A few commentators recently criticized Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for his praise and recognition of the loyalty of his supporters:
“The polls … they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”
Most who have criticized this remark have also balked at its “connection” to gun violence. Trump even had the audacity to form his hands into the shape of a gun. Gasp! Just say “Gun!” to a liberal and watch them flinch, I guess.
But it’s not really Trump who deserves criticism for what he said, especially if it’s true. And I think it is true. And that makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Hillary Clinton is a criminal (for so many reasons) and will probably be indicted before the election starts. Yet her supporters still give her unwavering support.
Republicans look at that support with their jaws on the floor. Some ask, “How could Democrats still vote for Hillary Clinton? Just what would it take for Democrats to finally drop their support for Hillary Clinton?” It does boggle the mind to understand why voters still support Clinton despite all the evidence to the contrary.
But what about the tenacity of voters who support for Donald Trump? Just what would it take for voters to dump Trump? Is there basically nothing that could shake a voter’s trust in something or someone? If so, one has to wonder whether or not a voter’s trust is based in reason or in faith.
Decisions based on reason can change, if better reasons come along or the premises a person once held turn out to be false. But decisions based on faith are uncannily immoveable. And it seems almost incontrovertible that Trump supporters follow him by faith. They certainly have no tangible reason to justify their support as Trump has given almost no specific policy directives on nearly all issues. Those he has referenced, have had little coherence. “I’ll build a wall and make them pay for it” doesn’t count.
Furthermore, Trump has no elective political experience. Supporters love this because it equates to him not being part of the “Establishment.” But it also means that he has no voting record or legislative directive-related experiences. He has presented no evidence to suggest that he could actually accomplish political diplomacy, negotiation, legislative direction, and the like. But he has long expressed flip-flopping on policy issues.
In other words, Trump has presented no reason to justify a supporter having confidence in his political ability to be president. And this is where the old conservatives have failed.
The flat fact is that reason no longer plays any role in elections.
Very intelligent conservatives have given numerous reasons why Trump shouldn’t be the GOP candidate. But reason cannot unseat faith, as we’ve seen.
The question remains: is there absolutely nothing that would shake Trump supporters’ faith in him?