Something To Think About . . .
All things being equal—an important phrase, since nothing has been equal since cable Fox news discovered steroids—MAGA voters would never support a candidate accused of the things Donald Trump is accused of. In a simpler century, such allegations would have caused a politician to fade politely into retirement, leaving behind a handwritten apology and a commemorative portrait no one would hang.
Imagine, if you will, the year 1999. Imagine George W. Bush credibly accused of attempting to overturn an election, or—worse—being a frequent guest in Jeffrey Epstein’s parlor of regrets. Imagine the Republican Party responding with its traditional virtues: shock, shame, and a brisk removal. If Al Gore had become president, the sun would have risen, America would have congratulated itself on how well it conducted democratic elections, and we would have also convinced ourselves that we are the model of the world.
It was a more serious time.
That is how politics used to work—when bad character was a disqualifier rather than a seasoning.
So why does it not work that way now?
Because something fundamental has changed, and it is not Trump. Trump is merely the weather vane, spinning enthusiastically. The change lies in the atmosphere. In the MAGA worldview, Democrats are no longer wrong. They are not even mistaken. They are portrayed as so corrupt, so dishonest, so existentially radioactive that any behavior by Donald Trump—ANY—becomes acceptable so long as it prevents Democrats from touching the levers of power.
Thus emerges the single governing principle of modern morality: Whatever keeps the other side out is righteous above all else. Hence, the country can elect Donald Trump.
Under this elegant ethical system, evidence is not weighed; however, it is always inspected for party affiliation. Testimony is not evaluated; it is triaged. If Jack Smith speaks under oath, the question is not what he said. But who would benefit if anyone believed it? If the answer, as it invariably is, “the Left,” the information is promptly escorted out the back door, blindfolded and gagged.
This requires constant attention and real effort.
Right-wing media must ignore, distort, discredit, and reframe—often simultaneously—because clean information is dangerous and unsafe. Clean information threatens the story. And the story is the house MAGA voters live inside. Remove it, and the roof collapses. The narrative must be controlled.
Inside this closed and sealed ecosystem, the most extreme ideas attributed to the far left are amplified until they stand in for the entire Democratic Party. Fringe becomes destiny. Hypotheticals become inevitabilities. Voting Democrat is no longer a disagreement; it is an apocalypse and the end of our civilization.
Here are a few examples (emphasis on few):
- Wokeness
- Critical Race Theory
- Pronoun Usage
- Universal Healthcare
- Academic Expertise
Being “woke” means noticing unfairness and wanting to do something about it.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an academic framework that examines how laws, institutions, and policies can create or maintain racial inequality, even without overtly racist intent. It is primarily taught in graduate-level university courses.
Pronoun usage is the practice of referring to people using the words (like he, she, they) that align with how they identify.
It inflames parts of the right because it’s framed as forced speech and cultural change, triggering fears about loss of tradition, authority, and control rather than the language itself.
The American right largely opposes universal healthcare because it clashes with three core beliefs:
1. Government skepticism – Universal healthcare requires a strong federal role, which conservatives see as inefficient, coercive, and prone to abuse.
2. Market ideology – They believe competition, not public systems, produces better outcomes, even when evidence suggests otherwise.
3. Moral framing – Healthcare is viewed as a personal responsibility, not a guaranteed right; making it universal is portrayed as rewarding “dependency” and subsidizing others’ choices.
Beneath all that is a deeper fear: once healthcare is treated as a right, the argument that markets should govern everything starts to unravel.
The right is cracking down on academic expertise because expert knowledge threatens political narratives built on identity, grievance, and certainty.
In brief:
Experts complicate simple stories. Research, data, and nuance undermine slogans and culture-war framing.
Universities challenge authority. Academic inquiry rewards evidence over hierarchy, which clashes with movements centered on loyalty and obedience.
Expert consensus limits power. Climate science, public health, economics, and history can constrain policy choices leaders want to make anyway.
Distrust is politically useful. Casting scholars as “elites” or “ideologues” turns factual disagreement into cultural warfare, rallying supporters against a common enemy.
At bottom, expertise is dangerous to movements that rely on belief over verification—so it’s easier to discredit the messenger than to argue with the evidence.
These concepts are not even fully understood by the MAGA many. These concepts are distorted and twisted out of anything that could be considered, even for a moment, as good.
Why This Matters
In right-wing media ecosystems, these ideas are frequently fused together, so supporting any one of them is framed as endorsing all of them. Moderation disappears. Nuance collapses. Once that happens, the “far left” becomes a symbolic enemy, not a policy opponent.
Once that framing is installed, Trump’s conduct, though terrible, can never be decisive in an election. Compared to the invented horrors awaiting under Democratic rule, attempted coups become clerical errors. Associations become smears. Crimes become “optics.”
I have friends who live here. They are sick and tired of Trump. They won’t mourn him when he’s gone. But they are also certain they will never vote Democrat—not because Trump’s behavior doesn’t bother them, but because the alternative has been rendered unthinkable and critically dangerous.
This is the genius of the system. It converts exhaustion into loyalty and doubt into discipline. It teaches that admitting you were misled is more humiliating than embracing the lie with vigor.
So no, this isn’t about Trump anymore.
It’s about what happens to a democracy when one side lives inside a fortified narrative, and the other keeps showing up with facts, like a person knocking politely on a door that no longer opens.
Until that asymmetry is addressed, the spell holds. And morality and decency, having been deemed inconvenient, are asked to wait outside.
How long must they wait?
