They call it Trump Derangement Syndrome now, but it's not new. Partisanship has long resulted in irrational criticism, and I have my own theory why. I may even explain it somewhat in this rambling post.
First things first: I am not a Trump fan. Not at all. Nothing I write here should be taken as a defense of the Republican party or a hagiography of Il Douche. The guy is a busybody control freak, and an expert in things that are wrong. I do not like him.
His critics miss the mark in their eagerness to tear him down and discredit his actions, too. Bad criticism of someone I oppose is not helpful to the cause of truth and liberty. And it results in me being placed in the awkward position of defending Trump against his detractors.
Remember when Obama campaigned on a peace platform, and then went full warmonger? The Democrats suddenly forgot to care about brown people being bombed. Their guy was in power, so principle had to give way to political pragmatism. Prominent Democrats actually joined in the fevered predictions of doom when Trump pitched military withdrawal from Syria following Obama's policy of intervention there. Meanwhile, the Republicans couldn't really argue against Obama's militarism, so a lot of right-wingers went with the Kenyan Birth Certificate story, the "Michelle is really a man" argument, and other similar pointless criticisms to maintain a semblance of opposition.
Similarly, Democrats say Republicans are bad for building a wall now, but Bill Clinton's border construction drive was A-OK a couple decades back. Trump's immigration policy is bad now, but it was fine when Obama did it a few years ago. It's purely "Orange Man Bad," not moral outrage from a consistent worldview of peace and equality. I suspect the reason their arguments fall flat is their religious faith in the legitimacy of the State, combined with some disagreement over how its illegitimate power should be wielded, and a lot of adherence to party labels.
No one wants to ask whether government should be involved at all in a given issue. Maybe they know deep down that the answer is always, "no," and fear it would lead to the philosophical realization of anarchism, but maybe the reason is shallower than that. Maybe instead they feel a need for tribalism more deeply than they feel a need for virtue. After all, we see people riot over the outcomes of sporting events. In politics, a game in which the populace has equally little influence, a party win gives a sense of power through the democracy. The stakes are higher than in a ball game, and the spectators get a vicarious feeling of victory and accomplishment that actually influences people for better or worse (usually worse) in their daily lives, not just in numbers on a scoreboard.
And this is where TDS ties in. Because government is seen as a partisan zero-sum game, and people are emotionally invested in party over principle, if the other team accomplishes something, it is seen as a loss, or even an outright insult. If the other party is doing something, my party hasn't scored its objective, even if the objectives are largely the same. And when the figurehead for the other party is as polarizing as Trump, it reaches a fever pitch as people slide right past substantive issues to complain about irrelevant things, or even twist reality top fit their skewed hatred.
And this is the most frustrating point for those of us who oppose Trump. Consider Episode 205 of the Contra Krugman podcast, where Paul Krugman's accusations against Trump were dissected by people who also oppose Trump. People are so filled with impotent, irrational rage that they need to lie about what Trump actually said, and they twist what they would otherwise see as an obvious anti-trust case into proof that Trump is somehow a bad guy again for enforcing laws they normally support because in this instance they agree with the corporate actions in question.
It's a crazy world, and all we can do is laugh at the idiots, or go insane trying to keep up with their idiocy. Hopefully I somehow managed to edit this word vomit into something coherent.
