A few weeks ago, I floated the idea that once Candidate Trump went from outsider insurgent to Republican nominee, once the rough edges were ground down and fine-tuned by the GOP establishment, the final product might be a Donald Trump very different from Candidate Trump – and a Donald Trump far removed from the loose cannon apparently beloved by a majority of the Republican faithful throughout this nomination process.

          There is, of course, an alternate scenario. The rough edges are not ground down, but actually become sharper. The attempt at fine-tuning and moderating the candidate’s persona fails, and The Donald “Doing it my way” Trump we have seen is the one we get through November and beyond.

          I’m not as curious about the effect of a continuation of Donald Trump on Donald Trump, as I am curious about the effect on the Republican brand.

          Predictably, many Republican public figures, elected and unelected, are tripping over each other in the rush to go on record as supporting the nominee of their party. The “Ragman’s Roll” (Google that and see what you get!) begins with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, and works its way down through Indiana Senator Dan Coats, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, state legislators, and local office holders.

          What is interesting about most of these endorsements is that while lip service is paid to the will of the Republican electorate, there is a noticeable lack of enthusiasm.

          This makes sense. Only a few weeks ago, many of these same people were lambasting The Donald for any number of things, from the size of his mouth (overly large) to the size of his hands (surprisingly small), and all points in between. Characterizations of The Donald were sprinkled with words such as “fraud,” “con-man,” “dangerous,” “arrogant,” “blowhard,” and “idiot.”

          Donald Trump has not changed. He is the same Donald Trump now as he was then.

          This leads to an unsettling conclusion. Either these luminaries were lying to us then about The Donald’s imperfections, or they are lying to us now about his fitness to be president of the United States.

          They can’t be telling us the truth in both instances.

          Or maybe there is a third option.

          Perhaps what they are saying is that as a result of the nomination process, Mr. Trump is “fit” to be the head of the Republican Party going into this election, and is, therefore, entitled to their political loyalty.

          Such devotion to party over all other considerations, including country, makes political, if not ethical, sense.

          As to his fitness to be president of the United States, why, leave that up to the voters – and avoid having to take a position on that ultimate question, at least in public.

          Should The Donald win, the ultimate judgment of history as to his fitness for the office will be delayed. There will be plenty of time to create distance from a failing presidency, or seek closer association with a popular one. Should he lose, it is enough to say we were on board, and did the best we could for the party despite the candidate’s flaws.

          Either way, a political calculation is being made – not what is best for the country, but what is best for the political animal.

          Perhaps today’s Republican elite should take a lesson from Scottish history.

          Those who swore loyalty to the English king by attaching their names and seals to the rolls (documents) of A.D. 1291, 1292, and 1296, which included most of the Scottish nobility, made a practical accommodation with the political reality of the time. However, they have gone down in Scottish history as men who were willing to sell out their country in order to preserve their own political power, influence, and privilege.

          The memory of endorsements made long outlive the making of them.

          Short-term political advantage. Long-term historical ignominy.

          Choose wisely.