The answer to the question in the headline is “No, of course not,” but the illogical attitude that many have taken toward Trump seems to necessitate an answer of “Yes.” One of the main themes at the anti-Trump “Resistance” events of the past few days is that Trump is a fascist, and we cannot allow fascism to take hold in America without a fight. Because fascism can’t be negotiated with or accommodated, it must instead be opposed — unflinchingly, and at every turn. That’s what people were chanting in Washington D.C. on Friday and Saturday; that’s the message reflected on their myriad signs and apparel. It’s a sentiment that huge swaths of the population purport to affirm.

But that sentiment isn’t compatible with Sanders’ stated approach here.

Today Trump officially junked the TPP, and Sanders’ response was pretty telling. He didn’t merely praise the specific abrogation action — that would’ve damning enough, according to some. Rather, he declared that he’d be “delighted” to work with Trump in this policy area (trade). In doing so Sanders implicitly rebuked the unthinking “Resistance” strategy adopted by much of the liberal/left at present. If you express a willingness to work with Trump on initiatives which may result in him receiving political benefit, you by necessity are rejecting the idea that opposition to Trump must be the overriding objective in all cases. Many self-styled “Resistance” people have proclaimed “stopping Trump” to the be the foremost goal of anyone who is Right and Good, and therefore they’ve subordinated all other goals to that task. For instance, the goal of stopping the TPP is subordinated to the goal of impeding Trump, because Trump will get credit for that stoppage and we mustn’t have that!

Fundamentally it’s a rather selfish view of politics: “We should keep this exploitative and damaging trade deal simply because it’ll further our overarching anti-Trump purpose, even if the implementation of the deal would hurt American workers.” What sense does that make? Hopefully none, other to than the most reflexive partisans.

Reflexive partisanship always produces shoddy thinking, and this effect is going to be amplified as Trump settles into office. Inevitably he’ll do some things that ought to be considered “good,” such as today’s TPP action. And he’ll inevitably do some things that ought to be considered “bad.” Acknowledging the “goodness” of any given action doesn’t mandate that one becomes a “Trump supporter” — it doesn’t mean that you are excusing his other bad acts, or abetting fascism, or any of the other overblown reactions we’re destined to see in the coming months and years. It simply means that you’re applying normal, basic logic to a complex set of political circumstances.

I heartily praised Barack Obama last week for commuting the prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, without reservation or qualification. Having done so doesn’t mean I became a wholesale “Obama supporter,” or I was excusing other bad parts of his record. The exact same logic applies here to Trump and the TPP nixing. It seems extremely straightforward, but lots of people will struggle mightily with this concept.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that TPP was one of the central themes of the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign. I distinctly recall people at the Democratic Convention waving “NO TPP” signs and citing her johnny-come-lately, fake opposition as the sole reason they could never back Hillary Clinton. So this isn’t some triviality — it’s a huge, fundamental political issue and will have major lasting implications. If your first instinct upon hearing that the deal has been abrogated is to shout “BUT, TRUMP!” then maybe you ought to reevaluate your underlying convictions. Reflexive, petty partisanship is a scam — not only does it make people dumb, it harms the country. (Yes, Republicans were often guilty of doing exactly the same thing to Obama. Two wrongs don’t make a right.)