I don’t doubt that a lot of urbanized, left-leaning foot soldiers in corporate media, the legal system, the entertainment industry, and of course academia, are scratching their heads at Donald Trump’s continued popularity despite those 91 felony charges and civil suits that so far have cost him (on paper, anyway) around half a billion dollars. Trump remains the Republican base’s favorite. That same base is dismissing Nikki Haley as George W. Bush in a dress.

The present-day GOP base’s firm belief is that the allegations against Trump are political, and hence invalid.

What’s the basic belief system here? For many, it’s that they’ve been thrown to the wolves by an Establishment (large corporations including former employers as well as the federal government) that couldn’t care less about them and proves this with its insults about, e.g, “deplorables.”

And since most are white, they see Establishment policies like Diversity-Equity-Inclusion which includes everyone except them, as disadvantaging them educationally, careerwise, religiously, culturally.
<...>
If the divisions are this intractable, how does one win any argument? How do you cross the conceptual gulf created by the narrative wars?

The unfortunate answer: you don’t.

Your best bet — unless you’re in the business of writing about this sort of thing, like I am — is not to begin arguing.

Remember the old rhyme: a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

Most people are going to believe what they want to believe. They are just following their childhood imprinting.

This will tell them that most of the time they can trust the authorities, at least on “important stuff” including governance. They are going to reinterpret whatever evidence you present in terms of what that mental prism allows them to see.
<...>
Continuing the argument is a loser’s game.

If it’s something they believe, or want to believe, they couldn’t care less about evidence.

Their mental prisms simply won’t let them see it!

See how this works?