In his criticism of Ron DeSantis’s campaign, John Daniel Davidson complains that DeSantis has been overly critical of Donald Trump:
Like it or not, many Republicans have a unique bond with Trump, not just because they had to endure a lot of grief for supporting him in the past but also because they see how Democrats and the media have weaponized entire institutions against him in the most outrageous and dangerous ways. Even if these GOP voters are open to supporting other candidates this time around, the last thing they want is to be told that Trump is awful, which comes off as an indictment of them and their judgment.
If this is true, it’s snowflakery — and snowflakery that would be identifiable as such in any other circumstance. Worse yet, it’s snowflakery that is only indulged in one direction. If you cannot listen to an objective criticism of a political figure you like without transmuting those criticisms into criticisms of yourself, you are pathetic. If you cannot listen to an objective criticism of a political figure you like without transmuting those criticisms into criticisms of yourself, but you only apply this rule to yourself, then you’re a hypocrite.
Ultimately, the people whom Davidson is describing here are rigging the game in their favor. Here’s what Davidson suggests DeSantis should have done:
He could have praised Trump’s achievements and defended him from the unfair attacks leveled at him by Democrats, as Vivek Ramaswamy has done, and simply ignored Trump’s insults.
Got that? DeSantis should not have criticized Trump — indeed, he should have actively praised and defended him. But Trump — who evidently has no agency — should have been able to insult DeSantis at will, leaving DeSantis with the responsibility of ignoring him.
Why? Because the only rule of Trumpism is that the rules must benefit Trump at all times. Under this arrangement, attacks on Trump ought to be construed as attacks on all Republicans, but attacks on DeSantis are just politics — even when those attacks included the charge that DeSantis is a pedophile, featured brazen lies about his record as governor, and involved the all-out disparagement of his state. Under this arrangement, it was incumbent on DeSantis to focus on the “real villain” — “the Democrat machine” — but it was not incumbent on Trump to do the same. “Ever since he announced his candidacy,” Davidson writes, “DeSantis has been obsessed with taking on Trump.” Which . . . yeah? As opposed to what? Trump was the frontrunner, and DeSantis was running against him in a primary. If the only options available to Trump’s political critics are silence or sycophancy, then there can be no such thing as a critic of Trump. It is telling that the paragon of correct anti-Trumpism whom Davidson provides is Vivek Ramaswamy, who got 8 percent in Iowa, was polling at 4 percent nationally, and ended up endorsing Trump at the first hurdle. With rivals like that, who needs friends?
They would hate the comparison, no doubt, but it is impossible not to see a parallel between Trump and his acolytes and those brittle identitarian college students who interpret every quotidian disagreement as an attack on their dignity, judgment, or very right to exist. In other contexts, Trump’s fans insist that they loathe such people. But they don’t. Not really. What they loathe — all they loathe, in fact — is that their tactics are used for different ends.