The Burkean Conservative, respectfully, got this one wrong. Notwithstanding, we are far closer than the substantial majority of political pundits in contemporary society.
President Trump was not elected as a hitman per se. The reasons for one’s political views or votes goes much deeper. Studies have shown that people tend to vote against something as opposed to for it. Additionally, people tend to vote for those that will tell the truth; or, who is “genuine.” This holds true even when the official has been caught in a lie. For example, Bill Clinton lied often about personal topics including the use of marijuana during his time at Oxford. Obama miraculously twisted language to the end of blatant lies, like the gender pay gap and the state of America in foreign affairs. What really strikes people as crossing a red-line is when the office is either used for personal gain; or when those, within the same faction, do not follow through on promises (i.e. the GOP establishment and spending) President Trump challenged the status quo of politics, like our Founders did in their time, because the actions that have been taken almost have never matched the rhetoric that got officials elected. He basically ran on saying, ‘I am tired of the inaction and false promises.’
President Trump can make myriad lies on one speech (or hyperbolic exaggerations) and actually grow in support as new studies have shown, because the consequences remained consistent and true to the intelligentsia of our particular faction. Now, things are intimately more complicated when it comes to governance (he could not have done anything without a GOP Congress). But, notwithstanding, the effects of his actions remain true. He said he would cut taxes, and taxes were cut. He said he would make China renegotiate on trade deals, and China has announced repeatedly that they are now open to negotiations with the President. He said North Korea would be tamed, and what we are seeing is as much progress as ever before. CNN had a very biased segment where they asked evangelicals how they could support him and said it was hypocrisy! That is not how logic works. The group of women correctly asserted “[he] was not their preacher.” If you look to the President for moral authority and guidance, then it would appear that, that particular individual is lacking both within themselves. It seems, to me, as an outsider of the evangelical circle, that the faction that supports the President, which is continuing to grow, can pierce through that illogic and see that actions at that level ought to matter more than just rhetoric. This is not to say that rhetoric doesn’t matter—it does. But, rhetoric good or bad ought not be the sufficient conditional that drives American’s decisions.
The Framers of the Constitution and Founders of the nation did not necessarily live moral lives: Ben Franklin was a womanizer; Thomas Jefferson fathered an illegitimate child; Alexander Hamilton looked down on the lower classes of people; James Madison was known for being cowardly at times and sticking to studies and argumentation; and, all were slaveholders. Okay? Therefore, in all cases whatsoever, they were not men of immense reading across disciplines and the benefits they wrought were for not? No. One must extrapolate the good, criticize the bad, and weigh the totality of the evidence. It seems this is where those that support the President (which the numbers have grown exponentially) are at even if it is unwittingly. Say that the President sleeps around. Okay? Black unemployment is the lowest it has ever been. Say he lies in speeches or misrepresents the “truth.” Okay? Obama traded five terrorists for one traitor, and the current President caught five leaders of IS and secured the return of three North Korean prisoners. Say he is a demagogue. Okay? Show me a politician that is not one. Moreover, show me a politician save for the President that would say anything to garnish as many votes as possible and then enact policies contrary to the rhetoric that garnished said votes. That would be lying as well. Its important to keep in mind the actual issues that bother the individuals.
The Enlightenment is predicated on principles and knowledge across the spectrum: science, morality, and reason. For example, is it more moral to elect one with benign rhetoric even though unemployment will remain constant or even rise; or, is it more moral to elect one who actually moves to lift people out of poverty and reassert the sovereignty of the polity? That type of inquiry, logical reasoning, and balancing is far more representative of the Enlightenment than just one of those principled elements (morality). This understanding better explains, to me, what some are calling a phenomenon. I cannot point to a campaign promise that the President has not fulfilled. When the President calls MS-13 animals and the mainstream media and almost all liberals impute their lies by twisting language and saying he was talking about all immigrants, that is the real miscarriage of truth and which leads to the appeal of the President. It seems evident that the actionable truth is more important than rather or not he lied about something superficial, and I think many are beginning to see that.