I believed in the @GOP. I trusted that people with vision and character would fight to uphold their ideals with integrity and willpower. Not all of them, of course, I'm not stupid... but enough that they'd stand up a firewall strong enough to protect those valuable institutions.

But I was wrong.

There was some pushback at first. Plenty of people in the GOP saw the danger DT embodied, and railed against him throughout the primary season. But they didn't take it seriously, and so they coddled him. @tedcruz was the worst offender here. I'll never forgive him for that.

And so despite the protests from within, DT's non-stop media coverage and 100% name recognition fed the monster the only thing it craves: attention. It turns out that know-nothing populism and bullying authoritarianism buys you more power and influence than conservatism does.

And since growing in power and influence is DT's only guiding principle, he immediately stoked those fires, rising to the top of the GOP ticket, and leaving its members with a choice. They chose poorly.

Why? Take your pick. Because they're weak, unprincipled, greedy, power-hungry, lazy, envious, "beta cucks," afraid of what would happen to them if they stepped out of line... pretty much any or all of those reasons were applicable.

Maybe there were a few TRUE BELIEVERS that think that the best way to "fix" America is to reinstate a royalty or dictatorship, to make us more like China or Russia... who knows?

The thing is, NONE of the other GOP primary candidates could have done what DT did. Say what you want about normal politicians, but they're not lazy.

Normal politicians have to work on their brand constantly, talk to constituents, learn about the law, debate and understand various security issues and congressional bills up for vote. They have to actually form opinions. BUT NOT DONALD!

He could be as lazy as he wanted, because no one actually expected competence! Voters saw him as a spectacle, and a "breath of fresh air" different from the usual candidate -- that difference allowed DT to play by a different set of rules, without consequence.

Normal politicians had voting records and lists of accomplishments to prove that they at least had SOME beliefs -- and even if they went back on them, at least you could reasonably assume they understood the issues at hand. BUT NOT DONALD!

He could only be pinned down to old interviews with radio shock jocks, and newly-spewn vacillating soundbites of top-of-mind mouth diarrhea. His relationship to the truth was non-existent, of course, but it didn't matter! HE WAS DIFFERENT!

So the voting public said, who cares? So what if he didn't know a debate question about the nuclear triad? Who expects him to understand healthcare and social security and foreign trade and military strategy and renewable energy and federalism, anyway?!?

That's tough stuff that nobody really understands anyway!

"Besides," they said, "he promised to lock up his opponents and protect us from brown people and bring back human manufacturing and return us to a 1950's utopia! That's the stuff that really matters!"

DT's sloth and complete lack of intellectual curiosity placed him as the only possible standard-bearer for his unique brand of politics. The successes he's found, however, make me worry that another person in the near future might try to follow his playbook, on a path to victory.

In hindsight, we're extremely lucky that it was DT that broke through this political firewall. After all, he's too lazy and carnal and incompetent to be truly dangerous.

The danger truly lies in another smarter, more capable, more sinister candidate following his lead. And I don't know that I trust the American electorate to properly diagnose and prevent that from happening.

I forget why I'm writing this now, exactly, but it's a good exercise for us all. Knowing how and why something happened is the best way to stop it in the future. (19/23)

The takeaway here, I guess, is multifold. 1) I trusted people to do what's right, and I discounted the effects of populism and power on their willingness to stand up for principle. (20/23)

2) I thought people would be willing to hold the POTUS up to SOME standards, rather than excusing and justifying his inexcusable trampling of society norms. (21/23)

3) It is one thing to watch a member of the "other party" govern in ways you don't agree, but it is much harder to watch an outside force co-opt the rules and destroy the foundation of principles you hold dear from within your "own party" without anyone even trying to stop him.

And THAT, my friends, is why I'm never registering as a Republican ever again.

Fin.

(23/23)