emotional argument that he would be better than Hillary, not necessarily the best candidate. Or the emotional argument that he does not need specifics because he will "figure it out" when he gets into the Oval Office. Or the emotional argument that he is somehow beyond corruption because he is self-funding.
But the most detrimental and most emotional outburst is the one that aims to shut down the free speech of those who would dare oppose The Donald. Instead of dealing with the substance of the National Review's contributors, the Trump supporters react like snarling dogs protecting the fenced-in area of their candidate's fragile and vapid candidacy.