One of the interesting things about Donald Trump supporters is that they don’t actually agree with much of what he says. They just trust him to be tough and to be a winner. In fact, they actually seem to take solace in assuming he won’t do much of what he says he will do, but at least he will do something.

The notion that a would-be political leader doesn’t really mean what he’s saying strikes me as a scary assumption (do words mean anything?). But the really interesting thing is how closely Trump’s shtick matches the way the Left has incrementally won public policy battles.

Here’s an excerpt from H.L. Richardson’s terrific primer called Confrontational Politics, where he describes how liberals use compromise as a tactic to achieve their goals. Richardson observes that liberals gain ground by asking for a lot; however, once opposition arises,

[t]he Liberal then offers a compromise, a partial solution is presented. Half, instead of the whole loaf, is offered. The Left suddenly creates the aura of appearing reasonable, moderating their request. Leftist dialectics is nothing more than planned retreat, a tactic used to confuse and throw the opposition off guard. Lenin called it an important tool in accomplishing overall goals.

Doesn’t that sound eerily similar to the way Trump behaves? He proposes something extreme, and then backtracks a bit, appearing to be reasonable. (Note: This exceeds the usual—and anodyne—negotiation parameters where it is common to ask for a lot, but then settle for “half a loaf.” Is running for president and making campaign promises a negotiation?)

Interestingly, some conservative commentators are actually applauding Trump’s ability to employ deceit for psychological manipulation purposes. After Donald Trump proposed (temporarily?) banning all Muslim immigration to the U.S., leading many intellectually honest conservatives to condemn his plan, conservative commentator Erick Erickson described it as a “brilliant move,” adding: “Have none of these people read Art of the Deal? This is an opening, bombastic salvo to set the terms of negotiations and the other candidates except Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100% just decided to negotiation in Barack Obama’s position.”

Erickson isn’t alone. Trump’s willing accomplices in the conservative (predominately talk radio) media world seem to have fallen into a pattern. Over at Townhall.com, Guy Benson sums up their technique pretty well:

When Trump is right, they praise him.  Fine.  When Trump is factually wrong, while making an argument that may contain a “larger truth,” they justify his inaccuracies.  When Trump lies, they deflect and excuse.  And when Trump does something indefensible, they side-step the substance, resorting to marveling at how masterful he is at “driving a narrative,” playing the media, and aggravating all the ‘right’ people.  Sure, he may be a sloppy, impulsive, non-conservative ignoramus on actual policy, but at least “he fights” in a manner that gratifies our audience’s political id; plus, “without him, we wouldn’t even be talking about [fill in the blank]!”  There’s never an explicit endorsement, mind you, just loads of adulation.  And airtime.

It might be ironic that some conservative media folks are defending Trump, who isn’t really a conservative, and who appears to be using deceitful measures to advance his political ambitions. What is more, it may seem ironic that many of his Art of the Deal techniques are quite similar to those found in Rules for Radicals. But the truth is that many conservatives have decided the ends justify the means. Sometimes you’ve got to fight fire with fire, they reason, even if that means aping the worst strategies employed by the Left.

* * *
Pre-order Matt’s book ‘Too Dumb to Fail,’ follow him on Twitter and Facebook, and download his podcast on iTunes.