By Scott Tibbs, June 9, 2017
Dennis Prager wrote a more reasonable follow-up to his deranged cult screed about President Trump, but he still does not understand why he was and is so wrong. He is wrong not because he urges conservatives to support the President, but because he has said criticism of Trump is immoral. That is idolatry. That is treating Donald Trump as a god or a messiah, and it is wicked and evil.
Here is the thing: Prager could have easily made a reasonable, non-cultish case for President Trump. It is true that Trump appointed a conservative to the Supreme Court, has started down the road to repealing Obamacare, has undone many of President Obama's economically harmful environmental regulations that he imposed through the bureaucracy, and put forth a plan for much needed tax cuts. After that, a reasonable conclusion is this: "While I respect your opinion and your right to make reasonable criticisms of the President, please consider all of the good things Trump has done since taking office." That is not what Prager did.
Interestingly enough, Prager basically admitted in his deranged cult screed that he openly attempted to destroy these United States of America. Am I using hyperbole? Nope. I am simply applying Prager's own so-called "logic" to his deranged cult screed. Prager wrote that "it would have been close to over for America as America" had Hillary Clinton been elected President. Prager wrote that "America was doomed if a Democrat had been elected president" and that "America, as envisioned by the Founders, would have been lost, perhaps irreversibly" if Hillary Clinton had won.
Yet, despite saying that "I am certain that only Donald Trump would have defeated Hillary Clinton," Prager brags about how he "vigorously (opposed) Trump's candidacy during the Republican primaries." So Prager openly admits that he opposed nominating the one candidate who could save this nation from Hillary Clinton. (This, of course, is more evidence of his deranged, idolatrous cult mentality.) This makes absolutely no sense. There is simply no logical way to reconcile the rhetoric against Mrs. Clinton and the danger she posed with opposing (in Prager's mind) the only candidate who could have defeated her.
I reject the argument that only Trump could have defeated Clinton, but that is irrelevant at this point. I am simply pointing out how absurd and hyper-emotional Prager was in his original deranged cult screed.
I also opposed Trump in the primary. I took a lot of heat after Trump won the nomination, but I did not vote for him in the general election either. In the months since Trump has taken office, I have become a Trump supporter. If the 2020 election were held today, I would vote for Trump in the general election because of the conservative policies he has implemented. Now that Trump is President, conservatives need to work with him to get good conservative policy passed and implemented.
But while I am a Trump supporter, I am not and never will be a Trump cultist. There are areas of policy where I disagree with Trump. I still shake my head at how childish he can be, especially on Twitter. He is still extremely thin-skinned. But my criticism of the President since January is because I want him to be successful President. I want him to be more sober and deliberate, so he does not undermine his agenda. I want him to be able to work with instead of attacking his own side, especially the House Freedom Caucus.
It does not help Donald Trump and it does not advance the conservative agenda to be a mindless cultist who adores every single thing Trump does. Good leaders need supporters to advise, and to even openly oppose them at times when they are wrong. The presidency of Donald Trump can be great for America, or we can spin our wheels for eight years, or it can be destructive. The only chance we have for the first option is to have people who are devoted to Trump being the best he can be, not sycophants, yes-men and cultists.