"…many of the people who accommodate it [authoritarianism] often do so from a place of recognition that it is problematic and a belief that their support will change or constrain its most dangerous aspects.
"These same people generally fail to understand that the street goes both ways: Yes, they might—in small ways—change or constrain the authoritarian character at the heart of nationalist populism.
"But also, throwing in with authoritarians changes and constrains you. In ways that are not small."
That article, that part of it not behind a paywall, really changed my views "in ways that are not small." It is so obviously true. Yet I had not seen it previously. Hiding in plain view? After posting the first time I went on to other things and forgot about it. The next day I thought about it again and tried to think of analogies. The first ones that came to mind were "You only have one chance to make a first impression", and virginity. No, that's not it, to self. Those others only happen once and once lost virginity does change the person, but there is no time travel in either, you can't go back and undo. They're permanent. I needed an analogy where you could time travel. And then it occurred to me.
A married person who strays. Hmm, let's see, self. (S)he has a boozy one night stand. Even if the other spouse finds out about it or it is confessed to, the one-off need not off the marriage. It does change the relationship maybe just temporarily. (S)he can write off the behavior as: the out of town exception, the too much to drink exception, the irresistible "celebrity exception", or whatever. The human capacity to rationalize is endless and we're very creative. But you're going to go out of town again, or you work with the person, or you're not going to stop drinking. The circumstances are likely to replicate. You were weak once, you're never going to be weak again? That's unreasonable. Once you cheat on your spouse--or vote for an authoritarian, or have a gay liason--you have crossed a psychological barrier and it becomes easier, not pre-destined, but easier, to engage in the behavior again. That seems to be apodictic.
More important than the behavior though, the behavior changes the cheater "in ways that are not small."
The old joke, “I’m not gay!” “Well, how many dicks do you think you have to suck?” Man, I've drunk small lakes of alcohol in my life, I never got so drunk that I sucked another guy's dick. Thought never crossed my mind, actually. You can go back! I don't know, because I don't know, but maybe you can have one gay experience and never another. Go back to only women. You were uni, then, say just once, you were gay, now you're uni again. I bet that happens, I don't know how but I bet it does.
Now let's change the behavior slightly and see what that says about the actor. Take out the booze excuse, make the actor the "pitcher" not the "catcher." I start from these premises: A man who 1) achieves that state of excitation known as an erection and who 2) sticks his erect penis into one of the two genital cavities of another and who 3) reaches that state of excitation known as ejaculation--that man has had an enjoyable experience! It seems to me that the submissive "catcher", in straight sex the woman, has a built in excuse that the man, on the above premises, does not. "I didn't enjoy it, I just lay there and thought of England."
In the gay variant the submissive excuse seems to me even more psychologically powerful, the position of the active "pitcher" more psychologically indefensible. "I fucked a guy in the ass with a rock-hard erection and was so turned on that I nutted inside his asshole like I do inside my wife's vagina"--that man is a gay motherfucker. If you are the active in a sex act even once you are what that sex act says you are.
Now, citing to Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does", but...doing one stupid thing doesn't make you stupid necessarily--it can, but it doesn't have to. But, and here the most incisive part of The Bulwark article, “it changes you", and the emphasis is in the original. When you commit adultery just once your identity changes from spouse to adulterer. That's tautological. a·dul·ter·er noun 1. a person who commits adultery. Look it up, Pilgrim, that's the fucking definition. So, you're an adulterer, that's your new identity. You used to be Joe Spouse, then you changed your name to Joe Adulterer, and with a change in identity, behavior in conformity with the new you often--doesn't have to--follows. What do adulterers do? Commit adultery. Okay, I'm an adulterer, I might as well practice my trade.
Voting for Trump is premeditated, active participant political gay sodomy following a courtship that is now over eight years and counting. The equivalent would be, say me, in 2015, seeing some guy come down a golden elevator and for the first time in my life thinking, "Wow, he's cute. I would like to fuck him in the ass." And then getting more and more obsessed with fucking him anally and cumming in his ass that I trail him wherever he goes, changing my underwear frequently, losing my wife who sees what I have become, what I always have been, politically gay, and now I am in a long term exclusive relationship with Trump. Take the word of David French--we who see only Stupid in Trumpists miss the "joy" of the political anal orgasm. It could have been a one-night (or one-term) stand but it wasn't. That's the reality. The Stupids who voted for Trump in 2016 largely voted for him again and will vote for him a third time in 2024 and as many times as he's on the ballot and may write him in when he's dead and would suck his dick if they had half a chance. That is by far the most common set of behavior with the Stupids. Maybe some rejoined Americans for Democratic Action or re-registered as Democrats after 2016 and maybe pigs will fly. No, they're changed, Trump voters' identities changed from Republicans and some Democrats to authoritarians, to political inverts, when their behavior changed. They didn't go back. There's no going back for them. Go suck his dick and don’t talk with your mouth full.
