Expansion
I think it’s worth pulling at what I hinted in my last blog post.
The arguments of many Republicans in favor of Trump are on their face laughable. Let’s take a look at Representative Louie Gohmert’s questions at the recent hearing of the Judiciary Committee:
Gohmert: Well listen, regarding collusion or conspiracy, you didn’t find any evidence of any agreement—and I’m quoting you—among the Trump campaign officials and any Russia-linked individuals to ‘fere with our US election, correct?
Mueller: Correct.
Gohmert (his voice beginning to shake): So, you also note in the report that an element of any of those obstructions you referenced requires a corrupt state of mind, correct?
Mueller: Corrupt intent, correct.
Gohmert: Right. (Gohmert begins to shout passionately) And if somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to effect the election, and they see the big Justice Department, with people that hate that person, coming after ‘em, and then a Special a-Counsel appointed who hires dozen or more people that hate that person, and he knows he’s innocent, he’s not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done, what he’s doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice, and the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuate injustice.
What actions might this include? From [Representative Cedric Richmond’s questioning of Mueller]:
Richmond: So it's fair to say the President tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?
Mueller: I would say that’s, ah, generally a summary.
Richmond: Would you say that, that action, the President tried to hamper the investigation by asking staff to falsify records relevant to your investigation?
Mueller: I am just going to have to refer you to the report if I could for, ah, ah, review of, ah, that episode.
Richmond: Thank you. Also the President's attempt to get McGahn to create a false written record were related to Mr. Trump's concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry, correct?
Mueller: I believe that to be true.
In other words, Gohmert’s argument is that someone can ask their staff to falsify records, in effect lying to investigators, if they know they are innocent–and indeed, this is part of some noble effort “pursuing justice”.
This is obviously ridiculous. Given Trump’s high approval rates among Republicans, and (as shown in my previous post) his viciousness towards his in-party enemies, it’s easy to see why a Republican would want to be seen as supporting the President. But presenting an argument in defense of someone does not mean that the argument itself is sound, nor does it mean that the argument itself is the point.
Christian apologetics are often assumed to be means of defending the beliefs of Christians to external actors, but they have often been used by Christians to shore up their own beliefs—and it is not just in Christian circles that this occurs. There is nothing wrong with this if the arguments are sound. But statements like Gohmert’s are so intellectually brittle that, if you look at them seriously for but a moment, they crumble. When a weak argument is used as an apologetic, this is only of use for those looking for an excuse rather than a reason to continue believing what they already believe.
Arguments like those from many Republicans today are a simulacrum of reason. They are constructed not to illustrate the truth, or assist in the search for the truth, but instead both to provide this excuse to the “witch hunt!” crowd and, accompanied by the emotional outburst brought by Gohmert, an impassioned declaration of support for the party’s leader.
They might as well be chanting “Long live the party! Long live Saddam Hussein!”