Is there limit to what backers will accept?

I appreciate that the Daily Herald’s opinion page features views from conservative and liberal perspectives. Yes, my blood pressure boils when I read Veronique de Rugy (the lover of tax cuts and a laissez-faire economy) and, in my opinion, the politically biased conservative views of Bryon York and Debra Saunders. I have no doubt that Susan Estrich and others elicit the same reaction from some conservative readers.

What bothers me most about conservative commentators and letter writers is their blind-eye normalization of Trump. I have lived through Republican presidents with whom I disagreed on policy (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II), but I always felt that they acted, for the most part, in the best interest of the country (even Nixon), revered democracy (even Nixon), and understood the Constitution (even Nixon). I’ve stood by them when I thought they were wrong, most notably when Bush II decided to invade Iraq based, on what appeared to me at the time, bad intelligence or worse, false pretenses.

Trump, on the other hand, seems to have no knowledge of the Constitution and is most interested in self-enrichment. The concept of a working mixed economy benefiting all seems to allude him. The concept of living by the credo imprinted on the Statute of Liberty seems foreign to him. The concept of strength through benevolence and diplomacy seems beyond his comprehension. The concept of truth seems like a fleeting mirage to him.

I could detail all of Trump’s specific failings and transgressions, but I have no doubt such truths would fall on deaf ears of most conservatives and prompt ridiculous comparisons — Hunter’s laptop, DEI, woke, etc., — which begs the questions, why? Is there no limit to what you will accept in the name of policy? Is there something more rudiment or systemic behind your blind allegiance?

William Dean Bruno

Sugar Grove