A dose of realistic, rare and reasonable perspective from Republican brass was discussed in this CNN article, “Top allies downplay Trump’s personal life, relationship to women” published earlier today.
The sentiment of quoted GOP stalwarts in this article embodies that acceptance of rudimentary human nature we’ve chosen to ambivalently harbor for as long as we’ve deferred to power-seekers who lord over mortal citizens. It’s simply cynical acceptance of human nature.
People, especially those who seek political, or other positions of power, are the least likely to express traits of saintliness. And some Republican backers of Donald Trump are indirectly defending the rambunctious Presidential candidate with this logic in mind.
“Look, I mean, these are things that he is going to have to answer for,” Priebus said. “But I also think there are things from many years ago and I think that, you know, as Christians, judging each other I think is — is problematic. I think it’s when people live in glass houses and throw stones is when people get in trouble.”
Priebus continued: “It’s not necessarily that people make mistakes or have regrets or seek forgiveness; it’s whether or not the person launching the charge is authentic in their own life and can actually be pure enough to make such a charge. That’s what I think most people can look at when they evaluate people’s character.
Priebus said he doesn’t believe voters are judging the thrice-married Trump on his personal life.
“I think people are judging Donald Trump as to whether or not he’s someone that’s going to go to Washington and shake things up. And that’s why he’s doing so well,”
“Well, of course, he has to answer and people will ask those questions,” Sessions said.
But he added that “they’ve got 20 or — they’ve got hundreds, I suppose — people digging in to everything he’s done for all these years.”
Sessions echoed Priebus, saying that voters don’t expect Trump to be pure and also aren’t judging him on his private life.
“People have not expected purity on his part. What they’re concerned about, they’re deeply concerned about is this: somebody strong enough to take on Washington,” he said. “Will he challenge the establishment? Will he end the illegality in immigration? Will he insist on trade agreements that lift our economy, increase manufacturing? And will he stand up to the elites? And he’s doing so and the people are responding.”
Pragmatic, utilitarian, can-you-get-the-job-done considerations are contrary to the the Utopian Pollyanna-istic stone walls that SJW/Nannies scold from behind. Those who worry about behavior and social proprieties are those most unable to reconcile with the putative concept of Trump The President.12
Indeed, there are vast portions of civilized American society who still cling to this archaic “fetishism of purity,” that quasi sort of post-Puritanical fixation with rigidity and inflexibility of behavioral tolerance. Instead of finding a basis for their expectations in religious dogma, it is instead conjured of equally superstitious humanism. But the end result is the same.
There are many of us, I suspect, who harbor zeal for a future Trump The President in that is offers the greatest refutation of repressive humanism.