In my web-site journey of values I have explored, from my American-conservative point of view, the essential difference between conservatives and liberals, the urgency of maintaining our values in difficult times, what a code of conduct might look like, whose fault all this political heartache might be, and what we conservatives must do to right the capsizing vessel that was once the United States of America. Not once along this particular journey have I addressed what progressive, left-wing Democrats might do if they wake up one morning and want to do what is right, especially if they want to keep their liberal-progressive values. I have admitted to two centuries of failure trying to convince those already entrenched in a progressive, left-wing, Democrat mindset to see things my way. (I have plenty of essays with many of them deliberately trying to convince my political opponents to change. I don't think any of them has ever been successful.)

     Let's go back in time to 1963 when the Democratic Party was all about segregating and suppressing blacks with genuine hate. (Democrats called black people "Negroes" and "colored" and other, less-polite names.) I grew up in a Democrat-loyal community that couldn't live with that hate. Instead of supporting George Wallace and his crowd, these Democrats stood with The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his so-called "civil-rights" movement. The movement was about a lot more than just civil rights, it expanded to a whole acceptance of black Americans into our formerly-exclusive white-American society that maintained separate restrooms and drinking fountains lest the white-people world be somehow contaminated by the presence of black people.

     I'm old enough to remember Nichelle Nichols (1932 December 28 to 2022 July 30), best known as Lt. Uhura on the show "Star Trek." She found herself barred from access to her work and her fan mail was not delivered to her because she was dark skinned. When she threatened to leave the show, Dr. King pressed her hard not to leave because, never mind her treatment behind the scenes, she was a role model for blacks and women throughout the United States.

     I recall a recent concert where Audra McDonald, (born 1973 July 3) was whining about how difficult it was for her as a black, female performer in the United States of America. Unlike Nichelle Nichols a decade before her birth, her entire life was under the umbrella of Affirmative Action where she was protected by race quotas in every area of life. She lived her entire life in a world where the average black person accepted at medical schools has less credential than the average white person rejected by those same schools. She never faced the challenges Nichelle Nichols did. In addition, the theater was a place where women had guaranteed roles, unless they were going to go back to having boys play female roles. She spent her entire life in a world of race-choice advantage decreed by law.

     Back in 1963 it wasn't whining when blacks complained. Ninety-eight years after the end of slavery in America they still had separate, segregated water fountains, bathrooms, hotels, and schools.

     Back in 1963 the Democrat position was to continue segregation and there was a huge movement among otherwise-loyal Democrats away from the Democrat George Wallace toward the Republican Martin Luther King. It was such a huge movement that I never met a pro-Wallace Democrat in my large, otherwise-liberal, Democrat community. As a child growing up in such a King-supporting-Democrat home I remember being told that it was Republicans like Wallace who were the bad guys and King was one of us. It was a baldfaced lie, but it allowed Democrats to feel good about supporting equal rights for blacks.

     I'll point out this large community of King-supporting Democrats didn't feel pressured or obligated to give up their liberal values of fairness and nondiscrimination before life, liberty, and property. They were able to live on both sides.

     Martin Luther King was a womanizer who cheated on his wife, a serial adulterer casual about rape. King got drunk and made uncomplimentary remarks about some people. Still, at the end of the day, judgment done, he is remembered for what he accomplished in his political life. We can revere President John F. Kennedy and physicist Richard Feynman in spite of their philandering. We admire these people for their accomplishments. We should admire these people for their accomplishments. We must admire these people for their accomplishments.

     My point in this section is that it's possible, when the official Democrat line crosses too many lines, to side with a Republican cause like civil rights and its champion Martin Luther King without abandoning the Democratic Party.

     So you're a Democrat and things aren't going well. The liberal Democrats own social media rife with censorship, won elections rife with scandal, support causes rife with violence and destruction, and appoint leaders rife with incompetence and corruption. You don't like the Republican vision or the Republican platform, but you know things aren't right in Democratland in 2024. I know this sounds like a stretch, but maybe it's okay to support Donald Trump without supporting the Republican Party or its policies. After all, when we look at his presidency, it's clear Trump himself didn't support the Republican Party (and it hasn't supported him either).

     On 2024 January 11 Bret Stephens at The New York Times published a piece where he laments that Donald Trump's successes have been many and manifest and how frustrating our country's success with Trump has been for somebody who wants him to lose. He doesn't reach the point of supporting somebody he doesn't like just because things are hugely better with that somebody, but he seems to recognize Trump's achievements.

     That's a big improvement over people like Tom Hanks in 2016 who said he didn't like Trump but would be willing to change if things turned out well. They did turn out well and Hanks made no concession and showed no willingness to change. Mr. Stephens, on the other hand, does concede how much better things were with Trump but sees that as a barrier to keeping him away from public office.

     Trump certainly isn't the womanizer Kennedy, King, or Clinton was, but he isn't on the pope's list of role models either. Instead of George Wallace on segregation we have George Soros leading legions of liberals rewriting history, censoring our media, and promoting tyranny. It's a time to reconsider whom we support.

     I promote an American morality system based on basic values of human life, liberty, livelihood, property, and contract. There are other value systems like medieval theocracies that favor biblical morality or modern communism that favors fairness or Affirmative Action and DEI that favor nondiscrimination even at the expense of our basic values. With neither agreement nor consent, I can understand and empathize with those who believe in these alternatives.

     But the promotion of fairness in the form of socialism and using government to purge our world of discrimination have done so poorly that you can grudgingly support an orange businessman over a bunch of so-much-more-corrupt lawyers and politicians. You can support Donald Trump without betraying your morals, just admitting that he has gotten us closer to a fair and nondiscriminatory world than those trying to do it by force. His three years 2017, 2018, and 2019 were so obviously better than those before and after that he should be supported. Like Theodore Roosevelt, Trump is a Republican because the Democrats won't have him in their crowd.

     After Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden, all of whose presidencies were death spirals, Trump's success is a breath of fresh air, whether you like him or not.

     So here's my advice for moral Democrats favoring fairness and nondiscrimination over human life, liberty, livelihood, property, and contract. Suspend disbelief and accept that freedom can be the greater good, at least for now. Support a society without hate and accept that some people will do better and some people will be discriminated against, but the total of these evils is somehow less when we're working toward human life, liberty, livelihood, property, and contract than when we use force to achieve fairness and nondiscrimination. It's okay to be a Democrat who supports Donald Trump. Really.

     To quote sage wisdom from 1967, "It is not logical, but it is often true." Live long and prosper.