One definition for "zealot" is a "fanatically committed person."
Using that definition, "zealotry" has reared its head in different fashions here in the United States in recent elections. And quite honestly, IMO opinion, it is just another overused word that has been used as a hyperbolic attempt to discredit those you don't agree with.
On one side you have this passion, love and so-called "zealotry" for a certain man who stands for policies those "zealots" just so happen to believe in.
On the other side, in response, you have an intense anti-candidate "zealotry" going on. No, there is no particular candidate for which that side has any form of "zealotry," because their candidates are so weak that there is nothing to be a "zealot" for. So they possess their own level of "zealotry" which comes out, in this case, as an anti-candidate "zealotry."
In American politics now, you have those who are fanatically committed to a candidate. On the other side, they turn to their own fanatical commitment being one that is against the candidate on the other side.
Both sides have a certain level of fanatical commitment, if you want to refer to it as that. So for one side (in this case the left) to call the other sized "zealots" is ignoring their own level of fanaticism. It's just a different kind of fanaticism.
True that the right says that the future of our nation rides on who we elect as a leader, and that DT is the answer right now.
The left though calls up fear in its voters by referring to the opposing candidate as Hitler, in addition to a slew of other attacks, including the use of the "r" word and any other alarming word they can come up with. They really have become fanatical with this rhetoric.
The fact is, DT has already been president for four years. We know who he is, what he has done for this country, and what the hasn't done for this country. You can agree with his policies or not. But this rabid level of rhetoric aimed at him has become ridiculous. All of those fears the left tried to put in peoples' heads never came to pass with DT as president. Maybe he didn't do for them, policy-wise, that which they wanted, but the way they painted him as evil incarnate and dictatorial never came to pass.
Use this overused word if you choose, but In reality, the choices really have to come down to policy. Whose do you agree with the most, regardless of the person saying them.
DT is certainly bombastic, he hides nothing, there is no filter. Which opens him up to a lot of criticism. But those who vote for him like that in him. He takes no prisoners. His first campaign called out the media and Republicans who had turned RINO as much as he called out the left. All of them deserved to be questioned. He just did so in sometimes insulting ways which left a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths. He's very polarizing even though at the root of what he says policy-wise I agree with.
He was the non-politician though so that was a breath of fresh air for a lot of people.
People can lambast him for his rhetoric, call him a meanie, or whatever. But his policies are what they are.
And when you have the other side looking for tampons in boys's bathrooms, having an inability to define what a woman is, opening a border for anyone and everyone, and looking the other way on baby parts being left behind on an abortion exam table, not to mention pushing fiscal policies that only hurt those who the left panders to the most, the decision should be clear.
I can see why voters would prefer a "meanie" who calls people out on their crap over someone who would take a stand...for that abortion exam table.
Though I don't like DT's way of expressing himself in such bombastic ways, the latter takes inhumane to a whole different level. And the decision is clear for me in this election.
