As Donald Trump continues to spin out of control and what had been whispers about his mental stability become open conversations, one has to wonder what is wrong with allegedly sane Republicans who are seemingly not motivated by racial hatred and/or religious extremism. How do they justify to themselves supporting a man who, in my view, is nothing short of a clear and present danger to America? Are they simply so used to voting Republican that they are like robotic zombies? Are they not paying attention to Trump's increasingly obvious mental instability? Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman looks at this question in a column in the New York Times. Here are some column excerpts:
Donald Trump said some more disgusting things over the weekend. If this surprises you, you haven’t been paying attention. Also, don’t be surprised if a majority of Republicans approve of his attack on the parents of a dead war hero. After all, a YouGov survey found that 61 percent of Republicans support his call for Russian hacking of Hillary Clinton.But this isn’t a column about Mr. Trump and the people who are O.K. with anything he says or does. It is, instead, about Republicans — probably a minority within the party, but a substantial one — who aren’t like that. These are people who aren’t racists, respect patriots even if they’re Muslim, believe that America should honor its international commitments, and in general sound like normal members of a normal political party.
Yet the great majority of these not-crazy Republicans are still supporting Mr. Trump for president. And we have a right to ask why.
True, a Clinton victory would mean a continuation of the center-left governance we’ve had under Barack Obama, which would be a big disappointment for those who want a turn to the right. And many people have convinced themselves that ideology aside, Mrs. Clinton would be a bad president. . . . But never mind: even if you’re a conservative who really dislikes the Democratic candidate, how can you justify choosing Donald Trump?
Put it this way: Is there any reason to believe that a Clinton victory would lead to irretrievable disaster? Because that’s the question you should be asking yourself.
[E]ven if you think the Obama economy should have been better, the fact is that we’ve added 11 million private-sector jobs; stocks are way up; inflation and interest rates have stayed low; the budget deficit has withered away.
Moving up the scale of importance, what about national security? . . . . there’s just no way to paint Mrs. Clinton — who has the support of many retired military leaders — as some kind of pushover for terrorists and foreign aggressors. Meanwhile, her opponent talks about abandoning NATO allies if they don’t pay up and seems fine with Russian adventurism in Ukraine.
Most important of all is the question of democracy at home. . . . anyone watching her opponent has to be very, very worried about his authoritarian streak.
The bottom line is that even if you don’t like Mrs. Clinton or what she stands for, it’s hard to see how you could view her possible victory with horror. And it’s hard to see how you could view Mr. Trump’s possible victory any other way.
How, then, can rational Republicans justify supporting Mr. Trump, or even remaining neutral, which is in effect giving him half a vote?
[W]hatever one may say about ordinary voters, the real sinners here are Republican leaders — people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell — who are actively supporting a candidate they know poses a danger to the nation.
It’s not hard to see why they’re doing this. Opposing their party’s nominee, no matter how awful he is, would probably end up being a career killer.
But there are times when you’re supposed to put such considerations aside. The willingness of some people who know better to support Donald Trump is understandable; it’s also despicable.