Trump-Acceptance Syndrome

Is a form of Stockholm Syndrome

Fact: Trump’s Electoral College margin was 312 to 226. That’s decisive and a large margin by any standard. Trump won, fair and square. By a lot. If you like his policies and voted for him, and are happy he won, I salute you. That’s how America is supposed to work.

Also fact: The 52-48 popular vote percentage split shows nearly half voted for Harris. By any standards, by the percentages this is an intuitively fairly close race, a split country, in terms of how actual American people voted.

It was a clear mandate. But framing it as a “huge mandate” is a misleading half-truth.

What’s worse, 52% of voters seem unfazed that Trump would have claimed fraud and risked a civil war or some grotesque run-and-gun Turner Diaries-esque dystopian nightmare had Kamala won fair and square.

At least that’s my claim and I’m willing to defend it. That’s a debate worth having again and again.

Many disagree that this concept warrants further discussion. Instead they ask us to look ahead and “see the good” in what Trump will do, and stop focusing on the unacceptable context, namely that it is all but proven what he was prepared to do if he lost fair and square, and what his base would have condoned.

To acquiesce to this ask would be akin to Stockholm Syndrome. (Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological phenomenon where captives develop positive feelings or loyalty toward their captors, often ignoring or rationalizing the harm done to them.)

The unacceptable ask: Will we focus on perceived benefits of a Trump presidency while overlooking the grave threat of giving power to someone who was going to try to take the office anyway, whether he won fair and square or not?

And sadder still, it seems a large percentage of our country would have been okay with that, literally okay with overturning a fair election (splitting the baby) to get their way.

Color this reality with the fact that the reasons driving this willingness to overturn a fair election by force are largely irrational, driven by unexamined or unsubstantiated impulses, at best. But let’s say I’m biased and the reasons are strong.

What could possibly be so bad about the Democrats as to warrant overturning a fair election by force?

Or in other words, what could be so bad that we’d need to end democracy over it?

We’ll never know. That’s the beauty of plausible deniability. Plus, he won.

Nonetheless, I’m sure his supporters are ready to bellow their answers. Which is fine — sort of.

It’s fine, and deeply American, in fact, that they have an opinion on dire matters of national consequence.

What’s not fine is that, this time, unlike any other time in American electoral history, they were willing to lie, cheat and steal—or worse—to take the state by force if they didn’t get their way.

This is a tragedy.

In America we settle our differences in the courtroom and at the ballot box, period. That’s what makes America “great.”

The fact that our president — and a large portion of his electorate — no longer agrees with this founding edict, means that we now already have a new world order, masked only temporarily by the fact that Trump won fair and square.

We’re at risk of losing focus of this and instead succumbing to calls for soul searching and acceptance…that the writing is on the wall proves we were wrong…and that a relatively massive mandate of Americans want Trump and are fed up with the left.

After all, Trump DID win at the ballot box.

NO! That’s not the point. And admittedly, the point is irritatingly subtle.

The point is that too many would have supported a bloody revolution if a bloodless one wasn’t possible.

And they would have supported it on illegal, unConstitutional grounds.

I get that some things matter more than the law.

I also get that the far left have become deeply misguided and the Dems have spoken out of both sides of their mouth to thread the needle. That’s not the point.

I also get that Trump may actually do some good things. That’s also not the point.

So what IS the point?

Many of his supporters were willing to end democracy if they didn’t get their way. And Trump would embolden this willingness, and likely even violence, by willingly lying about a stolen election — AGAIN.

Perhaps we want to let go and stop making so much sense because it’s too painful.

There’s also no way of knowing if any of this really matters. We’ll just have to wait and see what he does.

But regardless of how this term goes, it can’t change what happened. We can block it out, but we can’t change it.

We have to contend with the new reality that our president was able to convince a massive amount of people that they should overthrow the government based on an opinion, an emotion, a gut feeling of certainty, instead of an actual court verdict or standing law. That’s pretty fucking scary. And if you don’t think that’s scary, that’s what’s scariest of all.

Pretty much Sam Harris is the only one who mentioned this point, and only in the second half of his “reckoning” episode.

Please take a listen: