A New Talking Point From the Pro-Trump Fringe

[dajoki]

A New Talking Point From the Pro-Trump Fringe
A new line of punditry is bubbling up among the president’s followers online: It was a positive thing that the Russians hacked the 2016 election.
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/565592/?__twitter_impression=true

<<snip>>

Trump has benefitted enormously throughout his political rise from the efficiency with which his supporters circulate talking points that excuse his bad behavior, or neutralize his latest scandal, or explain away the discrepancies in his ever-shifting rhetoric. Sometimes, these talking points originate with the president himself, his early-morning Twitter rants doubling as messaging memos to the #MAGA army. Other times, they filter down from high-profile talking heads such as Sean Hannity or the hosts of Fox & Friends. Often, though, they are beta tested at the fringes, where the ideas seem outlandish and troll-y at first, before becoming more widely adopted once circumstances dictate.

Skimming #MAGA Twitter, it’s easy to see the outlines of the pro-Russian-meddling argument emerging: America interferes in other countries’ elections, so it can’t be that bad; exposing Democrats’ hacked emails was a victory for transparency; keeping Clinton out of office was so urgent and important that it warranted some foreign intervention.

If it seems farfetched that serious people would deploy such an argument, consider the Trump apologists’ trajectory up to this point in the Russia saga. When the term collusion first entered the political conversation in the wake of the 2016 election, the initial response was to dismiss the idea outright. It was popular in Washington for Republicans to crack jokes about how Trump’s disorganized campaign “couldn’t even collude with itself,” let alone a foreign government.

But as evidence of communication with Russia mounted in the months that followed, Trump’s allies were forced to pivot repeatedly. They argued that the president hadn’t broken any laws; that any candidate in his position would have done the same thing; that Clinton would have lost regardless of Russia’s interference, so the whole point is moot.

Given this pattern of deflection and rationalization, is it really so implausible that a significant segment of Trump backers might complete the journey from denying Russian meddling to celebrating it? Already, GOP voters’ attitudes toward Russia have warmed considerably in the years since the then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney identified the country as America’s top geopolitical foe. According to Gallop, the percentage of Republicans who view Russia as “friendly” or an “ally” has doubled since 2014—from 22 percent to 40 percent.

<<snip>>

[dawg day]

1. To love Trump, they will end up hating America

In the end, all they want is Trump. They're willing to support him in anything, to call enemies allies and allies enemies, to alienate their own children, to endanger babies, to turn our country over to Trump's buddy Putin... all to bolster him.

They will have to hate everything about our country-- freedom of the press, freedom of speech, openness, diversity, national parks, the FBI, football, culture, music, lots of different types of restaurants!, equality-- because Trump is against them all.

I really don't understand it. Beyond his pernicious views, he's an unpleasant, smug, nasty, and unfriendly person. What is it they see in him which is worth hating everything he hates, including their friends and neighbors?

I really think they must be seeing their own "Id", or their own inner twisted conflicts. He's the embodiment of that. Not "our better selves," but "our worst selves".