In a sensible world, the following statement concerning Donald Trump wouldn’t be controversial:

Donald Trump’s political success is, to a significant degree, explained by conservatives who like him hold virulent disdain and disturbingly disrespectful attitudes toward Muslims, blacks, undocumented Hispanic immigrants, and so on. In other words, people with deplorable views electing a deplorable man.

But such a statement immediately comes under fire from those wishing to defend conservatives and conservatism from accusations of bigotry. Let’s examine the typical counterarguments before exploring the idea.

Many conservatives despise Trump and hate his rhetoric. This is true, and quite a relief, but nowhere does the statement claim all conservatives hold bigoted views — nor that all conservatives support or voted for Donald Trump. In the primaries, Trump won a lower percentage of GOP votes than anyone since Ronald Reagan in 1968, having more votes cast against him than any Republican candidate ever — by a margin of 4-5 million. This can in part be explained by a very large field of GOP candidates, which heavily split the votes. However, Trump received more votes than any other Republican candidate in history, by a margin of 2-3 million. Both are explained by a very high voter turnout. While it is heartening to hear, simply saying “Lots of conservatives voted against him” or “My conservative friends and I hate him” is beside the point. The statement refers to those who did vote for him and do support him.

Trump is not a true conservative. There is some truth in this, but it’s irrelevant. It’s true, in the past Trump held more liberal positions on abortion, gun control, and healthcare — even donating to Democratic campaigns. On other issues he held conservative positions, particularly relating to business. For the purposes of this election, he clearly created an ultraconservative character (not unlike Stephen Colbert’s rightwing blowhard alter ego). This is not to say he isn’t a bigoted, crass, narcissistic, greed-fueled person, but changes to his prior political positions were necessary to win the conservative base; saying so many horrible things about ethnic and religious minorities only helped.

Further, one can say that Trump’s authoritarianism — such as vowing to monitor American mosques, create a registry of Muslims, and ban Muslim immigrants — is antithetical to conservatism. After all, true conservatives believe in small government and personal freedoms. But that is a matter of opinion. Liberals understand that while the “small government” talk is true concerning taxes, economic regulations, and aid to the poor, it is consistently untrue for social issues like marriage, abortion, drug use, prostitution, privacy rights in wartime, and so on. Likewise, to Trump’s supporters and many conservatives, such authoritarianism is precisely what is necessary, according to polls: some 76% of Republicans supported the idea of banning new Muslim immigrants and a plurality supported Big Brother monitoring American Muslims. You may not think Trump is a true conservative, but that’s beside the point. His conservative supporters think his conservatism is just fine, no matter how oppressive or callous toward our neighbors.

There are other explanations for Trump’s appeal. This is true. It should not be claimed that xenophobia and bigotry are the only appealing things about Trump for certain people. It’s more complex than that. Trump’s outsider status is desirable to those who despise the corruption in Washington and eternal rule of establishment politicians. His business experience is appealing to poor conservatives trying to navigate unemployment and low wages. His talk of the corrosive effect of corporate money in politics and how regime change is too dangerous appeals to many, including some liberals (see below), despite the fact he publicly brags of taking advantage of the former and usually opposes U.S. military interventions only after supporting them — Iraq is only one example. If we look beyond the primaries, of course, many who vote for Donald Trump will do so — reluctantly or unhappily — to avoid a Clinton presidency and restore Republican power and policies.

Liberals and Democrats voted for Trump, too. This has some merit, but the scope of the phenomenon is very limited. (Unless of course you trust miserable writers like Michael Harrington at Red State, who “after a lot of work” finished his “math calculations” and found that in the GOP primaries only 3 million Republicans voted for Trump, whereas 12 million Democrats voted for him, many sneakily switching party affiliation in states with closed primaries. The GOP primaries were therefore “electorally gang raped by Democrats,” the “plants” who “stole” the election. Naturally, Harrington offers no data or evidence to support his claim, only the absurd statement that “ten million more Republicans and 12 million less Democrats” voted in the U.S. primaries from 2000 to 2008 — apparently because so many Democrats switched to the Republican Party to subvert elections! This isn’t even remotely true. GOP primary votes in 2008 were up about 4 million compared to 2000, Democrats up by a colossal 23 million in the Democratic primaries in 2008 compared to 2000. If you recall, the 2008 Democratic primaries were exciting for many due to a certain candidate.)

Let me be clear here. Because of all the horrible things Trump has said about so many good people, Democrats and independents voting for Trump is just as despicable as Republicans doing the same. The same can be said for any of his few Hispanic, Muslim, or black supporters. Further, Trump’s hateful venom likely appeals to some moderates and liberals. Neither the left nor the center are immune from prejudice. I will come back to this, but here the only point is this: some Democrats and center-left or liberal independents are voting for Trump, but there is no real evidence they have played a crucial role in his success. They are few. Only self-described moderates could be said to have had a significant impact.

Both liberal and conservative media, from Breitbart to the Atlantic, tracked down Democrats voting for Trump, their stated reasons typically involving a strong dislike and distrust of Hillary Clinton, economic hard times in former manufacturing hubs, and so on, as mentioned above. Hostility toward minorities and others, I believe, is also a piece of the puzzle, as with conservatives. But the person who claims Democrats played a significant role in Trump’s success have quite a challenge to prove it (unless you wish to simply make stuff up like Harrington), for two reasons: he or she must analyze the crossover vote in each state and determine what portion of the crossover vote went to Trump.

Consider Ohio. Now, every election cycle sees crossover voting (Republicans voting for a Democrat, Democrats voting for a Republican). In Ohio, 115,000 registered Democrats switched to the Republican Party (35,000 Republicans switched to the Democratic Party). This could be evidence of a surge in leftist support of Trump, but to know for sure one would have to track the voting patterns of those who switched. Otherwise it’s mere speculation. After all, John Kasich crushed Trump by 11 percentage points (it was Kasich’s home state). Perhaps Democrats were flocking to Kasich — to help beat Trump! The challenge is obvious. Unless you could somehow examine the votes of Democrats who switched party affiliation (you can’t), you cannot say with confidence Democrats were flocking to Trump to support him. The same can be said of the independents who registered Republican (910,000; 710,000 went to the Democrats).

In all, over 2 million votes were cast in the Ohio Republican primary. If one assumed (foolishly) that all 115,000 Democratic turncoats voted for Trump, that amounts to just over 5% of the total vote. Not quite a figure that would make a reasonable person blame Democrats for Trump’s overall success — and again, 5% is extremely unlikely.

This challenge of not knowing who crossover voters sided with, plus very small numbers of crossover voters anyway, makes blaming Democrats for Trump seem rather childish. The challenge exists in all states, even where Trump won soundly. Consider Massachusetts. Trump won by a massive 30 percentage points. 16,300 Democrats became independents, while 3,500 Democrats became Republicans. With 631,000 people voting in the GOP Massachusetts primary, this means the Democrats-turned-Republican accounted for 0.5% of the vote (Democrats-turned-independent being 2.5%). And it is probably not the case that they all voted from Trump. This suggests leftist support for Trump is quite small.

It is also important to look at the change in the number of Democrats and independents participating in the GOP primaries compared to 2012. For some states, there was an increase in participation, others a decrease — but all changes were quite minute. Iowa saw 2% more Democratic voters, Massachusetts 1%, Oklahoma 1%, etc. But New Hampshire had 1% fewer, Vermont 4%, Michigan 2%, etc. Not thrilling numbers.

“But what of all independents, those beyond the recent converts?” the anti-Trump conservative still wishing to protect the conservative image asks. “Trump did best in open primaries where independents could vote. Those independents must include a ton of liberals!”

True, Trump had his biggest wins in open primaries (his biggest was Massachusetts). But the aforementioned challenge remains. The notion that the independents flocking to him are made up of a large number of liberals is pure speculation; one cannot precisely track how independents intended to vote or voted — one can only rely on polls. Could it not be that Trump simply did well among right-leaning independents in some states? Or moderate independents? Could their high turnout explain it?

It may be valuable to reverse this thinking. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton did far better in open primaries than Bernie Sanders. Suppose I were to posit that this was due to significant support from right-leaning independents and indeed Republicans eagerly switching party affiliation to support her! Or perhaps they were conservative “plants” ensuring Clinton would win so Trump could beat the easier opponent in the general election. Possible, but it all starts to feel a bit absurd when I suggest it’s happening in massive numbers.

Since tracking votes is illegal, polls give us the best idea of who is voting for Trump (unless you wish to pander to conspiracy theorists and suppose huge numbers of anonymous liberals polled simply pretend to not be liberal). In an exit poll after the Massachusetts GOP primary, only 5% of participants (whether Democrat, Republican, or independent) described themselves as liberals (moderates were 33% of participants). Expectedly, the rest were conservatives. In the Ohio GOP primary? 3% called themselves liberals (moderates 25%). How about traditional blue states beyond Massachusetts where Trump won big, like New Hampshire (2% of participants calling themselves liberal)? And so on. The participants still calling themselves Democrats were 8% or less for these states. Even assuming (again, without basis) that every liberal participant voted for Trump, these numbers are not impressive. Same with every Democrat.

Compare these primaries to those of 2012. Like Democrats, independents in some states had a stronger showing than in 2012 (Iowa, Oklahoma, etc.), while other states saw a weaker showing (Vermont, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, etc.) — and most of the changes were by 1% to 4% either way. Why didn’t the number of Democratic or independent participants skyrocket if there was substantial leftist support for Trump?

Overall, one cannot make the case that people who call themselves Democrats or liberals, nor those who became independents or Republicans for the sake of this election, played a large role in Trump’s success. Moderates, yes. Democrats and liberals, no.

(Update: On November 8, 2016, Trump won the Electoral College, and thus the presidency, while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by millions of votes. Only 9% of voters calling themselves Democrats and 10% of voters calling themselves liberals voted for Trump; 7% of Republican and 15% of conservative voters cast a ballot for Clinton. In the 2004, 2008, and 2012 elections, 11-13% of liberals and 7-11% of Democrats voted Republican. This year, independents leaned slightly Trump, moderates slightly Clinton. Only 4% of the electorate went from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. Like the primaries before it, it cannot be said Democrats and liberals were particularly enthusiastic about Trump.)

Trump is largely the product of an ugly segment of conservative America, with some moderates close behind.

Having established that many conservatives hate Trump and his nastiness, Trump is not the typical conservative, there is not just one answer for why people support Trump, and Trump’s support from liberals and Democrats isn’t exactly something to boast about, let us consider all that is left to consider: Trump’s devoted following.

91% of Trump supporters are white. The majority of his followers, all colors included, are not college educated, and they are disproportionately older. (Update: As in the primaries, two-thirds of Trump voters in the general election made over $50,000 a year. It wasn’t the white poor that made up the bulk of his base. It was simply whites, whom Trump took with a 21 point margin overall. At all income levels, whites without college degrees supported Trump at rates 20 points higher (or more) than whites with college degrees.)

65% of people who like Trump believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. Nearly 60% believe he was not born in the U.S. 40% think black people are more “lazy” than white people. 50% believe blacks are more “violent” than whites. 16% think whites to be a “superior race,” while 14% are “not sure.” These answers are much worse than those given by Clinton fans. Support for Trump correlates with stronger racist attitudes (even better than economic dissatisfaction) and greater distress that the U.S. is growing more diverse. One study found that reminding people who care about their whiteness that persons of color would soon make up the American majority led to greater support for Trump. A solid third of Trump supporters think imprisoning Japanese Americans during World War II was the right thing for America to do. 31% express support for banning homosexuals from the U.S. Prejudice among Trump fans is statistically worse than other Republicans.

Nearly 60% of Trump’s supporters dislike Islam, over 50% dislike atheism. 69% believe “immigrants are a burden on the country” and 64% say “Muslims should be subject to more scrutiny.” As mentioned, there is strong support among Republicans for Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigrants (as well as the statistically untrue idea that illegal Hispanic immigration increases crime; there is widespread support for deportation). Republicans who believe that a “growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens U.S. values” and that it is “bad for the country that blacks, Latinos, Asians will be the majority of the population” are more likely to favor Trump. Those who use terms like “Holohoax,” “BanIslam,” and “WhiteGenocide” on social media are many times more likely to follow Trump than other GOP candidates like Ted Cruz. A sampling of 10,000 of Trump’s Twitter followers found about 35% also followed white supremacists like David Duke.

38% of Trump supporters think minorities have “too much influence” in the U.S., and 21% believe whites have “too little influence.” 38% of South Carolinians who voted for Trump wish the South had won the Civil War, and 20% disagreed with the “executive order which freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government,” Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. While it could well be a strong stand against executive orders themselves, the supporters of other candidates were a bit more accommodating when it came to executive orders ending the enslavement of black people: only 5% of Marco Rubio’s supporters disagreed, 12% of Jeb Bush’s, 3% of Kasich’s, etc.

As with Obama being a Kenyan Muslim, there is a frightening willingness among Trump supporters to parrot whatever Trump says, for example 69% believing if Clinton wins the election was rigged and 47% claiming to have seen the thus far non-existent video of $400 million being given to Iran that Trump swore he saw.

I don’t think any person who isn’t totally divorced from reality would dispute the idea that a significant factor to Trump’s success has been disproportionate support from Americans infected by nativism and bigotry. White Christian discomfort over increasing racial, religious, cultural, and sexual diversity has been a defining theme of American history and still exists today. All this aligns neatly, by the way, with modern psychological research indicating a person who thinks in less abstract ways or has a larger right amygdala, which influences fear and anxiety, tends to be conservative. Fear of “the Other” is a real factor of political ideology. It helps explain — not excuse — Trump’s appeal and the willingness of ordinary people to verbally or physically abuse the Americans Trump attacks.

When neo-Nazi leaders start calling your chosen candidate “glorious leader,” an “ultimate savior” who will “Make American White Again” and represents “a real opportunity for people like white nationalists,” it may be time to rethink the Trump phenomenon. When former KKK leader David Duke says he supports Trump “100 percent” and that people who voted for Trump will “of course” also vote for Duke to help in “preserving this country and the heritage of this country,” it is probably time to be honest about the characteristics and fears of many of the people willing to vote for Trump. As Mother Jones documents, white nationalist author Kevin McDonald called Trump’s movement a “revolution to restore White America,” the anti-Semitic Occidental Observer said Trump is “saying what White Americans have been actually thinking for a very long time,” and white nationalist writer Jared Taylor said Trump is “talking about policies that would slow the dispossession of whites. That is something that is very important to me and to all racially conscious white people.” Rachel Pendergraft, a KKK organizer, said, “The success of the Trump campaign just proves that our views resonate with millions. They may not be ready for the Ku Klux Klan yet, but as anti-white hatred escalates, they will.” She said Trump’s campaign has increased party membership. Other endorsements from the most influential white supremacists are not difficult to find.

His rhetoric has emboldened and inspired the worst in humanity, from the men who beat a homeless Hispanic with a metal pipe and urinated on him while invoking Trump’s name to the vocal Trump supporter who issued death threats against Muslim worshippers; from the man who screamed “Worthless stupid fucking stupid cunt. Donald Trump 2016! Put them back in the fucking fields where they belong” at a black woman to the Trump voters who, upon seeing a report that showed if women didn’t vote then Trump could win easily, called for a repeal of the 19th Amendment. Peaceful protesters were beaten at numerous rallies, inspired by Trump rhetoric like “I promise I’ll pay the legal fees,” “I’d like to knock the crap of them,” “He should have been roughed up,” “Try not to hurt him. If you do I’ll defend you in court,” and that in the good old days “they’d be carried out on a stretcher.” Not even evidence that contractors working for Democrats may have tried to incite violence at rallies (“It’s not hard to get some of these assholes to pop off”) can explain (or excuse) the scope of violence against innocent people around the country. A spike in murders, assaults, arson, vandalism, and bombings against Muslims just happened to coincide with Trump’s campaign and harshest anti-Muslim rhetoric. Same with hate crimes against Hispanics. Other incidents against anyone Trump has vilified abound, from racial slurs to stabbings.

Observe the glee with which this man glorifies Trump before saying, “Black lives don’t matter” and “You’re a nigger” to an African American.

Even conservative writers who oppose Trump have been subject to “reckless hate”: anti-Semitism, threatening phone calls, messages sent to spouses featuring extreme violence, death, and pornography, emails threatening children, and so on. “They relish your pain,” a National Review staff writer said. “I’ve never experienced anything like this before.”

No one who has ever been online would struggle to understand that people with deplorable attitudes and opinions are numerous — people who use “nigger” and “faggot” with reckless abandon, denouncing “political correctness” (politeness). As a rapper recently put it, “Have you read the YouTube comments lately?” They put Trump’s rhetoric to shame. And such people vote. So do people who may not be as vile but are simply unable to empathize with others, extending to them the treatment and rights they desire for themselves and their children. So a politician suggests monitoring mosques and banning Muslims — why not vote for him, I am not a Muslim. A politician perpetuates stereotypes of brown immigrants and black men — why not vote for him, I am not a brown immigrant or black man. And so on.

(Update: After Trump’s victory on November 8, 2016, hate crimes swept the nation. Trump supporters were emboldened, validated, out for blood. Women were grabbed by the genitals, homosexuals beaten, hijabs ripped off Muslim girls, blacks called “niggers,” Hispanics mocked and told to leave the country. Vandalism featured swastikas, nooses, and racial slurs.)

Now, there is violence and vitriol on the other side. Look no further than the attacks on Trump supporters in San Jose, the firebombing of a GOP headquarters in North Carolina, or the harassment of a black Trump supporter in L.A. Actions like these are equally reprehensible, and demonstrate the tension and divisions of this turbulent election. However, while equally horrific, any rational person can surmise that one is a reaction to the other. Had Trump ran a campaign that encouraged tolerance of all Muslims unless proven guilty and stressed that illegal immigrants commit crimes less often than native citizens because most are careful to obey the law to avoid deportation, Trump supporters would have been much safer from horrible attacks. There is a reason the chaos and violence at San Jose and other places didn’t infect the rallies of other GOP candidates like Bush or Rubio. That does not excuse this violence; it helps explain it. Further, while the violence is equally wrong, it is not equal in scope: of the 867 hate incidents recorded by the SPLC in the ten days after the election, only 23 were anti-Trump (2.6% of all incidents).

Having established that significant numbers of Trump supporters discriminate on the basis of race, sexual orientation, religion, and immigration status, it must be reiterated that yes, there is prejudice on the left. There are some liberals that also hold reprehensible views similar to Trump supporters. Take for example Trump’s idea to punish the many for the crimes of the few, banning all Muslim immigrants:

via Texas Politics Project

As you can see, 15% of liberal respondents either strongly support or somewhat support this policy. That is very discouraging for anyone who cares about religious freedom, tolerance of others, and basic human dignity. But if 15% is a tragedy, how much more so is 75% of conservative respondents saying the same? The pattern is replicated elsewhere and is not hard to find. Some liberals embrace disrespectful, disdainful, discouraging views of blacks, immigrants, homosexuals, Muslims, and so on, but it is rarely as egregious as conservative support. Even if it was, we have already established few liberals are voting for Trump, meaning the claim at the beginning of this article remains sound.

That claim was:

Donald Trump’s political success is, to a significant degree, explained by conservatives who like him hold virulent disdain and disturbingly disrespectful attitudes toward Muslims, blacks, undocumented Hispanic immigrants, and so on. In other words, people with deplorable views electing a deplorable man.

While this is not the only piece of the puzzle, it is a large one indeed. Large enough that I believe if Trump had run as a Democrat and said the same things he wouldn’t have gotten very far. Degrading women and talking about sexually assaulting them, threatening to strip Muslims of their civil rights, perpetuating untrue stereotypes of blacks and immigrants, and so on doesn’t work as well on liberal voters.

If Trump’s nonsense and venom worked just as well on leftists, we surely would have seen more liberals voting for Trump in the primaries. We might see liberals abandoning a very unlikable Democratic candidate in droves and helping Trump win in a landslide in November, an unlikely outcome. Most importantly, we might ask why Trump didn’t simply run as a Democrat, since he previously held more liberal views on several issues. Why choose to run as a Republican instead? I think we know why. He wouldn’t have been taken seriously. Any toxic hate would have been rejected by more voters. Going about spouting authoritarianism and blatant stereotypes, mocking disabled people, and telling obvious lies about what you said on camera yesterday wasn’t going to be as successful with non-conservatives.

Donald Trump’s rise has been a valuable opportunity to show Americans (and the world, embarrassingly) what is accepted by and appeals to too many millions. It’s a good time to acknowledge the problems we still face from many on the right, and elsewhere to a lesser degree, who put up obstacles to tolerance and basic human dignity. We have to be honest with ourselves: Donald Trump is not the real problem.

The problem is the millions willing to vote for him.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Stephen Marche wrote in The Guardian, “The same specter of angry white people haunts Saunders’s rally [as Trump’s], the same sense of longing for a country that was, the country that has been taken away.”

Jonah Goldberg penned in the National Review an article entitled, “Sanders and Trump: Two Populist Peas in a Pod?” He argues government incompetence and lies sparked “populist backlash” on the Right and Left, and that Sanders’ and Trump’s “programs overlap a great deal.”

His “evidence”? He notes “Sanders has praised Trump’s favorable statements on single-payer health care” and juxtaposes Sanders saying capitalists benefit from the cheap labor of illegal immigration and Trump saying “real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first — not wealthy globe-trotting donors.”

In The New York Times, David Brooks writes Sanders and Trump  have “no plausible path toward winning,” that these “cults never last,” and that “these sudden stars are not really about governing. They are tools for their supporters’ self-expression. They allow supporters to make a statement, demand respect or express anger or resentment.”

George Packer in The New Yorker article “The Populists,” while correctly highlighting the stark difference between Sanders’ “plausible reforms” through “elections and legislation” and Trump’s “just let [me] handle it” absurdities, nevertheless echoes Marche and Brooks, and then says:

Responding to the same political moment, the phenomena of Trump and Sanders bear a superficial resemblance. Both men have no history of party loyalty, which only enhances their street cred—their authority comes from a direct bond with their supporters, free of institutional interference. They both rail against foreign-trade deals, decry the unofficial jobless rate, and express disdain for the political class and the dirty money it raises to stay in office.

The whole comparison between Sanders and Trump is truly absurd, and accomplishes nothing except serving as a slur to discredit Sanders, who has 32 years of elected office experience and is the most popular senator in the nation. Whether this is the purpose behind the comparison is up for debate, but the result, obvious to any rational person, is that Sanders is dragged into the mud with a racist with no political but much fear mongering experience.

What other purpose does this serve? What is the point of noting these two politicians have armies of passionate followers and have skyrocketed in the polls in a brief time period? That anti-establishment candidates are popular in a time of great discontent with the establishment?

That is true, and it is right to report it, but if such information isn’t immediately followed by the drastic differences between Sanders and Trump in both personalities and policy goals, if political theorists grasp at straws to show their followers have the same motivations, it likely amounts to nothing more than the establishment of guilt by association. Put Sanders’ name next to Trump’s and hope the disgust toward the latter will somehow shift toward the former.  

This foolishness is not hard to replicate. Watch. Noam Chomsky is a Leftist historian and philosopher who is generally ignored by the mainstream American media. David Duke is a white supremacist, the former Grand Wizard of the K.K.K., and a Republican politician who is generally ignored by the mainstream American media.

Why are they being ignored? There must be parallels between their personalities and beliefs, and of course those of their followers, to explain this. How are they the same? They’re both white and have many passionate white followers. Their followers must be angry, hungry for change. They’ve both written books. The Southern Poverty Law Center called Duke “the most recognizable figure of the American radical right.” David Horowitz called Chomsky “the most prominent leader of the radical Left, with cult status among the group.”

But why go hunting for what they have in common as an explanation for why they are both ignored by the mainstream media, when really their only commonality is they are both ignored? Could it be they are ignored for very different reasons? Perhaps because Chomsky is a fierce critic of the American government’s massacre of innocent people overseas, but Duke openly despises black people? Perhaps their followers have different sentiments, too, explaining why they gravitate towards one or the other, but not both.

Yes, Sanders and Trump both came out of nowhere. Both have huge followings. They aren’t typical candidates. They’re “populist,” i.e. representing the interests of ordinary citizens. Sometimes they talk about the same American problems — joblessness, trade, immigration, corruption — just like every single other political candidate.

After that, there are no similarities. Sanders hugs a young Muslim woman at a rally and promises to do everything in his power to “rid this country of the ugly stain of racism.” The crowd cheers. Trump looks on as a Muslim woman, “Salam: I come in peace” emblazoned on her shirt, stands up at a rally in silent protest. She is removed by security, to the glee of the screaming crowd.

Sanders goes to a mosque to demand an end to religious bigotry; Trump calls for the monitoring of mosques and the banning of Muslim migrants, and is open to registering Muslims in a database or issuing them special identification.  

Sanders stands with striking fast food workers to show solidarity in the push for a higher minimum wage; Trump opposes a higher minimum wage and thinks wages are “too high” already.

Sanders declares, “Black lives matter…we need to combat institutional racism from top to bottom” and fix “a broken criminal justice system”; Trump shares racist misinformation online, takes out ads in newspapers calling for the execution of black suspects, and is sued for refusing to rent to blacks. His supporters beat a black protester. Neo-Nazis call him “glorious leader.”

Sanders wants a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants; Trump stereotypes them as rapists and drug dealers, and wants to round them all up and deport them. His supporters beat Hispanics at rallies and on the streets, chanting “USA! USA!”

Looking at the most common themes of the campaign thus far, Sanders and his followers are most angry at the powerful, the few growing rich off the labor of the many and controlling government policy to boot. Trump and his fans are angriest at the powerless: immigrants escaping dire poverty and drug violence in Central America, blacks protesting police killings of unarmed neighbors, Syrians fleeing a brutal civil war.

In short, Sanders is a good man who genuinely wants to better society for many powerless, marginalized groups, and a lot of Americans agree with him. Trump is a bigot who stokes white pride, anti-immigrant hatred, anti-Muslim terror, and other dangerous ideas, and a lot of Americans — too many — agree with him.

Anyone who has paid any attention to current events (or the candidate platforms) knows the Sanders-Trump comparison, beyond their swift rise, is empty. They are not “peas in a pod.” Their programs in no way “overlap a great deal.” You may find “angry white people” at both candidates’ rallies, but they are not similarly-minded angry white people.

Sanders and Trump are very different men saying very different things and are adored for very different reasons. In such a “political moment,” this isn’t the time for political thinkers to draw parallels that don’t exist just to put something in an editor’s hand for the day, or to feign intellectualism by presenting something true (Sanders and Trump have passionate followers) and expanding it into something false (their passions stem from the same needs and desires), or, worst of all, to slander a good man.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

“The California state Senate has passed a bill that would make it harder for Christian institutions to obtain religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT individuals,” writes Eric Metaxas.

An encouraging sentence, but not to the person who wrote it, whose headline declared: “A License to Discriminate: California’s Assault on Christian Colleges.” This neatly echoed other headlines of nearly unadulterated panic: “California Bill Would Ultimately Erase Religious Schools” (Federalist), “An Imminent Attack on Religious Liberty” (Master’s Seminary), “California Bill Called ‘Existential Threat’ to Catholic Education” (Crux), and so on.

California’s bill, S.B. 1146, which passed the state senate and is working its way toward a vote in the state assembly, would decree that only colleges training ministers and theology teachers would be allowed to claim exemption from Title IX laws, which explicitly protect gender-based discrimination but have been used successfully for decades to also protect LGBT Americans from mistreatment (and in late 2015, a federal judge all but sealed the deal).

The bill would “bar colleges receiving state funding from making employment, student housing, admission and other decisions on the basis of gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation,” as Catholic leaders said in the Crux, calling the whole thing “a restriction of religious freedom.”

In other words, should a religious university that receives state funds wish to deny a homosexual or transgender American entry into the school or a teaching position, among other possibilities, on the sole basis of their sexual orientation or identity, said university would be unable to do so.

This would only apply to a university that “receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid,” in the words of the bill. It would also require schools that do get the exemption to prominently make this known on their websites, at student orientation, and so on, to warn LGBT individuals of certain possibilities. LGBT students or employees at exempted schools would also be able to sue if discriminated against.

Over 40 California colleges currently qualify for Title IX exemptions, and of course many more across the U.S. The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT civil rights group, calls the exemptions a “license to discriminate” — phrasing Metaxas may appreciate. This issue is only part of a larger social problem —Republican states are fighting to allow private businesses and organizations to refuse service to gay people, and in 28 states you can still be fired just for being a homosexual (California, however, is not one of them).

The law set off the usual hysteria (Holly Scheer, writing in the Federalist above, seems to think this opens the door to government bans on “chapel services,” “prayer events” at graduation, even “theology classes” themselves) and the platitudes that have defined unequal treatment and prejudice throughout American history, such as the we don’t serve your kind here, but plenty of places do (Scheer: “No one forces people to attend religious schools… California alone has hundreds of college and university options…only 42 are religious”).

But proponents of the measure point out that, as one state politician said, “California should not be using taxpayer money to subsidize colleges that choose to discriminate against LGBT students.” American Atheists wrote, “It’s a very simple test for us: If you’re getting taxpayer money, follow the damn law. Accepting government support means accepting government regulation.”

After all, taxpayer funds come from all Californians — gay or straight, trans or cis, close allies and violent bigots. Should religious universities wish to deny, or terminate at will, employment or enrollment for LGBT people, one would think at the very least taxpayers of diverse backgrounds and views should not have to support the universities.

Further, though this would perhaps never cross Scheer’s mind, some LGBT Americans are in fact Christians, and may desire the freedom to attend religious schools without fear of persecution or retribution.

Were taxpayer-funded universities able to legally turn away Christians, one might call it a “license to discriminate” — in the accurate sense, that is.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

It was only a matter of time.

It was only a matter of time before a rightwing extremist rose to prominence in the American political arena. There is only so long bigoted and authoritarian musings can be entertained on far right media like Fox News or Rush Limbaugh Live before a candidate casts aside any facade of decency and appeals to the basest, most vile instincts of human beings.        

Donald Trump was the candidate extremists were waiting for.

Trump recently called for the U.S. to block all Muslims from entering, turning stereotyping into national policy, widening our dangerous problem of racial profiling to a massive, never before seen scale. He used American detention of German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants during World War II as justification, turning draconian sins generally looked back upon with embarrassment as shining examples of sensible security measures.

Neo-nazis called him a “glorious leader” and “ultimate savior” for this, adding, “Heil Donald Trump” for good measure. In 1990, Trump’s ex-wife said Trump sometimes read a book of Hitler’s speeches, My New Order, which covers propaganda and speaking style, a blueprint for fear-mongering and race-baiting. Trump first confirmed this, then denied it.

Trump also called for the surveillance of American mosques, a database of Muslim Americans, and/or special religion identification cards for Islamists. In essence, the eradication of Constitutional religious freedom protections and the establishment of authoritarian anti-privacy and discriminatory policies that echo the Third Reich.

One man at a town hall meeting told Trump that President Obama is a Muslim, “not even an American,” that “we have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims,” and asked, “When can we get rid of them?” While it was unclear if the man meant all American Muslims or just Islamic extremists, Trump didn’t question any of it, instead saying, “You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We’re going to be looking at that and many other things.”

Despite being unable to provide a shred of evidence, Trump insists he saw American Muslims cheering as the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11, fomenting anti-Muslim hatred.

Activists believe Trump’s rhetoric is contributing to the rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes that began even before the deadly ISIS attacks in Paris and the San Bernardino shooting.

Trump vilified undocumented Mexican immigrants, generalizing them as criminals, drug dealers, rapists, and killers. He stokes nativist fears about Hispanics stealing jobs, spreading unemployment, lowering wages, “destroying the Middle Class.” He wants to build a “gorgeous wall” akin to the Great Wall of China, while rounding up 11 million people (many of whom were born in the U.S. and are thus American citizens by law), and trucking them out of the country. This despite the fact that amnesty is the least expensive, most effective, and most humane way to end the problems associated with illegal immigration. 

Invoking Trump’s name and his deportation plan, two white men beat a homeless Hispanic man in Boston with a pipe and then urinated on him. Trump heard about this and explained that his followers are “passionate” people who “love their country,” only later writing he would “never condone violence.” Other Trump supporters beat an Hispanic protester at a rally, chanting “USA! USA!”

Trump believes the government should censor the Internet to curb access to radical Islamic literature and websites. He said, “Somebody will say, ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ Those are foolish people.” This despite the extensive erosion of civil liberties and massive increase of domestic spying since George W. Bush.

He heartlessly mocked both the voice and physical motions of a disabled reporter, mocked Asian business partners using broken English, and ridiculed political rival Carly Fiorina, saying, “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” He may or may not have suggested Megyn Kelly was asking “ridiculous” questions of him during a debate because she was menstruating.  

He’s called one woman a “big, fat pig,” “disgusting,” a “slob” and an “animal”; another he called a “dog”; another he wrote had an “ugly face and body.” On the other hand, he’s often joked about his daughter’s body and that he would date her if he wasn’t her father. He likes having “a young and beautiful piece of ass” on his arm, and sometimes insinuates women are successful only if beautiful.

He joked Hillary Clinton would not be an ineffective president because she couldn’t “satisfy her husband.”  

Trump thinks the U.S. war against terror is ineffective because it’s a “politically correct war.” To fight ISIS, Trump says, the U.S. must “take out their families” and bring back torture techniques like waterboarding, saying, “If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they’re doing to us.” This despite the fact that 90% of drone victims are already innocent bystanders, and the fact it is just such actions that radicalize people and breed more terror attacks.

He wanted U.S. forces to stay in Iraq and “keep the oil.” He insulted former prisoner of war Senator John McCain, saying, “He’s not a war hero… I like people who weren’t captured.” He also believes his time in the New York Military Academy gave him “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.” He said an army deserter should be executed.

His foreign policy positions usually amount to aggressive intimidation. He promises to “beat China” in trade deals. “I beat China all the time. All the time.” To keep oil prices low, he would simply tell OPEC, “…you’re not going to raise that fucking price.” As for ISIS: “I would bomb the shit out of them… There would be nothing left.”

He believes he can sign an executive order that will overrule all state laws, decreeing that anyone who kills a police officer will be executed. He also wants police forces nationwide to maintain the use of military-grade weapons and vehicles.

He constantly talks about his wealth and power, mercilessly showcasing his narcissism. “Women find his power almost as much a turn-on as his money,” Trump said of himself. “I’m really rich,” he often brags. He was insulted and outraged when Forbes valued his net worth at only $4.5 billion, writing, “I don’t look good, to be honest. I mean, I look better if I’m worth $10 billion than if I’m worth $4 billion.” He also boasts of a high I.Q.

Yet he has not the wit to check the validity of his sources. He tweeted a graphic falsely claiming that the vast majority of white Americans were killed by blacks in 2015, a graphic that may have originated with a neo-Nazi. Trump refused to apologize for or take down the lies.

According to one source, Trump once said, “Laziness is a trait in blacks” and that he didn’t want black men counting his money; he once took out full-page ads in New York papers calling for the death penalty for black teens who allegedly raped a white woman (they were later declared innocent); and he was once sued for not renting to African Americans. He was a leader of the “birther” movement that sought to prove Obama was not a U.S. citizen.

After a Black Lives Matter protester interrupted one of Trump’s speeches, supporters physically assaulted the man, as Trump yelled, “Get him the hell out of here!” While a spokesperson later said Trump’s campaign does not condone violence, Trump himself said, “Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” Elsewhere, Trump has threatened to attack Black Lives Matter protesters personally.

There is evidence Trump’s father was a Klansman. Even after all this, Trump insists he will get the African American vote, and claims his Muslim friends think banning Muslim immigration is a good idea.  

The majority of Trump’s supporters are working-class whites. Surveys indicate only 2% of Trump supporters are under 30, only 50% have a high school diploma, and only 19% have a college degree.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.