DENYING DENIAL – Fighting the False with the Hypothetical

Have you ever tried describing something quite obvious to a person who’s in denial about its very existence? It’s like talking sense to an addict.

This is what’s happening on a massive scale with the Trump debacle. To be fair, part of his base will admit to a few of the reality-show president’s glaring flaws of personality, character, intellect, comportment and leadership.

But they like what he says he’s doing for them, so the flaws don’t matter. At least they’re honest enough to acknowledge some of what’s right there in front of them, manifest in the man’s very words and actions.

  If you don’t like what credible journalists—or 
  even scientists—say, just claim they’re all lying.

The rest of Trump’s base is not so honest. They manage to salve what’s left of their consciences by simply refusing to admit the man is what he has proven himself to be. None of the Twit’s behavior, they insist, rises even to the level of mildly objectionable…because it doesn’t exist.

Not his sexual depravity or abuse; not the business improprieties; not his admiration for—nor collusion with—sworn enemies of American democracy; not his emoluments; not his obstruction of justice; not the corruption; not the nepotism… Not a thing.

Oh my God! These folks would grant carte blanche to Mao Zedong or Josef Stalin if he promised to beat back all the bogeymen Trump’s convinced them are swarming at their door.

Reasoning with these poor suckers is useless. You lay out the proof; you point to examples; you support your contentions with credible sourcing. And their response? Denial. One of two classic devices pathological liars have used since Adam and Eve blurted “What apple?”

Or the other: fake news. If you don’t like what credible journalists—or even scientists—say, just claim they’re all lying.

  What specific actions by some fictional
  president would make Putin and other enemies
  of democracy wring their hands in delight?
 
WHAT IF?
The more truth you lay out for these cretins, the more threatened they are by the prospect of being exposed for their ignorance—or, worse, their true motives. So I’m exploring another approach: instead of trying to fight lies and deception with facts, fight them with something sure to utterly disarm them: hypotheticals.

Here’s how it works:
They say Donald Trump is not immoral. I respond, “Okay, let’s assume for a moment that that’s true. Tell me, please, what would it look like if some future U.S. president were immoral? Exactly what behaviors would be extreme enough to make you uncomfortable?”

They maintain the Twit is not a puppet of Vladimir Putin, methodically undermining democratic institutions, alienating time-honored allies and dividing Americans into warring factions. “I hear you, but if that were happening, what would that look like? What specific actions by some fictional president would make Putin and other enemies of democracy wring their hands in delight?”

They insist their guy knows what he’s doing and is a capable leader? “That’s a good one, but let’s just say he is. List for me some behaviors that might convince you otherwise.”

TAKING THE BAIT
Get the idea? Okay, now those of you for whom facts still mean more than beliefs, let’s get out there and kick some disingenuous butt. Lull your Trumpie friends, relatives or co-workers, by your apparent acknowledgment, into a sense of victory, of smug superiority.

Then totally destroy them using their own propensity for the make-believe against them. Can’t you just picture how they’ll squirm? If they fall for the ruse they’ll be tricked into describing their hero as the incompetent, immoral traitor he is. If not, they’ll just be left speechless, betraying their own ignorance.

Either way, you win. Right?