So this is where certain people get this argument...

The Trump Fallacy

Despite what some of the president’s supporters think, you cannot celebrate his policies and ignore his poor behavior.

This image of Mr. Trump as a political Robin Hood whose illicit behavior is justified because it serves a greater good is doubly flawed. First, the lying and vulgarity are unrelated to the policies Mr. Trump’s base wants implemented. Second, his supporters purport to seek a restoration of American founding principles. This increasingly strains credulity. But if they profess constitutionalism, they should at least understand that it is more about process than policy. Constitutions depend on habits and traditions, not the momentary outcomes they produce. Mr. Trump’s upending of these customs, not his transient policies, will form the legacy that endures.

The major irony here is that the author (Greg Weiner) is using the term "fallacy" in his title, and appears somewhat oblivious to what it means. Someone believing that an argument is "flawed" (because they disagree with it) does not make the argument a fallacy. In fact, it might make the argument that it is a fallacy an actual fallacy, which is doubly ironic. 

The reality is that it is entirely possible to celebrate the policies of a politician while ignoring the bad behavior of a politician. In fact, it's not only possible, it's very likely required. There may actually not be any policies out there, that are not tied to a politician who engages in poor behavior. Were people not allowed to celebrate the peace and prosperity of the 1990's because the President happened to be getting his knob polished by a 20 year old Intern?

Furthermore, the argument that Mr Weiner is making in regards to constitutionalism is pretty much a straw man fallacy. As someone who considers themselves a constitutionalist, I can assure you that his description of what that term means does not match my description. The Constitution basically exists separate from whatever is happening at any given moment. It does not require a "tradition" or a "habit" to remain the law of the land.  It does not depend on the President behaving in a manner that liberal journalist approve of. It is not undercut by Presidential affairs, political scandals, criminal behavior by politicians, or by a President who tweets too much. It certainly does not require the next President to behave like the last President.

In fact, the argument that the constitution is so fragile that it can be reduced to rubble by Donald Trump is not an argument worth the paper it would be printed on (if you so chose to print it), and certainly not worth the $1/week to subscribe to the NYT.

At the end of the day, this has become the new talking points memo from the left. They are desperate to not let the 2020 election become a referendum on that is happening in the United States. They are desperate to not allow the 2020 election become about policies debates, flush with evidence of what didn't work and what is working. They desperately want you to believe that none of what is happening has anything to do with any policies enacted since Trump has become President. They desperately want people to believe that Trump is somehow just at the right place at the right time, and that someone else (in fact anyone else) would garner the same results, without all of the Trump drama.

The bottom line play from the left is that they desperately want to make this election all about the "behavior" of a President that they so deeply abhor. They, in turn, want everything else written off as irrelevant. They've already succeeded in gaslighting their faithful with this argument. But I doubt it will have the same effect on those who actually care about things like policy and results.