It’s not a stretch to say that some of Trump’s more casual observers might not have fully understood the extent of his abuses or the severity of his actions. Alternatively, they may have been sufficiently impressed by his influential connections to overlook them. For example, his close ties to wealthy donors and political allies—such as his relationships with powerful figures—helped shield him from scrutiny (The New York Times, 2020). Others may have been simply dazzled by his wealth and the spectacle of his persona. His ability to project wealth and celebrity—highlighted by his luxury properties and media presence—cultivated a cult of personality that distracted many from his illiberal policies and actions (Vanity Fair, 2018).
People often forget or ignore inconvenient truths when it aligns with their short-term goals of maintaining power or because they share common political enemies. His charisma among Republican and evangelical leaders was notably high; for instance, figures like Franklin Graham publicly supported or excused his behavior despite controversies (The Washington Post, 2021). Many Republican voters probably dismissed or minimized the insurrection he incited because it was inconceivable that the leader of the free world could commit such treason. Yet history shows that authoritarian figures—similar to Hitler—have committed varying degrees of sedition, often more subtly but with the same goal: the eventual overthrow of democratic institutions (The Atlantic, 2020).
After Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, many Republican leaders appeared to dismiss its significance. As political analyst Norm Ornstein observed, the Republican Party shifted toward a loyalty culture where traditional norms no longer held sway (The Atlantic, 2021). Ironically, in conservative circles, the only thing that seems to lead to social shunning is poverty, not misconduct.
What was publicly known about Trump was that he had been impeached for incitement of insurrection related to the January 6 Capitol attack, but he was acquitted by the Senate. While many supporters viewed him as exonerated or believed he was unfairly targeted, he was not officially pardoned for these charges. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, some within the Republican Party and among his fervent supporters regarded his Senate acquittal as a de facto exoneration, implying that he had been cleared of any wrongdoing. However, this notion holds no legal weight, as U.S. laws and norms dictate that an acquittal does not absolve an individual of guilt. In the eyes of conservative voters, though, it effectively cleared the slate for Trump and significantly influenced public opinion (Congress.gov; The New York Times, 2021).
In time, the full weight of their complicity will come crashing down, and the magnitude of their deception will become clear: trusting Trump with the reins of government power again, ignoring the devastating consequences of his previous administration’s actions, and turning a blind eye to his abuse of privilege. It remains one of the most astonishing stories of our time—power, privilege, and predation intertwined—a cautionary tale of the perils of unchecked power and the unbridled ambition of those who seek to wield it.
Why Conservatives Voted for Trump In 2024: Fact Check
Many Americans, especially conservatives and evangelicals, continue to support Trump in 2025 because they see him as a leader who fights for their values, defends their freedoms, and stands up against the corrupt establishment. The narrative that paints Trump as a authoritarian overlooks the real reason conservatives trust and rally behind him.
- Trump’s Fight Against the Political Elite
Trump’s entire political career has been about challenging the entrenched political class that has failed working Americans for decades. His policies prioritized economic growth, border security, and American workers. Unlike career politicians who often prioritize special interests, Trump delivered on promises—cut taxes, deregulate industries, and negotiate better trade deals. To many supporters, his outsider status and willingness to shake up the system make him a hero, not a villain.
Fact Check: While Trump presents himself as an outsider fighting the establishment, evidence suggests that he has often relied on elite networks, enriching himself and his allies while claiming to oppose the system. His administration was marked by conflicts of interest, including the appointment of family members and insider allies to key positions, blurring the lines between outsider and establishment figure (The Washington Post, 2018). Supporting him blindly ignores his involvement in perpetuating the very corrupt systems he claims to oppose. Moreover, history shows that populist demagogues who claim to challenge the elite often end up consolidating power and undermining institutions—precisely what Trump has done through efforts to delegitimize the FBI, courts, and the media (The Atlantic, 2020). Believing in Trump’s outsider persona without scrutinizing his actions risks empowering authoritarian tendencies under the guise of populism.
- The Impeachments Were Partisan Attacks
The two impeachment efforts against Trump—first in 2019 and again in 2021—were politically motivated attempts to silence him. The first was based on false allegations about Ukraine, and the second stemmed from the Capitol riot, which many supporters believe was a setup or a misrepresentation. The Senate acquitted him both times, and many see these proceedings as partisan witch hunts designed to undermine his presidency and the will of the voters.
Fact Check: The claim that Trump’s impeachments were purely partisan ignores the substantial evidence presented during investigations. The first impeachment centered on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to Ukraine, with credible evidence that Trump solicited foreign interference in U.S. elections—a clear abuse of presidential power (Congressional Research Service, 2020). The second impeachment was based on Trump’s role in inciting the January 6 riot, with numerous speeches and actions that explicitly encouraged the attack (House Select Committee, 2022). Dismissing these as partisan means disregarding the rule of law and the importance of accountability—fundamental principles of democracy. History shows that ignoring abuse of power eventually dismantles democratic institutions and enables authoritarian leaders to entrench themselves.
- The Capitol Incident Was Not an Attack on Democracy
Many supporters argue that the January 6 Capitol riot was a protest that got out of hand, not an insurrection. They believe that Trump’s speech was protected free speech and that the subsequent investigations and media portrayals exaggerated or misrepresented the events. The fact that Trump was acquitted in the Senate reinforces the idea that there was insufficient evidence to justify removing him from office.
Fact Check: Many supporters dismiss the January 6 riot as a protest, but the events were an unprecedented assault on the peaceful transfer of power—a cornerstone of democracy. The FBI and DOJ have characterized the riot as domestic terrorism (U.S. Department of Justice, 2021). By pardoning rioters, Trump is excusing criminal conduct, signaling that violent efforts to overturn an election can go unpunished, and weakening norms that deter political violence. Ignoring or minimizing this attack dismisses the threat posed by misinformation, conspiracy theories, and political violence. Historically, such attempts to undermine electoral processes have led to authoritarianism—examples include the fall of democracies in Latin America and Europe when leaders refused to accept electoral losses (Freedom House, 2022). Underestimating or excusing the insurrection underpins a dangerous complacency that can facilitate future threats to democracy.
- Support for Trump Is About Values, Not Personal Flaws
While critics focus on Trump’s personality or alleged misconduct, supporters focus on his policies and the cultural battle he fights. Trump stands for religious freedom, Second Amendment rights, and protecting American sovereignty. His “America First” approach resonates with many Americans tired of globalist policies that undermine national identity and economic stability.
Fact Check: While some claim Trump’s executive orders align with traditional American values, his actions often undermine the very principles he claims to uphold. His administration’s policies on immigration, race, and free speech frequently promoted division, discrimination, and censorship—contradicting core American ideals of justice and equality (The New York Times, 2019). By scapegoating immigrants, Trump stoked fear, hostility, and anger toward vulnerable communities, encouraging a climate of social division that can fuel prejudice and violence; reporting and social‑science research link dehumanizing political rhetoric to increases in hate incidents and intolerance. Supporting a leader who consistently flouts norms risks normalizing authoritarian behavior and eroding constitutional protections. History demonstrates that leaders who prioritize loyalty over legality—like many authoritarian regimes—use populist rhetoric to justify abuses of power, leading to diminished individual rights and democratic backsliding.
- The Media and the Deep State Are the Real Threats
Supporters often see the mainstream media as biased and hostile, intent on destroying Trump and his supporters. They believe that many of the legal challenges and investigations are orchestrated by a “deep state” working against the will of the American people. The focus on Trump’s legal issues distracts from real issues like inflation, crime, and the loss of American jobs—problems caused by the very institutions allegedly targeting him.
Fact Check: Claiming the “deep state” and biased media as the main enemies is a dangerous conspiracy theory that undermines trust in legitimate institutions. Evidence shows that Trump’s administration actively sought to weaken oversight agencies, politicize the Justice Department, and suppress dissenting voices, thus undermining the independence of the judiciary and law enforcement (The New York Times, 2020). Believing that these institutions are enemies rather than safeguards of democracy fosters paranoia and conspiracy theories that justify authoritarian measures. Historically, authoritarian regimes have often justified crackdowns by claiming that institutions are enemies of the people—an approach that threatens the very foundation of democratic governance.
- Supporters Dismiss the “Authoritarian” Label
Accusations that Trump is an authoritarian or a fascist are viewed as overblown or politically motivated. Many believe that he simply advocates for strong national sovereignty and law-and-order policies that are necessary for a stable society. Comparing him to historical figures like Hitler is not only inaccurate but also unfair, as Trump has always upheld the Constitution and the rule of law.
Fact Check: Many supporters dismiss the label of authoritarianism as exaggerated, but Trump’s actions—such as attempting to interfere with election results, pressuring officials to overturn votes, and his rhetoric about “stolen elections”—are consistent with early warning signs of authoritarian tendencies (Freedom House, 2022). Some Republican leaders and conservative media insist that because Trump does not act like a classic dictator today, such threats could never happen in America and that liberal warnings are paranoid; that stance risks normalizing dangerous behavior by minimizing gradual erosion of norms. The danger lies in normalizing these behaviors, which historically have led to the destabilization of democratic institutions. Ignoring these signs now because of loyalty to a leader is a dangerous form of collective blindness that can pave the way for the destruction of democracy itself.
- The Importance of Faith, Family, and Freedom
For many in the MAGA movement, Trump embodies traditional American values: faith, family, and freedom. His outspoken opposition to woke culture, political correctness, and censorship appeals to evangelicals who feel their way of life is under attack. Re-electing Trump in 2024 is about preserving these values for future generations.
Fact Check: While these values are fundamental, elevating loyalty to Trump above constitutional principles risks turning patriotism into blind allegiance. History shows that authoritarian regimes often co-opt traditional values to justify repression and centralize power. The rise of populist leaders who claim to defend “family values” has frequently been accompanied by attacks on minority rights, free speech, and judicial independence (The Atlantic, 2019). When authoritarians perceive religion as a threat to the state, they often dismantle or subordinate these institutions to consolidate control. Supporting leaders without critically examining their actions endangers the very freedoms they claim to protect, making historical ignorance a significant threat to democracy.
Providing Cover: Support for Donald Trump is not about blind loyalty or personal flaws; it is about trusting a leader who prioritizes America’s interests and fights against a corrupt system. The narrative that paints him as a traitor to democracy is a biased and partisan attempt to silence a movement that seeks to restore American greatness. MAGA supporters will continue to stand with Trump because they believe he is the best hope to keep America strong, free, and true to its founding principles.
Rebuttal: Blindly supporting Trump based on populist rhetoric and misinformation is a dangerous form of deception that undermines the core principles of democracy. The history of authoritarian regimes demonstrates that disregarding facts, dismissing accountability, and elevating loyalty over legality can lead to the collapse of democratic institutions. True patriotism requires an informed citizenry willing to scrutinize leaders critically, recognize the warning signs of authoritarianism, and uphold the rule of law—lessons that many MAGA supporters would do well to remember.
Even Plato and Aristotle Warned Us About Leaders Like Trump
The Limits of Technical Precision in Politics
Aristotle believed that the mark of an educated person isn’t necessarily a mastery of technical detail but an understanding of the complexities of practical life, especially politics (Aristotle, Politics, Book I). He argued that politics cannot be reduced to rigid formulas or mathematical precision because human societies are inherently messy, driven by passions, interests, and unpredictable forces. Attempting to impose overly strict schemes onto communities often results in chaos rather than order—what Aristotle called stasis, or political instability (Aristotle, Politics, Book IV).
The Role of the Middle Class in Stability
Aristotle emphasized that a strong middle class is essential for the stability of a regime. Without it, societies tend to become divided—either dominated by the wealthy, who act with impunity, or by the impoverished, who grow resentful and desperate (Aristotle, Politics, Book IV). When the middle class is weak or absent, the potential for injustice and social unrest increases dramatically. The oppressed masses may then become vulnerable to demagogues—charismatic leaders who exploit grievances, promising salvation but often leading society toward chaos (Aristotle, Politics, Book V).
Democracy and the Dangers of the Mob
Both Plato and Aristotle shared concerns about democracy, which they saw as vulnerable to degeneration into rule by the rabble. Plato, in The Republic, warned that democracy can devolve into tyranny when leaders manipulate the passions of the masses (Plato, The Republic, Book VIII). Aristotle echoed this view in Politics, warning that democracies tend to favor short-term populist appeals over long-term stability, paving the way for demagogues who promise everything to win power (Aristotle, Politics, Book V).
Modern Parallels: Demagogues Like Donald Trump
These ancient warnings resonate deeply in contemporary politics. Populist leaders, such as Trump, have exploited societal frustrations by appealing to nationalist sentiments and promising to “Make America Great Again.” Conservatives and evangelicals are taking the bait—believing Trump’s promise that only he can restore the nation to its former greatness. However, like the demagogues Aristotle warned about, Trump’s rhetoric often relies on scapegoating, emotional appeals, and promises of quick fixes rather than substantive solutions (Levitsky & Ziblatt, How Democracies Die, 2018).
The Erosion of Democratic Norms and the Rise of Autocracy
Such leaders may initially rally support but pose a risk of undermining democratic institutions. As history shows, demagogues often concentrate power, manipulate public fears, and bypass checks and balances—ultimately transforming democratic regimes into autocracies (Mounk, The People vs. Democracy, 2018). In the case of Trump, the Republican voters who facilitated the transition from democracy to autocracy—whether through enabling authoritarian tendencies or complicity—risk being left holding an “empty bag.”
This process demonstrates Aristotle’s warning that populist leaders exploit fears and grievances to consolidate power, often leaving their supporters more vulnerable than before (Aristotle, Politics, Book V). When these supporters believe they are securing their future, they may not realize they are sacrificing their civil liberties—trusting leaders who promise salvation while the actual benefits flow only to the demagogues and their allies (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018).
Lessons from Ancient Philosophy
Both Plato and Aristotle warned that democracies are fragile and susceptible to demagogues who manipulate passions and threaten social stability. Their insights are particularly relevant today, as populist figures promise quick fixes and exploit societal divisions. Recognizing these dangers is crucial for safeguarding democratic institutions and promoting genuine social cohesion.
In conclusion, Plato and Aristotle’s warnings about demagogues serve as timeless lessons. Their concern that populist leaders, like Trump, can lead societies astray, reminds us to be vigilant in defending democratic norms, fostering social stability, and resisting the siren call of simplistic solutions. Ignoring these ancient cautions risks chaos, injustice, and the erosion of civil liberties—outcomes that history has repeatedly demonstrated can be the consequence of empowering demagogues over reasoned governance.
The dragons are coming—
Where’s my motivation?
The dragons are coming—
To threaten my father’s nation.
If I look inside my heart,
Will I find a righteous shield?
And will my integrity impart
The courage to make them yield?
My family stands behind me—
A bond of love so true;
Their voices loud and free,
To remind me—of whom I value.
My home is my fortress—
A refuge safe and warm,
A sanctuary of kindness,
A shelter from the storm.
I pray to God; I seek direction—
A faith that will never fade,
A guiding light and protection
From the dark night’s cascade.
And as I face those menacing clouds—
My country calls my name:
A land of hope and sacred vows,
For which, I make my claim.
So I will summon all my might
To face the dragons’ rage;
With faith and valor I will fight
To restore our freedom’s age.
Edited by: ElRoyPoet, 2025
Analyzing the Poem Through the Lens of Kantian Ethics: The Dangers of Unethical Means and Immoral Ends
The poem portrays a personal struggle against looming threats symbolized by dragons—metaphors for destructive forces or evil intentions. It reflects a moral journey rooted in faith, love, and patriotism, seeking to defend what is sacred from internal and external enemies. When viewed through the lens of Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy, the poem underscores a vital truth: actions driven by evil intentions and unethical means inevitably lead to immoral ends and undermine democratic principles.
Kant’s moral philosophy emphasizes that moral actions are governed by the categorical imperative, which mandates acting according to maxims that one can will to become universal laws. Importantly, Kant advocates that the morality of an action is determined by the intention behind it, not solely by its outcome. When intentions are rooted in wickedness, the means employed are inherently corrupt, and the ends achieved are morally compromised.
The theme of the poem resonates with this Kantian perspective. The “dragons” symbolize destructive forces—be it tyranny, oppression, or moral corruption—that threaten the integrity of personal and societal virtues. The poet’s call to summon courage and faith signifies a commitment to uphold righteous principles, standing against destructive forces driven by evil intentions.
This idea aligns with historical examples such as Hitler’s scapegoating of Jews to attain fascism. Hitler’s means—propaganda, discrimination, and violence—were rooted in hatred and deception. His end—world domination and racial supremacy—was wicked, and the means used were undeniably immoral. Kant would argue that such actions violate the moral law because they treat individuals as means to an end, rather than as ends in themselves.
Similarly, the modern example of Donald Trump’s scapegoating of immigrants echoes this very same pattern. The use of divisive rhetoric and policies aimed at alienation exemplifies unethical means. The end—authoritarian consolidation of power—becomes morally tainted when achieved through deception and prejudice. Kant’s principle warns that such means corrupt the moral fabric of society and threaten the foundations of democracy.
Furthermore, the behavior of political parties or groups—such as Republican senators acquitting Trump during impeachment proceedings or evangelicals supporting his second term—demonstrates how pursuing power or influence through questionable means erodes moral integrity. When the goal is political domination or establishing a “state church,” the motivations are driven by self-interest and power, not moral duty or respect for human dignity. Kant would argue that these pursuits, motivated by unworthy maxims, undermine the moral law and democratic equality.
The metaphor of making a “pact with the devil” encapsulates this danger perfectly. When individuals or groups compromise their moral principles for immediate gains—be it power, influence, or personal benefit—they sacrifice their moral integrity. The ends—wickedness, tyranny, or moral decay—are the inevitable outcome of choosing unethical means.
In conclusion, the poem emphasizes the importance of moral intention and ethical means in resisting destructive forces, aligning with Kant’s assertion that moral worth lies in acting according to duty, with right motives. When evil intentions drive actions—whether through scapegoating, deception, or corruption—the ends become immoral, ultimately threatening the democratic values that uphold justice and human dignity. Recognizing this danger underscores the necessity of moral integrity in leadership and personal conduct, for the pursuit of righteous ends must be rooted in morally upright means.
“As the articles of impeachment moved to a vote before the full House and referral to the Senate for trial, Mitch McConnell met with White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and congressional liaison Eric Ueland, later stating, “Everything I do during this I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this … I’m going to take my cues from the president’s lawyers.” As part of the “total coordination”, McConnell said the president’s lawyers could decide if witnesses would be called for the trial. McConnell also said there was “no chance” the Senate would convict Trump and remove him from office, while declaring his wish that all Senate Republicans would acquit Trump of both charges. On December 14, Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham said, “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here … I will do everything I can to make [the impeachment trial] die quickly.” Three days later, McConnell said, “I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision.” The Constitution mandates senators to take an impeachment oath, in which by Senate rules is stated, “I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.” Excerpt from: First impeachment trial of Donald Trump
When Hitler used the MEANS of scapegoating the Jews, the ENDS was fascism.
When Trump used the MEANS of scapegoating immigrants, the ENDS was authoritarianism.
When the Republican senators used the MEANS of acquitting Trump’s impeachments, the ENDS was political domination.
When evangelicals used the MEANS of voting for Trump to secure a second term, the ENDS was to establish a state church.
Unethical MEANS leads to immoral ENDS.
ILLIBERAL intentions lead to the end of DEMOCRATIC institutions.
Prompt: Evil intentions inevitably lead to undemocratic motivations, as actions driven by malice or prejudice distort the moral foundation necessary for a just society. When unethical means—such as scapegoating or deception—are employed, they catalyze immoral ends that threaten the very principles of democracy and human dignity.
For instance, Hitler’s use of scapegoating Jews to advance fascist ambitions, or Trump’s targeting of immigrants to foster authoritarian control, exemplify how malicious motives underpin destructive political agendas. Similarly, when Republican senators prioritize power through questionable tactics—such as acquitting Trump during impeachment proceedings or evangelicals supporting his re-election to establish a state church—they reveal a willingness to sacrifice moral integrity for self-interest.
Ultimately, making a pact with the devil—whether through divisive means or corrupt motives—leads inexorably to wicked ends, undermining society and culture while eroding democratic values.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” By: Pastor Martin Niemöller
“When Fascism Comes To America, It Will Be Wrapped in the Flag and carrying the Cross.” By: Sinclair Lewis
“If our democracy dies, the reason won’t be that Americans were too apathetic to save it; it will be that they voted it out of existence.” By: H. Scott Butler
“Though liberty is established by law, we must be vigilant, for liberty to enslave us is always present under that same liberty. Our Constitution speaks of the ‘general welfare of the people’. Under that phrase all sorts of excesses can be employed by [authoritarian] tyrants—to make us bondsmen.” By: Marcus Tullius Cicero
“Tyranny anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere.” By: Alex Storozynski
“You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. […] The danger lies in refusing to face the fear, in not daring to come to grips with it […]You must make yourself succeed every time. […] You must do the thing you think you cannot do.” By: Eleanor Roosevelt
elroypoet.blog 