Right out of the gate you must characterize my analogy as trivial. It isn't. They will come at you with "moral equivalency" in spades.
Again from the article:
I often speak to audiences on college campuses and elsewhere about the proper response to PC nonsense. I call the formula "apathetic, informed conviction." When formulating cultural or political opinions, one must be completely apathetic to PC pressures - don't react against or capitulate to leftist browbeating. Instead, educate yourself and act through informed conviction. Respond to unreason with reason, to intimidation with a bored shrug, and speak truth even when the truth is unpleasant. In this instance, however, Donald Trump is the voice of attention-seeking reaction, not principled leadership.
To me, your POV is similar to Michael Medved's in that he is an intelligent, reasonable man of high integrity. He too, like you, considers Trump to be a bloviating buffoon. He believes that we can use logic to persuade our political opponents to see things our way.
Under normal circumstances I would agree, but we passed normalcy a long time ago. And while "apathetic, informed conviction" is certainly appropriate in personal interactions, it isn't going to work on the public stage.
Afterall, what is the logical response to people that call us racists, bigots, homophobes and on and on regardless of what we say. Frankly, I'm sick of moral midgets insulting my sincere beliefs.
Trump is a blow torch and an atom bomb aimed at the PC industry. I'm a reasonable man but sometimes you have to fight, and if not now; when?