This Presidential election has been an unsettling experience. In an unexpected way, it reminds me of my initial introduction to philosophy. The head of the philosophy department taught that first class. Its subject was logic, a real mind twister; and he was more than an intimidating presence. After our first test, all but one of us flunked, making his class seem even more daunting than before. Ironically, by the end of the semester he became my counselor. As I became more comfortable in his presence, I eventually developed enough nerve to ask him why he was so tough with us. His answer: “Logic is the bulwark of the critical thinking so many of us lack.”

It seems to me that this election season has really tested our critical thinking and muddled our logic. For example, the most common error in logic is the invalid premise. If you accept the premise that an arithmetic solution is inarguable, then the solution 2 + 2 = 4 must be inarguably correct. But what do you conclude from the syllogism, “I am a liar, but I’m telling you the truth.” If the premise is true, then the “truth” being told may be a lie because “I” am a liar—or not. For if the premise is false, the “I” is a truth teller whose statement about being a liar is itself a lie. The result is a circular argument where neither the “I” nor the “truth” being told can ever be resolved as liar/truth teller or lie/truth, respectively. But what if, in real life, the liar is shown to be a liar who is believed to be telling the truth? Oh my, then truth may come out of the mouth of a liar. Perhaps belief in the liar preempts the need for logic.

By now, most of us should have come to the conclusion that we cannot or should not accept as true anything based upon a false premise. For example, Hillary Clinton cannot be punished as a criminal if no criminal act can be attributed to her. Likewise, there can be no conspiracy to deny Donald Trump the presidency if there is no evidence of such a conspiracy. But what if crimes and conspiracies have actually been committed without any attribution or evidence to prove the case? Oh my, then crimes and conspiracies can exist without anybody knowing about them. Perhaps something other than logic is at work here.

Fortunately, my philosophy studies so many years ago also included ethics. The professor who introduced this subject summarized how most people deal with the matter of ethics and morals: “It all depends,” he would say, “on whose ox is being gored.” You see, if a politician can convince you he tells the truth, even when he is exposed as an inveterate liar, then you will probably not accept any evidence to the contrary. If that politician can convince you further that crimes and conspiracies are prevalent without any supportive facts or proof, then you will be inclined not to accept any evidence to the contrary. Your conviction is not based upon logic, but what you believe to be true regardless of evidence or facts. That belief is your “ox.” And it has moral authority because you have made it so.

Now PolitiFact has just awarded Donald Trump its “Lie of the Year” award. But its website could not single out any one lie since 76% of the Trump statements tested were all lies. So it made Trump himself as the lie of the year. Nevertheless, his supporters seem to follow him blindly whether they believe he is truthful or not. For some, it seems to be a moral conviction that compels them to believe his lies. For others, it seems to be the force of his personality that compels them to follow him in spite of his lies. Once so committed, the man himself becomes the “ox” that must be defended at all costs.

To put the case bluntly: there is no logic behind the rise of Trump or “Trumpism.” The latter is itself a fiction for it defies definition. What Trump represents is not an ideology. He speaks only to those who want to believe in him. “Why,” you might ask. Well, as I began to intimate in my earlier blog, among his supporters are people whose grievances have not been addressed by either their representatives or the institutions of our government. Trump presents himself as their savior, the leader who alone can fix all that troubles them. He is a projection of the remedies too long withheld or, worse, promised and never delivered. He has played on the fears, the disappointments, and the resentments of those who desperately need to believe in anyone who can deliver them from their angst. His appearance at this time in American history is significant and, more importantly, opportunistic. If Mr. Trump was not being opportunistic, he would have already built a credible case for “building a wall,” outlawing Muslim immigration, “bombing the hell out of terrorists . . . eliminating their families,” and reestablishing the practice of torture. But he has not done so. The logical arguments against these propositions have been well established. It would be tedious and practically superfluous to repeat them here. As he has shown repeatedly, what he says or who he discredits makes no difference to his supporters. They are fixated on him. History has many examples like him. Perhaps it would be unfair to draw the obvious analogies, for he is more of an American euphemism than a European radical. He is our “Shane,” the gunslinger who comes out of nowhere to clean up the town of bad guys. If elected, he would be Gary Cooper in “High Noon,” the sheriff who takes on the riff raft without support of the town “elite” or even his deputies. He casts himself as the American hero who can single-handedly save the country. He declares, “I alone can fix it.” He does not ask his supporters to believe in his ideals—like Obama—or in his policies—like Clinton—but in him. He often punctuates his declarations with their only justification, “Believe me.”

You might ask how this Trump phenomenon came along at this point in our history. Well, I believe the Republican Party paved the way for his “coming.” Some years ago it made a devil’s bargain with its far right constituency: it has blocked everything this constituency abhors while denying them any of the benefits of reasonable governance. Those benefits could have and should have represented true “family values” like support for education from kindergarten through junior college, tuition aid for lower and middle class families, paid family leave, a minimum wage increase, infra-structure investments, promotion of clean air, water, and soil programs, a simplified tax structure that favors family wealth creation, and targeted training programs for the unemployed. The “family values” the GOP did support, however, are neither favored by a majority of Americans nor by Supreme Court decisions that interpret our Constitution, such as universal prohibition of abortions, of access to critical public services for undocumented immigrant residents, of LGBT rights, and of gay marriages. Even if the “rightness” of these propositions is set aside, is it not clear that the GOP is out of sync with the majority of the electorate? And how did its support for one of these strongly held, minority positions justify shutting down the government and refusing to compromise on legislation by attaching “poison pill” amendments or, in other cases, tabling bills in committees? How did the GOP think it possible to justify these positions on Constitutional grounds? The First and Ninth Amendments taken together guarantee the free exercise of religion without “denying or disparaging” the rights of others. So a person whose religion determines that abortion is a sin is absolutely free to refuse abortion, but not to deny another the right to do so.

The “inalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence have been the guiding star by which America has extended civil rights and personal freedom to so many who were initially deprived at its inception. Those rights have been defended and explicated in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments. So both the historical interpretation of the Constitution and an American majority have not only abolished slavery and involuntary servitude (13th Amendment) but have consistently supported extending the rights of citizenship—that is, “those inalienable rights”—to all “persons born or naturalized in the United States” (14th amendment) without denying or abridging them “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (15th Amendment), or “on account of sex (19th Amendment).” Does it not seem logical that our legislators would find a path to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants who have worked hard, obeyed our laws, and raised their children among us? Is there not an historical imperative for America to grant them their “inalienable rights”? Both our history and our Constitution would seem to make this imperative obvious: they demand a path to citizenship for these immigrants. But the GOP has ignored American history and the impetus of its founding documents. Instead, it has successfully created an evidence and fact free zone for Mr. Trump to fill.

Trump’s singular talent was his ability to fill the vacuum created by the Republican Party and to win the Party’s nomination by doing so. Further, he was clever enough to recognize how easily he could manipulate the American press. For decades, serious journalism has been gradually pushed out of the mainstream news outlets in favor of celebrity gossip, scandals, and abbreviated capsulations of more nuanced issues. Mr. Trump is a news celebrity wunderkind whose background is a tabloid dream and his sloganized campaign, a catch phrase headline absent the need for a supporting article. Cable news in particular covers every word out of his mouth while it rakes in millions in sponsorship as a result of increased viewership. But it would not be accurate to attribute this interest in Trump’s campaign to his politics. His supporters are not political junkies, but fans. The words “fan” and “fanatic” come from the Latin fanaticus, which refers to the frenzied behavior inspired by a deity at a temple feast. Of course, Trump is no deity, but he does inspire frenzied devotion at his rallies. The feasibility of his political agenda—like building a wall that Mexico will pay for—is not what inspires his fan base. He is.

I find it interesting that Trump has tried to divert attention away from his womanizing by touting former President Clinton’s misadventures. Hillary’s husband was impeached for lying under oath about his consensual sexual relations with a young intern. The irony is that he left the Presidency with a very high approval rating. His “fans” accepted his heartfelt apology and forgave him his errant ways. He became their “lovable rogue.” In somewhat like manner, Trump has captivated the favor of millions of Americans. Both men prove my point about the influence of personality and celebrity status on our electorate. Some of us are too easily seduced by the illogic of the heart. The problem, of course, is that our democracy depends upon an informed electorate. We are not voting for the next “American Idol,” but the leader of the free world and of the oldest democracy in history. The trust we place in a candidate cannot be based solely upon personal appeal without regard for character and sensible policies. More is required of us as American citizens. The founding fathers knew the experiment they created with a democratic republic would fail if its citizenry became ignorant of our Constitutional values and unable or unwilling to elect representatives who could support those values.

To my nearly 5,000 subscribers, I must apologize for departing from my usual Socratic approach and stating what is probably obvious. I will be voting for Hillary Clinton. Of course, I cannot tell you how to vote. But I believe Donald Trump does not deserve to be President. Further, I believe Mrs. Clinton presents the best opportunity to restore our two-party system. If she will but compromise on her agenda, she can provide the Republican Party a way out of the quagmire they have created for themselves. She has shown in the past her willingness to compromise. And the time for compromise has never been more urgently needed since the period just before the Civil War. Both Parties have an urgent stake in reforming the tax code, campaign funding, and entitlement financing, as well as in securing America from external threats. We Americans are demanding a government that works. Although Mrs. Clinton is a liberal, she is not the liberal icon Republican leadership has fought for the last eight years—much to their own demise as an effective political counterpoint. Of course the two Parties have widely different views on the state of the economy, income inequality, immigration, voting rights, and so much more. But, if they can come together on some things, it opens the door to the rest of the issues that relate to the general welfare of all Americans. Any constructive dialogue on these matters would help restore faith in our elected representatives and demonstrate that our Constitutional framework is still workable. Mr. Trump’s authoritarian approach, however, is out of step with a democratic republic and promotes a cult-like following that is contrary to the informed electorate required in our system of government. He must be soundly rejected.

Vote wisely, my friends.