In politics, what will shake the faithful?

What does it take to shake one’s belief or allegiance? Specifically, what does Donald Trump have to say to lose his loyal followers? Or, in a Canadian spin, what will Nigel Wright have to say in court to cause the faithful to distrust Harper?

I suspect that the answer is that there is nothing that Trump or Wright can do that will shake the faith.

In the case of Trump, part of what makes him attractive to an ardent cadre of followers is that he will say just about anything. He has been wildly crass and wrong on Latinos, veterans, and women. Does it matter? Apparently not. His popularity remains unchanged. He doubles Jeb Bush in the polls. But, I suspect that Trump’s popularity is locked. As the Republican field narrows his lead will shrink and be erased because I cannot imagine other Republicans will come onto his side. For now, though, he has a core of ardent followers who will not be shaken no matter what he says or does. There is nothing that can shake them from their belief.

In the case of Wright, as of this morning, we don’t know what he will have to say at Duffy’s trial. Imagine, though, if he testifies that Harper personally knew about the $90,000 and approved it. This would be in direct opposition to what Harper said yesterday. One or the other of them would be lying. Would this shake the faith of ardent Harper supporters? I doubt it. They will simply conclude that Wright is lying for some self-serving purpose.

I have no idea what Wright will say. I suspect that he will testify that Harper did not know about the $90,000 and my musings here are moot.

This blind political allegiance is similar to the Parable of the Invisible Gardener. One my my favourite illustration of blind faith in anything (health food, psychics, homeopathy, chiropractic, astrology, etc) v. scientific method.

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. “But perhaps he is an invisible gardener.” So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Wells’ The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves.” At last the Skeptic despairs, “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”

The point is, if you are going to follow Trump, Harper, Trudeau, Mulcair, May or anyone else you should be able to articulate something that will make you change your mind. If there is nothing that will change your mind -- if there is nothing that will lead you to conclude that Trump is a misogynist blowhard utterly unfit to lead America -- then there isn't much point in debate.