Further Thoughts on Dialogue and Moral Resistance

I'm highlighting this paragraph near the end of a NY Times Books review of Martin Buber's Life and Work: The Middle Years 1923-45 because it gets to the heart of a conversation that I am having not only with others, but with myself about a key question - what is the boundary of dialogue and resistance? 
I want to make it clear that I am not comparing Donald Trump to Hitler. However, I also want to be clear that Donald Trump's Presidency has triggered a crisis in many of our lives where the kind of judgment that Martin Buber made about Hitler, may also be a judgment we have to make about Trump. Is Trump someone who cannot be answered "because in no sense could he be a partner in conversation"? What is particularly stark about Buber's judgment is that Buber's thought revolved around the central principle of "hallowing" in which dialogue between authentic persons is the substance of holiness. To refuse dialogue, then, is to enter a realm outside of God's creative word.
As far as I can tell (and I'd have to go back and dig into Buber again for a while to double check and be 100% sure) Buber's refusal didn't come with much of a theological defense but was largely a concession to experience.
The way I think of it is captured well in this canto by Dante. 
Or, as JFK slyly misquoted it, “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.”
The question is this: are we in a time of moral crisis? We all must answer and act accordingly.