One of the most common defenses I hear from Trump supporters—especially those who do not identify as hardcore MAGA—is this:
“I don’t like everything about him, but I agree with some of his stuff.”
At one time, that argument might have carried weight. It does not anymore.
Trump is old, exhausted, and increasingly irrelevant. His ideology was tired and anachronistic before he even began. What remains is not leadership, but the attempt to dance around an obvious reality: his toxicity, and his supporters’ insistence on retaining him at any cost, so long as that cost is borne by others.
That bargain was always unsustainable. Power built on grievance and loyalty eventually turns inward. As we are now seeing, many of those who believed they were exempt are discovering they are not. They, too, are being harmed by the system they defended.
This outcome was predictable. It was inevitable.
That is how autocracy works.
In ordinary democratic politics, partial agreement is often sufficient. Voters regularly support candidates whose policies they only partially endorse. That is the nature of compromise in a pluralistic system.
But that logic collapses when the central issue is no longer policy, but the survival of democratic norms themselves.
Policy Disagreements vs. Systemic Threats
Disagreements over taxes, regulation, immigration levels, or foreign policy priorities are normal and healthy in a democracy. They presume a shared commitment to the system in which those disagreements are resolved.
Trump is no longer controversial primarily because of policy positions. He is controversial because he has repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of elections, attacked the independence of courts and the press, demanded personal loyalty over institutional loyalty, and normalized the idea that power should not be constrained by law when it conflicts with his interests.
When those are the defining characteristics of a political figure, “agreeing with some of his stuff” becomes irrelevant.
We do not excuse a structural threat by citing selective alignment. No one would seriously argue that Watergate was acceptable because they liked some of Nixon’s policies. Some actions disqualify the framework itself.
Vagueness Is Not Neutrality
“I agree with some of his stuff” is also a deliberately vague phrase.
It avoids specificity. It avoids accountability. It avoids weighing benefits against costs. When pressed, it often dissolves into grievances, cultural resentment, or a desire to punish perceived enemies rather than articulate concrete policy goals.
That is not a policy argument. It is an emotional alignment.
Vagueness in this context is not moderation. It is evasion.
In a Democracy, Means Matter as Much as Ends
A constitutional democracy is defined not only by outcomes, but by how power is exercised.
When someone says they like the results but are willing to overlook the methods, they are implicitly rejecting the constraints that protect everyone, including themselves. Rule of law, independent institutions, and peaceful transfers of power are not inconveniences to be bypassed when they become frustrating. They are the system.
Tolerating anti-democratic means in exchange for preferred outcomes is not pragmatism. It is instrumental authoritarianism.
Democracies do not survive that bargain.
This Argument Had an Expiration Date
There was a brief period early on when one could plausibly claim policy agreement while assuming democratic guardrails would hold.
That window closed when election outcomes were rejected, courts were attacked as illegitimate, political violence was rhetorically normalized, and loyalty to one individual was elevated above loyalty to the Constitution.
After that point, continued support ceased to be ambiguous.
Repeating “I agree with some of his stuff” now is not a sign of nuance. It is a refusal to grapple with what has become unmistakably clear.
Responsibility Follows Foreseeability
Supporters are not responsible for everything a leader does. They are responsible for what they knowingly enable.
Once a pattern of behavior is established, continued support implies acceptance of foreseeable consequences. That is a basic ethical principle, not a partisan one.
At this stage, no one can reasonably claim ignorance of what Trump represents or how he governs.
“I agree with some of his stuff” is not a serious argument when the question is whether democratic norms, constitutional limits, and the rule of law are optional.
At this point, the statement does not function as justification. It functions as avoidance.
The American experiment depends on the idea that no leader is above the system, and no grievance justifies dismantling it. If that commitment is negotiable, then democracy itself is already being traded away.
And then there's his Chief of Staff's comments about him...
White House chief of staff Susie Wiles may have given up the game
Donald Trump is not a good guy. So what does that say about those who support and love him?
Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!
No comments:
Post a Comment