What makes President Trump the focus of such hatred?

President Trump is hated by those who disagree with him.  It is a visceral hatred, and extends to those who support him.  In the last seventy (70) years no other President has been the target of such violent hatred, vocal disrespect, and harassment.  The harassment has been public ( directed at those who work in his administration), private ( mob confrontation at the homes of those who support and work for him), and in Congress (through the contrived and partisan investigation(s) and impeachment actions).  What makes President Trump a target of such intense, virulent, physical attacks?

Is it his performance in office?  Considering that prominent Leftists were calling for his impeachment even as he was taking the oath of office, that doesn't seem likely.  And since taking office, he has actually kept more of his campaign promises in just three (3) years than all the Presidents combined from FDR up to an including Obama.  So his performance cannot be the added element.

Can it be because he came to office as an"outsider," with no political background.  That also seems to fail upon examination and reflection.  We have had Presidents that came to office with no, or insignificant, political experience; Presidents Eisenhower and Obama come to mind.

How about getting along with people?  Could his combativeness in speech and "tweets" be the cause?  Not since Grant and Roosevelt (Teddy) have we had a President that was so ready to do battle with opponents and the "Press" (whatever "press" stands for these days...but that is a subject for another day).  But while that is mentioned often by his opponents, those opponents are themselves just as guilty of extreme language, so that also seems lacking as an explanation.

Is this "hatred" simply a symptom of American Society's slow but inexorable slide toward "un" civilization, loosing dedication to civil behavior in the striving to eliminate all who disagree with us?  Well, I'd suggest that this may be "partly" to blame, but it doesn't really account for the quantum leap between the treatment and attitude toward President Trump  and that of President Obama.  Both were intensely disliked by those who opposed them, yet there was no outcry in public of general disrespect,and in particular not public harassment or hatred, of President Obama...yet it immediately surfaced toward President Trump even before he took office.  So...why?  Why indeed!

Perhaps it is the "Left" versus "Right" political ideology?  With the accelerated slide to the Left of the Democrat Party, has the gap grown so large that neither can abide by even the existence of the opposite point of view?  A careful analysis suggests that that doesn't hold a hope of an explanation; the "Right" has been sliding Left also, so the gap hasn't grown appreciably...although some small numbers of Republicans speak up in opposition from time to time, but with no significant effect.

Considering that Presidents have limited shelf lives (after all almost anything and everything can survive and carry on for a maximum of eight (8) years and come back) the extreme hatred seems to maintain its mystery.  All Presidents have lied, so the accusation of not telling the truth is neither unusual nor the lying (when it occurs) seem to mark a deviation from the actions of other Presidents.

What is it that makes President Trump, and his administration, different?  I suggest two (2) primary factors.

President Trump is the first President in at least the last seventy (70) years to come to office and to Washington, D.C., having neither desire to join the Washington Political "old boysl' (now "girls" also) club" nor respect for the "go along to get along" practices that have built up in Washington over the last two hundred and fifty (250+) plus years.  Certainly others have been elected as outsiders, campaigning strongly on disrespect for and derision of the "Washington Establishment," but upon arrival went to bent knee and swore secret allegiance to the God of "Government" as the only true constituent they served.  President Trump was the "Mr. Smith" in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" with the exception that President Trump was not and remains not naive about just what sort of corrupt operation that the Federal Government has become.  He was NOT concerned with making small improvements; he was and remains intent on bringing to the surface and rooting out the corrupt practices that have become ingrained in the Federal Government over the years.  He STILL represents those who elected him...NOT the elected and appointed officials who surround him.

That puts fear into the hearts of those who feel threatened.  And that in cludes those who exist outside of Washington who have benefited because of who and what they know, rather that because of what they have earned or deserve.  And FEAR GIVES RISE TO HATRED!

The developing discovery of the use of our FBI and Intelligence services to aid in political campaigns, the failure of the FISA court(s) to deliver on promises to protect our Constitutional Freedoms, the lies perpetrated by elected members of Congress to hide malfeasance and misfeasance are all signs of illegality that would arguably never have poked their ugly heads into public consciousness if President Trump had not been elected.  Those who are, as a result, at risk are, in order of progression: concerned, fearful, desperate, and full of active, actionable hatred.

For myself, any expression of this hatred is reason to believe that the person exhibiting it must be inappropriately benefiting from some Federal Program (or one that is funded by the Federal Government) and worthy of investigative questioning.

Beware of "haters,"  they have something at risk and something to hide.

The secondary reason for the vitriol is that those who lean Left politically have slowly been gaining power since President Reagan left office.  They became used to this gradual assertion of control and became convinced it was their divine right.  So enamored did they become that they ignored signs throughout the country that there was a growing annoyance turning into anger as they became aware that their elected officials were not only lying to them about their intentions in Washington, but ignoring them except for the short season for election campaigning.  The Left saw the election of Ms. Clinton as the final cap the signaled total power and control of the Federal Government.  President Trump's election was like an unexpected cold shower in a one room efficiency instead of the Wedding Suite at the Ritz-Carlton.

So surprise turned to fear, then to hate.  President Trump responded to Press attacks, so they felt fear...then hate.  And the Republicans in office felt rejection of their invitation to join the "Washington Insiders Club" and felt hear than a slightly less hate.  And all that have been getting "paid off" in various ways, as well as their lobbyists, felt fear...and then some level of hate.  All this is the source of the group known as the "NEVER TRUMPERS."

Disagree?  Tell me why...give specifics.

Is Government becoming our "God" substitute?

Even a cursory scan of History reveals a significant involvement presence of "God" in governing.  And the records show that it wasn't a particularly "hard" sell;  a vast majority of human beings all over the planet have an instinct to look to a "higher power", while any and all of those who wished to govern found it both effective and useful to claim direction from an unassailable higher being that could be challenged at the human level.  Even today, we see religion playing a huge role around the world in establishing a "right to rule."

Countries and Rulers who attempted to eliminate any reliance on authority from a higher power have been seen to have a limited shelf life.  The exist as long as military force supports the head of State, but collapses when that support disappears, usually accompanied by a lot of ill will.

A common view is that this is because of two elements: 1) as mentioned above, it is nice for a ruler to be able to play "good cop" to God as the "bad cop" when ruling...it allows the human to take credit and kudos for the good things, and blame the bad things on an unassailable and unreachable entity with unlimited power and authority; and 2) many people truly believe in an "Almighty God" and do not need significant convincing to accept the concept.

The Founding Fathers clearly saw that any successful governing entity required the granting of authority of a Higher Power, stipulating that the right to govern was given man by God, and was inalienable.  They depended on the concept that by placing governing power in the hands of many, there would be less chance of any one individual claiming, acquiring and exercising his or her personal views by representing them as God's will.  All of those who were influential recognized the challenge.  Some were expecting success...probably the majority.  Others, like Jefferson, thought that the attempt had promise but a limited life span; as he said, "ultimately government becomes the enemy of individual freedom."  And they all recognized that the time could very well come when the government they founded would cease to be responsive to God and the People, thus requiring still another revolution.

When there is a general acceptance that governance is ultimately responsible to "God" there is a tendency to grumble when personal lives don't go very well...but most of the time (with exceptions, like the French Revolution) that is where it stops.  For more to occur, the "stand-ins" for God have to be supremely stupid...and that does occur.   When there is no concept of authority from God, it is much easier for those who object to governmental decisions to brand them as unacceptable and to claim just as much right to rule as does the person in charge.  Thus...governmental chaos can occur, followed by a period of optimism to be followed once again by chaos...and so forth.

America has evolved into a state of confusion in this regard.  We still have "In God we Trust" on our money.  A majority, as slim as it might be today, still sees us as a Judaeo-Christian country that looks to the moral elements of the ten commandments as imperatives.  At the same time, our Supreme Court has seen the Constitution's ban on "establishing" an official religion, a ban designed to allow each person the right to worship God in his or her own way, as a direction to remove God from public places.

Similarly, the public and the courts have eroded the once automatic alignment of law and morals as delineated in the Ten Commandments, making legal all manner of activities that were once seen as unacceptable.  Increased right to litigation has led to a remarkable lowering of standards considered previously as required civil behavior, the elimination of which once would have effectively brought about the shunning of the miscreant by all in a community.  Now they appear to be on the verge of being the majority.  Our leaders seem to delight in talking about God but ignoring God when governing.

Government, and human beings, make poor governors; both best succeed when they see themselves as tools, rather than the ultimate authority.  At the very least, an elected leader needs to always remember that he serves all of the people...NOT as a God or an authority, but as a representative and servant.  Politicians in our Republic have been quick to announce that they are elected because of their judgement and knowledge and ability to deal with many factors; they point to their background and relevant experiences as why they will decide for the people what the best decisions should be.  I find this presumptuous and repugnant; I fail to understand why so many citizens just accept this balderdash as authoritative.

But no longer do our leaders look to the people for guidance as to what the people want.  And they eliminate any concept of praying for guidance from any higher power either.  They have determined to be an authority of and for themselves.  The attempt to create a government for the people, by the people and of the people (with a presumption that all were accountable to "God") has become a government for the government and the office holders, by the government and the office holders, and of the government and its office holders.

It is hard to see how this will ever turn out well for what once was the United States of America.