Did that “golden idol” analogy come before they built a literal golden idol of him at CPAC?

@divibisan: Well, I'd thought about it before, myself, but I prefer the 'nationalism' rubric to the 'religious cult' rubric: it's more abstract, but less in-your-face. But there are a couple of people publicly using the analogy after the Golden Trump statue at CPAC, and it really does fit the context well, so I thought WTH...

+1 Having been raised in that environment, I can say quite confidently that there is a good/ evil binary on the right (especially amongst Evangelicals) that is applied to everything, no middle ground. This frame of mind is easily used by leaders (political or otherwise) on the right to convince their constituents of the need for political “saviors” when the “evil” left wins any social/economic/political/moral battle. This dynamic absolutely existed before Trump; Trump just did a competent job of leveraging it for his own benefit.

This "burden of shame" is, I think, a big deal, essentially for all of us. The West is in an identity crisis. Much of what we think we are is not quite right, and our past is often quite unappetizing. (That has been clear for Germans since Hitler but less clear for Americans.)

As a non-American spectator, this seems like the correct answer. I mean, 99% of all news I heard, both online (reddit etc.) but also in classic paper news channels, were mostly about his emotional shenanigans, his personal utterances, the unfathomable disbelief about how that was possible, etc.. Even thinking hard about it, I could not point to very many news-worthy factual items from his period. So by Occam's Razor, it is likely that the people who are with him are so because of that which we heard most often; i.e. emotional reasons (including mass-emotional).

@AnoE Just because the news didn't talk about his accomplishments doesn't mean they didn't happen.

@Ryan_L: Ah, c'mon man... Even looking at the (best-foot-forward) Trump Accomplishments page, Trump's administration was weak. T took credit for a lot of long-term economic growth that came out of Obama's term; he cut a lot of regulation without much regard for consequences; and his international actions were more or less uniformly flubs. I could respect him for doing something I dislike well, but he did them poorly, so that he mostly spread instability and confusion.

@TedWrigley No new wars, winding down old wars, and mediating 4 new peace deals are "flubs"?

@Ryan_L: Trump didn't try to wind down our foreign wars until (literally) his last couple months as president, and he did it is an abrupt, ill-considered, and half-a$$ed fashion. Trump didn't really have much of a hand in those peace deals (which also occurred in the last couple of months of Trump's term), but I"m happy to give him some credit for them. but seriously, i'm supposed to give Trump credit for not starting new wars? This isn't a toilet training situation, where we applaud someone for not pooping in their pants...

@TedWrigley Considering every president in remotely recent memory has started or escalated a war, I'd say not doing that is a pretty big achievement.

@JamesH Are you certain that you aren't injecting YOUR biases into your evaluation of the answer?

@JamesH: If you see something factually incorrect in what I wrote, then by all means point it out so we can discuss it. But your argument boils down to an assertion that I must have some intense bias against Trump, and that is both insulting and irrelevant. This isn't about my feelings for Trump or yours; this is about the social dynamic that exists between Trump, his supporters, and the GOP. I dislike Trump; you are infatuated with him; we can honestly and reasonably have that disagreement. But as adults we are not blinded to facts and reason by our emotions, correct?

@Ryan_L: Again, I'm not inclined to give Trump a lollipop for not f__king things up worse than he did. You have the urge to set the bar as low as necessary so that Trump can clear it, but you know as well as I do that Trump is going to enter the history books as one of the five worst US Presidents (if not the absolute worst), and that it will be an accurate assessment of his accomplishments. I'm glad that Trump accomplished something positive in his term, but that's weak tea at best, and thoroughly overshadowed by the bad he fostered.

@Ryan_L And what do you consider Trump's actions toward Iran?

@TedWrigley Oh I agree he'll be in the history books as the worst president ever, but it won't be fair. Why would anyone be surprised that books written by and for academics who hate Trump would say nothing good about him?

@Ryan_L: Because (as I already said to JamesH) adults do not allow emotions to blind them to facts and reason, and the vast majority of academics are professionals who act as adults. This whole 'victim' meme — everybody hates Trump, so Trump can't get fair treatment — is just part of that pseudo-religious mindset. Christ was murdered on the cross to save the souls of believers; Trump is pilloried in the press for the salvation of his followers; blind faith is the only righteousness, so turn thine eyes and cover thine ears from all but the word of thy lord and savior, amen.

@Ryan_L: All that your accusations of 'hatred' tell me is that you are infatuated, and ready to strike out at anyone who casts doubt on the object of your affections. I can't blame you for that — the heart wants what the heart wants — but I have top advise you that infatuation has a seriously dark side. More violence comes from infatuation than practically any other cause in the world...

@TedWrigley It's hard to not see hatred when you have "respected" news sources saying like Trump re-raising the flag on August 8th is a dogwhistle to neo-nazis. That's Pizza-gate tier nonsense, and yet it was on national TV. thehill.com/homenews/media/… I don't think Trump was perfect; he did nothing about big-tech monopolies, he hired John Bolton, he didn't pardon Assange or Snowden. But compared to all the other presidents of my lifetime he did great. But that's comparing a C+ to an F basically.

@JSLavertu: I'm aware of my bias. I voted for Trump, but not because he is my "Golden Idol" nor is there any "burden of shame" that I require Trump to "save [me] from" due to my sense of "victimization" over "grievence culture". Those are a bunch of loaded phrases, showcasing the answer's bias, as it attempts to explain Trump's support in a highly condescending towards any Trump supporter/voter, assuming they are irrational or fleeting.

@JamesH Perhaps YOU didn't, but it's trivial to see that it definitively applies to a lof of his supporters.

@Ryan_L: I'd agree that Aug. 8 thing is probably nonsense. There're are hyper-vigilant people on all sides willing to take innocent gaffes out of context. But you know, I can count on one hand the number of gaffes of that Obama got caught up in (gaffes the conservative media made great hay over, so you know what I mean). But I've lost count over the number of times Trump has made a gaffe, slip of the tongue, public statement, or what you will that came across as supportive of white nationalists. there were dozens, if not hundreds, over his four year term.

@Ryan_L: How many times does Trump get to say "Oh, I didn't mean that." before we give in and accept that that was exactly what he meant? Does he get a mulligan on the same mistake 3 times, or 5, or 10, or 50? At what point do we get to say: "that aint no mistake"? I mean, unless you want to argue that Trump is cognitively disabled and incapable of controlling this behavior, sooner or later you have to see that he does not want to change the behavior, and that a good number of these paeans to White Supremacism are intentional, if not out of deeply-held belief then as a tool to PO libs.

@TedWrigley Trump can explicitly denounce white supremacy at least 38 times, youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc&feature=emb_title but you expect me to believe the pizzagate tier dogwhistle claims?

@Ryan_L: Words are easy, actions are clear. I can say I'm not a space-alien as many times as I like, but if I keep probing people you'd be a fool to believe me. Yes, Trump denounced white supremacy and claimed he's not a racist any number of times. That's fine. But when push comes to shove, Trump always asserted that the people marching for white supremacy were 'good people', while the people marching for BLM were terrorists and thugs. When white people do bad things, Trump gave them carefully neutral sympathy; when minorities do bad things, Trump called for violent police suppression.

@Ryan_L: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Try to fool me a hundred times... pfffft. You may have Trump's hook way down your own gullet, but stop trying to feed the line to others.

@JSLavertu "It's trivial to see [it applies to] his supporters" - That mentality gives me license to say that all BLM supporters are violent criminals willing to vandalize and steal seemingly without purpose - because it's trivial to see some abused the movement that way. I hope you see the absurdity in that... and actually talk to people with differing views instead of knowing them through media portrayals.

@TedWrigley When exactly did Trump say people who were marching for white supremacy were 'good people'? Do you mean the Charlottesville thing where he immediately followed it with "And I'm not talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally"?

@Ryan_L: That, among other numerous other times, and I'm not denying that he made the qualification. But again, that's just words. Name one rally by a white group that Trump disparaged as anarchy, terrorism, or suggest should be dealt with by precipitous militarized action. He didn't even overtly condemn the insurrectionists at the capital (calling them beautiful people whom he loved). Name one minority rally where he didn't do that. Name a time when Trump rejected or condemned a white supremacist group that endorsed him or claimed him as their leader.

@TedWrigley to your point on being factually incorrect, you haven't shown any of your answer to be factually correct, and provide no sources. You've spoken what a majority of this forum's population believe, and so are rewarded with upvotes seemingly making your statements more valid - personally I disagree with very little of what you've said, although your bias is apparent. I do think the entire last paragraph is more personal thoughts & opinions on Republicans than anything useful for the answer though. I'd give a +1 without it there. (could do without the 2nd paragraph as well, really)

@Ryan_L: Now, I'm open to the possibility that this was purely Trump's brand of narcissistic politics: he lionized people who gave him their loyalty and condemned people who opposed him, and it just so happened that a ton of white supremacists pledged themselves to Trump while a ton of minorities rejected him. But is that really better than the other idea?

@TedWrigley Which group didn't he denounce that he should have? He denounced the Proud Boys, he denounced the KKK, who did he miss?

@TCooper: Just because I haven't provided 'sources' doesn't mean what I said isn't true: the facts are in evidence. Even with respect to the last paragraph, Trump persistently used the rhetoric that his supporters were the 'greatest' people, and that everyone from journalists to scientists to academics were lying if they said anything that contradicted that. The religious ideation is a metaphorical way of understanding the dynamic — it isn't right or wrong, but merely an approach to the subject — but the underlying behavior is self-evident to anyone who bothers to look.

@TedWrigley Then I'll say to what I said to JSLavertu... That mentality gives me license to say that all BLM supporters are violent criminals willing to vandalize and steal seemingly without purpose - because it's trivial to see some abused the movement that way. I hope you see the absurdity in that... and actually talk to people with differing views instead of knowing them through media portrayals. You shouldn't assume almost half of the US population fits into some cookie cutter description of an emotionally unstable country bumpkin that can't hold a job outside manufacturing.

@Ryan_L: It's not about who he did or did not denounce; it's about the actions he took with respect to particular groups, actions which were exceedingly different depending on whether he was looking at a white group or a minority group. And by the way, he didn't denounce the Proud Boys. Even under pressure, the best he managed was 'stand back and stand by'. Unless I missed something, that it, but as best I know Proud Boys were still fair-haired up to and through the insurrection.

@TCooper: If you were to say that — which you are perfectly entitled to do, should you choose — I would counter with the obvious observations that most BLM protests were peaceful marches marred by looting at the fringes. That's easily documented by a quick google search. You make a claim, I dispute it with evidence, you counter that: that's how an argument works. Now I've made a claim; if you dislike it, counter it with evidence, don't moan about my sourcing.

@TedWrigley "Name a time when Trump rejected or condemned a white supremacist group that endorsed him." Your own words. So it IS about who he did or did not denounce. And here is Trump's exact words denouncing the Proud Boys "“I condemn all white supremacists, I condemn the Proud Boys. I don’t know much about the Proud Boys but I condemn that,”".

@TedWrigley I assumed you'd see the obvious analogy given your great analogy with the horse/trampling... I've personally met more die-hard trump supporters that are nothing like your description, than met those that are even close to your description. So I can say with certainty you're claim that it's Trump's entire base is off-base - I think what you've missed is he didn't just capture one movement, but several, and you describe one, relatively fringe, movement as the entirety of his supporters. I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to improve the answer so I can feel good giving it a +1

@Ryan_L: and yet...

@TCooper: The analogy is flawed, or maybe not flawed, so much as we seemed to be talking about different things. There are two separate points here. (1) If you think I've said something erroneous, it's up to you to point it out, because I am generally quite careful about facts. I'll hear what you have to say, and change my mind if you present facts I wasn't aware of, but I don't feel the need to defend my view against people who claim I'm unfactual without evidence. That's a pointless and hopeless exercise.

@TCooper: (2) every group has a core and a periphery, and it's important to see where each one lies. The BLM core group is people who believe (with reasonable evidence) that there is great racial disparity in policing, and are vocal but peaceful in protesting it. The periphery has certain elements that are violent (looters and anarchists and such) but the core doesn't have much to do with them. Trumpism is reversed: the core is conspiracy theorists with violent, rebellious tendencies — that's who Trump speaks to — while the periphery contains more or less 'normal' conservatives.

@TCooper: Do you disagree?

@TedWrigley Yes, I disagree entirely. Not on the BLM groups - I think you hit that nail on the head - but as far as Trump supporters, you're describing the same periphery of BLM you so clearly see as periphery as their core. I know highly educated people in CA, IL, NC, and VA who voted Trump that when asked why will simply say "taxes" - they think he's a clown, but he has their support. Whether Trump plays into that periphery... I won't touch. But I think we'd be a lot worse off if roughly half the US consisted of mainly conspiracy theorists with violent, rebellious tendencies.

@TedWrigley: BLM, Inc has a board member that was part of a revolutionary group that bombed terrorist builds (per Snopes fact check). Using your same logic you applied to 80 million conservatives, I can safely assume, using my evidence as facts, that most/all BLM supporters are people who believe in black liberation ideology that wish to burn, loot, and murder people indiscriminately. However, I know that while there are certain leaders that believe that, and certain leaders that don't believe it, but use it to their advantage, I also know that many people believe in an innocent mission of BLM

@TedWrigley: While I agree with you that the "core group" may not mean violence, there is also a "core group" that was/is encouraging it. Yet, you then claim the Trump movement is a single cohesive movement all about worshipping a golden idol? You can see the diversity in BLM (cores, fringes, peace, violence), but not in the Trump movement that you don't understand? And then you claim your lack of vision into it is factual because you said it was? Do you not see the double standard you are applying?

@TCooper: It used to be the case that conservatives had that distribution: a relatively mild mannered core with some odd and violent peripheral elements. But I"m sorry, that's no longer the case. The looters and rioters of the left haven't elected congresspeople or taken over state political parties — there's no 'antifa' faction dominating certain areas of the Democratic party — and no democratic leaders condone, justify, excuse, or encourage violent, seditious behavior from their followers. You really don't have a leg to stand on here.

@TedWrigley Joe Biden refused to say antifa even existed, and Kamala Harris helped pay their bail. The mayor of Portland ignored them trying to burn down a Federal courthouse for over 100 days. As for encouraging violence, Nancy Pelosi said there should be more unrest, Maxine Waters told her supporters to confront and harass Republicans if they were seen in public, and Chuck Schumer said Republicans would "reap the whirlwind". Before you say, "oh thats just colorful language", try to use the same standard for Trump. What did Trump say that's so much worse?

Goodness, have you got an axe to grind. I think you’re right, by and large, but the spit coming out of your mouth isn’t necessary to make your point.

@Ryan_L: Antifa doesn't exist, not as an organized movement. There is no 'antifa' equivalent of the Proud Boys, or the Oath Keepers. And the difference is that no democratic leaders condoned, justified, excused, or encouraged violent, seditious behavior. People have a right to protest; they don't have a right to riot, and Dem leaders tend to keep on the healthy side of that divide.

@TedWrigley Which Republican leaders encouraged seditious behavior? If challenging the election is what you're talking about, the Democrats spent 4 years doing that, saying Trump was a Russian plant and a literal nazi. They also formally challenged electors in 2000, 2004, and 2016. You seriously can't see how saying the duly elected president is a manchurian candidate and literal monster is just as inciting? And Antifa exists just as much as militant islamic terrorism exists, there's no one Terror Inc. organization, but there is a network of loosely connected, ideologically aligned cells.

@JamesHaug You've stated what doesn't motivate your support for Trump but what does motivate it? The Republican party has made it clear that it's platform for 2020 was 'we support Trump'. What exactly does Trump stand for, in your mind, or, if you prefer, what does your support for him mean to you?

@Ryan_L Democrats challenged the 2016 election with actual evidence of collusion and foreign interference. Republicans cried wolf about fraud with literally nothing to back it up. That's the difference.

@Ryan_L Well there's Phillip Grillo, leader of the 24th district in the Queens (NY) County Republican Party who engaged in it directly. Derrick Evans, who was an elected WVa lawmaker (now resigned) who filmed himself in the act. Do those count?

Also Sacramento Republican leader Jorge Riley.

@JimmyJames I don't know. Does Kristopher Jacks count? He is (or maybe was, can't tell if he resigned) a Colorado Democrats board member who was filmed saying he wanted to guillotine the rich and "kill random nazis in the street". Does Attica Scott count? She is (or maybe was, can't tell if she resigned) a Democrat state rep from Kentucky arrested for rioting in Louisville.

@Ryan_L What does that have anything to do with what we are talking about? Just a tip, if you are ever on trial for a crime, pointing out other people's crimes won't be considered a valid defense. You asked a question, I answered it. Whatever it is you are talking about is totally irrelevant.

@JimmyJames The point is that there seems to be this idea popular on the left that only Republicans support political violence, when clearly the Democrats do as well. How exactly do Democrats have the moral high ground again?

@Ryan_L Who said anything about Democrats? You asked about Republicans.

@TedWrigley you should distinguish the particular theology of the group from orthodox Christian theology, which has no opposition to evolution (or vice-versa), let alone a failure to stand up against it.

@OrangeDog: Contrary to popular opinion (and my own unfortunate failures at times), I usually try not to be overly partisan. I'm actually quite sympathetic to religious belief, and I don't really want to come down on any particular group or sect. When I use religious ideation in a post like this, I'm pointing at a particular desperation-based system of belief that can be found as a subset of any belief system (religious or secular).

@TedWrigley If I understand OrangeDog's point, I think it's that the idea that evolution is incompatible with Christianity is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and not all Christian sects have that belief. The Catholic church, for example, doesn't consider the Bible to be literal.

Indeed the majority of Christians find no contradiction between their theology and evolution. To assert that "Christian theology" is against it is inaccurate. Young Earth Creationism is a relatively modern and fringe belief, though it may not seem that way in America.

@TedWrigley I have to say, your writing and thought process is amazingly clear in a world where many individuals resort to dog whistles and emotive outbursts to justify basic assumptions. Thank you for your time.

"This isn't a toilet training situation, where we applaud someone for not pooping in their pants..." Gold.

"This whole 'victim' meme — everybody hates Trump, so Trump can't get fair treatment — is just part of that pseudo-religious mindset. Christ was murdered on the cross to save the souls of believers; Trump is pilloried in the press for the salvation of his followers; blind faith is the only righteousness, so turn thine eyes and cover thine ears from all but the word of thy lord and savior, amen." Platinum :)

@JimmyJames; i actually agree with that, but perhaps i need to clarify it in text. I'll reread my answer and see what hits me.

@TedWrigley It made sense to me in the context of the answer but I think some people might not want to be lumped in with that. I actually see a lot of this situation being like flat-earth believers. You start from a belief and then assemble facts and arguments to defend it. I also think there's a bit of "my team" mentality that goes with this whole dynamic.