Let us stipulate that Donald Trump is unique. From his allusion to his privates during a GOP debate to the public berating of his attorney general to the nicknames he uses to disparage opponents, Mr. Trump tramples on the expected norms for a president.

Some detect in Mr. Trump’s brand of vituperation an assault on the values and virtues that democracy requires to thrive. In this line of thinking, Mr. Trump is morally unfit for the Oval Office. Some speak even more darkly. In her new book, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says the world today has become a “petri dish” for fascism, calls Mr. Trump “the least democratic president of modern history” and notes that Mussolini, too, promised to “drain the swamp.”

There is, however, a flip side to Mr. Trump’s speech and behavior. It has to do with the willingness of those who know better (or ought to know better) to look the other way so long as Mr. Trump is the target. So which is more damaging to the American body politic—the schoolyard taunts and threats of Mr. Trump, or the anti-Trump opportunism of “polite” society?

The election and its aftermath have been an education in how the smart set responds when the American people refuse the judgment of their self-styled betters. In its most honest form, it is the “Resist!” movement. In the more genteel version, it turns out to mean not just opposing Mr. Trump’s policies, which people can reasonably do, but throwing fairness and principle to the wind so long as it might help bring down the 45th president. Consider:

• In the thick of the 2016 election, the New York Times ran a front-page article in which it advertised that the particular dangers posed by Mr. Trump’s candidacy meant that the long-held norm of journalism—objectivity—might have to give way to a more oppositional approach.