For some reason, I keep finding myself encountering Erick Erickson’s tweets wherein he finds himself having to dismiss some clearly indefensible statement or action by Trump by saying some version of, “but the Democrats would have been worse, so whaddya gonna do?”
Here’s a tweet from January that I had bookmarked, which gives the basic formula: yes, Trump is bad, but the Dems would have been worse!!
I have often thought about writing about those tweets, but what would really be the point? I doubt he would ever read my words, and it is hardly as if I really pay that much attention to him. I mostly know his name because he bubbled up during the early days of the blogosphere.
Moreover, I get it to a point, at least from a political science and economics point of view. In terms of polisci, his partisan identity is such that breaking out of his position is unlikely, and, moreover, I do understand that given the binary choice before him, the Republicans better fulfill his policy preferences (although the degree to which Trump himself does so is another matter, but partisans gotta partisan!). The economics argument is stronger, of course. Erickson makes his money as a right-wing commentator. Breaking with MAGA, even if at times he has flirted with criticizing Trump, would likely lead to unemployment.
I think a core bit of frustration is that he likes to play the game that he is a critic of the president’s, but when the formulation is ultimately, Trump may be bad, but the Dems are worse, then you really aren’t, as your Twitter bio claims, working for “Truth over tribe.”
Still, the following is just a distillation of where too many Americans find themselves, and it both sickens and angers me.
To simply dismiss this as not “appropriate” is underselling by quite a bit, shall we say.
The tweet he is downplaying does, at a minimum, the following.
- Promises war crimes.
- Mocks Islam, a religion that has millions of American adherents.
- Does both of the above whilst using obscene language, all on the holiest day of the Christian calendar.
But, you know, Joe Biden recognized the Transgender Day of Visibility that happened to correspond to Easter in 2024, and that is the true crime that makes all the inappropriate stuff acceptable! Never mind that the Transgender Day of Visibility is always March 31st, meaning it is not always on a Sunday, and further, that Easter moves around (it was April 5th this year).
No, it is such a big deal to dare to ask to be kind to fellow citizens if they are the wrong kind of citizens that it ends up that that is worse than to be publicly profane on Easter, mock a major religion, and to threaten death and destruction than to love your neighbor as yourself (or something–maybe I read that on a fortune cookie?).
To be clear, this post really isn’t about Erickson; it is about the way in which the thinking on display here is a cancer to our politics.
There is a general problem here, which is the way in which the depths of partisanship override anything else.
The first word in Erickson’s Twitter bio is “Christian.” And yet he seems unfazed, at least in terms of his rank-ordered preferences, as to the insulting way Trump behaved in public on Easter. I keep stressing this point, not because it is the most important issue to me, but because it ought to really be insulting to people like Erickson.
It seems worth noting in this context that Trump did not go to church on Easter, but Biden did. But, you know, trans!!
Beyond the breach of decorum and general rudeness on display, I also think that a Christian should be concerned about threatened war crimes. If all it takes to commit adultery is to have lust in one’s heart for a woman (or so say many conservative Evangelicals), then maybe fantasizing about death and destruction should be a problem? Especially when those public fantasies are being perpetrated by someone with the power to make those fantasies real?
Look, I know that the Christian right tossed their own alleged moral compasses in the trash roughly a decade ago when they glommed onto Trump. But sometimes there are these punctuated moments when just how far they have gone becomes obvious, and it really is nauseating.
Erickson’s (and many others’) rank-ordered preference for someone who is anti-trans over concerns over profanity on a holy day, mockery, or the threat of war crimes is, in my view, depraved.
And I started this post before this morning’s most recent threat or catastrophic violence by the Evangelical right’s favorite president.
But, hey! Trump didn’t recognize the Transgender Day of Visibility, so war crimes are cool!
It is truly stunning, and yes, morally degenerate, that hatred or lack of understanding about a certain segment of the population because they do not conform to a certain set of sexual and gender norms is so important to some people that they can ignore truly awful behavior as well as the threat of crimes against humanity.
I tire of people who claim to have direct access to core truths and morals, allowing their concerns about other people’s lives to justify this kind of moral vacuity.
As a bonus of this genre, here’s Rod Dreher. And his proof that the “Democrats are worse” is (wait for it!) because Biden appointed a qualified trans person to a position in HHS!
The obsession with trans people is just off the charts.
Here’s a nice generic one from The Angry Baseball, which I found laughable. After all, Republicans elected Trump, and continue to support him, but Democrats are where the real problem lies!!
Remember, kids, Democrats are always worse because, well, what matters isn’t what politicians do, it is what letter they have after their name! And if they refuse to treat trans persons with dignity, so much the better!
