I don't think this is the best thing on the subject. The point it makes about Trumpism effectively being a new religion (he doesn't explicitly say that, but he clearly indicates that's what it is) is spot-on.
Noah Rothman recently did a book about progressivism being a "New Puritanism" and is all over the news on a book tour right now. I think he's improperly focusing on progressivism and should also cite Trumpism as a new form of fundamentalist religion. As the author of the piece you cited notes, Trump's guilt is immaterial. To get behind him is an act of faith, and faith is, like this definition or not, an act of self-delusion. One is choosing to put aside powers of reason and observation and believe in something that all but assuredly isn't and for which there's zero proof.
But other assessments are incorrect:
What makes this situation worse is that there is no remedy for it. When people are driven by fantasies, by resentment, by an internalized sense of inferiority, there is no redemption in anything. Winning elections, burning effigies, even shooting at other citizens does not soothe their anger but instead deepens the spiritual and moral void that haunts them.
It is only a portion of Trumpists, the own-the-libs and nativists, who fit this description. A significant portion of Trumpland I see in this purple state doesn't want to control others. I honestly don't think it gives a shit. It's people who want to be left alone. They have a strong independent streak and view Trump and the GOP as instruments to retain personal and local control. They don't like taxes, regs, or federal mandates on how their kids are schooled. They don't resent "elites" (they'd laugh at this author's suggestion they're jealous) and don't want to change laws. They just want to be left alone.
How big is this slice of Trumpland? I don't know. But I'd guess it's a healthy percentage.
My guess is these people dislike Trump about as much as anyone else. They just figure then enemy of my enemy is my friend.
. . .
Another point I'd note is, this author makes an error someone took me to task for making a couple weeks ago. I was joking with a moderate friend of mine that people who suspect the election was fixed are idiots and not worth addressing. I explained how an election cannot be rigged, as I have some first hand experience in how they're managed.
He asked me "Why is it invalid for a person on the right to despair over how the country is changing?" I defended that believing the election was fixed was failing to grasp basic facts. He and I have similar politics. He agreed with that but asserted the bias that allows for such suggestibility is valid. I had to admit I didn't have an response to the argument that a person feeling like his country is changing in ways he doesn't like isn't automatically disqualified form offering an opinion.
It is okay to see what's happening in the country and not like it.
That doesn't sound controversial. But then I considered how I'd replied to people with that position in the past. I'd call them knaves, Don Quixotes tilting at economic and demographic changes they've no prayer of stanching. Many others would reflexively call them bigots and racists. And those indictments certainly apply to many of them.
But again, abstractly, to lament or seek to stand athwart change is not an automatically invalid, or even deviant, position. It is, technically, a view that has a seat at the table. And I think the recent branding of conservatism as entirely deviant is fueling its degradation into right wing populism.
When a conservative says, just by way of example, "The border is too easily breached," the response should be, "Well, we tried to fix that with immigration reform, but by electing an extremist like Trump, the GOP screwed that up for everyone." The answer should not be, "That is a xenophobic perhaps racist view that deserves no reply."
Negation never works. It just pisses people off and convinces them that the issue really is binary, and their only choice is to pick a side in our dysfunctional political war.
