---

Our divisions have become so calcified that efforts to change opinions on former president Donald Trump, whether through logic or emotion, are hopeless — as evidenced again by the predictable partisan reactions to the three (so far) criminal indictments he faces. 

Are we destined to continue to talk — shout, really — past one another?

While much has been written about Trump’s iron grip on his base, those same supporters marvel at a parallel phenomenon — the unceasing, self-defeating crusade to bring about Trump’s downfall. What’s clear following Trump’s latest overreaching federal indictment is that it’s as cathartic for one segment of the country to have Trump as an outlet for their contempt for what he represents as it is for another segment to have him as their avatar for all they hold dear.

Remember, a grand jury typically indicts based on hearing only from a prosecutor offering a one-sided narrative with no alternate interpretation. And yet, the Trump indictments have been greeted by some as though verdicts were rendered. In the Atlantic this month, Tom Nichols urged Americans — based on the latest indictment, mind you — to stop tolerating Trump-loving family members and friends, even if it risks those relationships.

Nichols declared that “every American citizen who cares about the Constitution should affirm, without hesitation, that any form of association with Trump is reprehensible, that each of us will draw moral conclusions about anyone who continues to support him, and that these conclusions will guide both our political and personal choices.”

Let me understand: I’m supposed to jeopardize my relationship with my parents (on the eve of their 70th wedding anniversary no less) along with other treasured family members and lifelong friends by asserting a “moral conclusion” that their support for Trump makes them unworthy of further association? Not in this lifetime.

What’s the source of such deep-rooted vitriol toward Trump and his supporters? “Never Trump” Republicans have never been much of a mystery: Trump snatched away their party. But what about the broader spectrum of Trump haters, those who typically oppose Republicans, but sans the sort of naked animosity aimed in Trump’s direction since long before he refused to accept his 2020 defeat? Some Democrats were paving the way for impeachment before he was sworn in. About 70 Democrats boycotted his inauguration. Then came the transparently politicized “Russian collusion” distraction that hamstrung the president (and the country) for Trump’s first two years.

It was all part of the brutal backlash resulting from Trump’s traumatizing defeat of Hillary Clinton. On the heels of President Barack Obama’s two terms, a Clinton presidency could have ushered in a lasting age of progressive government. Trump and his supporters rudely interrupted that dream.

But the more condescending and accusatory Trump’s adversaries are toward his supporters, the more his supporters naturally push back. As New York Times columnist David Brooks — self-identifying as a member of the elite “meritocracy” — asked recently: “When will we stop behaving in ways that make Trumpism inevitable?” Good question.

But four years of Trump’s surliness convinced enough Americans to send him packing. Following less-than-stellar 2022 midterm results, Trump appeared vulnerable within his own ranks. But prosecutors just couldn’t leave well enough alone. When state and federal indictments came rolling in, wavering Republicans had cause to recircle the wagons. The latest New York Times poll finds Trump holding a virtually insurmountable primary advantage and running neck-and-neck with President Biden in a general election matchup.

“We need one more indictment to close out this election,” Trump declared earlier this month. Courtesy of Georgia, he will almost certainly get his wish.

Those demanding that Trump be held accountable insist that “no one is above the law,” regardless of whether the applied statutes reasonably correlate to the alleged transgressions. But prosecutors routinely use their discretion to consider the cost-versus-benefit to society at large. Multiple prosecutions of the candidate most likely to take on the sitting president should lead everyone to question whether they’re getting the balance tragically wrong.

For the record, I think it would be a mistake for voters to reward Trump with the presidency again. But I also think the indictments against Trump are a mistake. They will ensure nonstop national turmoil and might well help elect him.

But agreement on the subject is clearly beyond us. If no one can change anyone else’s mind, is there any way to break the endless cycle of mutually destructive behavior? Yes, but only by accepting our differences rather than demanding acquiescence.

Cutting ties and retreating to our bubbles is the way to alienation and paralysis. Loving and respecting one another is democracy’s best hope — an eternal truth, with or without Trump in the equation.

Gary Abernathy, a contributing columnist for The Post, is a freelance writer based in the Cincinnati region. 

This article was originally published on The Washington Post.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.