Donald Trump

[FogBlueInSanFran]

No it isn't at all. But I do think it might be more productive for people to try and understand why so many voted for him rather than just shouting at them and calling them names.

I agree with this. I've said it several times. Those who feel they've been ignored by government, bypassed by technology or globalism, squashed by corporate America, left behind by an education system that didn't instill them with basic or employment-appropriate skills, scoffed at for their deeply-held religious beliefs which are their moral and world-view glue, angry at greater wealth concentration among fewer people or simply tired of being small in a big world leveraged their two powers -- the vote, and the democratization of the bully pulpit brought about by the internet -- to send a very clear message. So I think (think, I said) I understand why they VOTED for him.

The question is why they continue to support him. The answer is a rationalization: in "politics" the ends justify the means, or the "elites" deserve their comeuppance. That, or they aren't paying attention to or don't understand the means, or they're just anchoring after a realizing a mistake. It's hard to stop supporting a hero.

Within that Trump supporter group (any group, really), there are idiots, racists, sexists, scam artists who have been fleecing the disenfranchised for centuries, the amoral and the immoral, the avaricious who benefit directly, and many who have refused to take personal responsibility for a sad lot in life despite multiple avenues to improve it. It's unfortunate that Trump supporters are regularly painted solely with this brush, which I think is Damo's objection (which is read by too many as "support for Trump").

At the same time, he doesn't seem to understand what unites people of a wide variety of political persuasions (not extremists) against Trump is a shared sense of moral outrage. He puts the politicization of moral outrage down to a semi-Machiavellian tactic by leftists, whereas I would characterize it as a very human reaction to a man who publicly and consistently has demonstrated palpable amorality for 25+ years. I'm right, and he's wrong :)

 

[buckshot]

No it isn't at all. But I do think it might be more productive for people to try and understand why so many voted for him rather than just shouting at them and calling them names.

They voted for him for two reasons:

1. They’re racists
2. To own the libs

And if you want to simplify that it’s because they’re stupid

 

[arfurclue]

I agree with this. I've said it several times. Those who feel they've been ignored by government, bypassed by technology or globalism, squashed by corporate America, left behind by an education system that didn't instill them with basic or employment-appropriate skills, scoffed at for their deeply-held religious beliefs which are their moral and world-view glue, angry at greater wealth concentration among fewer people or simply tired of being small in a big world leveraged their two powers -- the vote, and the democratization of the bully pulpit brought about by the internet -- to send a very clear message. So I think (think, I said) I understand why they VOTED for him.

The question is why they continue to support him. The answer is a rationalization: in "politics" the ends justify the means, or the "elites" deserve their comeuppance. That, or they aren't paying attention to or don't understand the means, or they're just anchoring after a realizing a mistake. It's hard to stop supporting a hero.

Within that Trump supporter group (any group, really), there are idiots, racists, sexists, scam artists who have been fleecing the disenfranchised for centuries, the amoral and the immoral, the avaricious who benefit directly, and many who have refused to take personal responsibility for a sad lot in life despite multiple avenues to improve it. It's unfortunate that Trump supporters are regularly painted solely with this brush, which I think is Damo's objection (which is read by too many as "support for Trump").

At the same time, he doesn't seem to understand what unites people of a wide variety of political persuasions (not extremists) against Trump is a shared sense of moral outrage. He puts the politicization of moral outrage down to a semi-Machiavellian tactic by leftists, whereas I would characterize it as a very human reaction to a man who publicly and consistently has demonstrated palpable amorality for 25+ years. I'm right, and he's wrong :)

Wonderful post. Not so sure I'm into moral outrage but a president that calls mexicans rapists and animals yet also boasted of grabbing women's pussies? I can't support that and look friends in the eyes - even if I wanted to believe his claims of being the greatest president ever.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I agree with this. I've said it several times. Those who feel they've been ignored by government, bypassed by technology or globalism, squashed by corporate America, left behind by an education system that didn't instill them with basic or employment-appropriate skills, scoffed at for their deeply-held religious beliefs which are their moral and world-view glue, angry at greater wealth concentration among fewer people or simply tired of being small in a big world leveraged their two powers -- the vote, and the democratization of the bully pulpit brought about by the internet -- to send a very clear message. So I think (think, I said) I understand why they VOTED for him.

The question is why they continue to support him. The answer is a rationalization: in "politics" the ends justify the means, or the "elites" deserve their comeuppance. That, or they aren't paying attention to or don't understand the means, or they're just anchoring after a realizing a mistake. It's hard to stop supporting a hero.

Within that Trump supporter group (any group, really), there are idiots, racists, sexists, scam artists who have been fleecing the disenfranchised for centuries, the amoral and the immoral, the avaricious who benefit directly, and many who have refused to take personal responsibility for a sad lot in life despite multiple avenues to improve it. It's unfortunate that Trump supporters are regularly painted solely with this brush, which I think is Damo's objection (which is read by too many as "support for Trump").

At the same time, he doesn't seem to understand what unites people of a wide variety of political persuasions (not extremists) against Trump is a shared sense of moral outrage. He puts the politicization of moral outrage down to a semi-Machiavellian tactic by leftists, whereas I would characterize it as a very human reaction to a man who publicly and consistently has demonstrated palpable amorality for 25+ years. I'm right, and he's wrong :)

I found this worth a look, I'd be interested to know what you think....

How a disastrous change in perspective disempowered the left and let the right rise
By dismissing the masses as fools, progressives confirmed all the culture warriors’ claims..

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-disempowered-the-left-and-let-the-right-rise

 

[Henkeman]

They voted for him for two reasons:

1. They’re racists
2. To own the libs

And if you want to simplify that it’s because they’re stupid

Yes, I'm sure calling them stupid and racist is an excellent means of persuading them to listen to you next time.

 

[Henkeman]

I agree with this. I've said it several times. Those who feel they've been ignored by government, bypassed by technology or globalism, squashed by corporate America, left behind by an education system that didn't instill them with basic or employment-appropriate skills, scoffed at for their deeply-held religious beliefs which are their moral and world-view glue, angry at greater wealth concentration among fewer people or simply tired of being small in a big world leveraged their two powers -- the vote, and the democratization of the bully pulpit brought about by the internet -- to send a very clear message. So I think (think, I said) I understand why they VOTED for him.

The question is why they continue to support him. The answer is a rationalization: in "politics" the ends justify the means, or the "elites" deserve their comeuppance. That, or they aren't paying attention to or don't understand the means, or they're just anchoring after a realizing a mistake. It's hard to stop supporting a hero.

Within that Trump supporter group (any group, really), there are idiots, racists, sexists, scam artists who have been fleecing the disenfranchised for centuries, the amoral and the immoral, the avaricious who benefit directly, and many who have refused to take personal responsibility for a sad lot in life despite multiple avenues to improve it. It's unfortunate that Trump supporters are regularly painted solely with this brush, which I think is Damo's objection (which is read by too many as "support for Trump").

At the same time, he doesn't seem to understand what unites people of a wide variety of political persuasions (not extremists) against Trump is a shared sense of moral outrage. He puts the politicization of moral outrage down to a semi-Machiavellian tactic by leftists, whereas I would characterize it as a very human reaction to a man who publicly and consistently has demonstrated palpable amorality for 25+ years. I'm right, and he's wrong :)

Thoughtful and interesting post. If there's one thing I would say we're seeing in a lot of places it's that when those in power consistently dismiss legitimate concerns and worries by very ordinary people, they'll eventually turn out for someone who will listen. I do hold the established political structures responsible for a lot to do with the rise of Trump. Dismissing normal concerns as the worries of the unimportant little people has a habit of coming back to bite at the ballot box, as here.

A lot of his enemies manage to play entirely into his hands with the constant outrage about everything too - many switch off over the stuff which really should cause outrage. Outrage fatigue if you like. If there might be one thing to come out of it, perhaps next time a better candidate might be selected to run against him.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I found this worth a look, I'd be interested to know what you think....

How a disastrous change in perspective disempowered the left and let the right rise
By dismissing the masses as fools, progressives confirmed all the culture warriors’ claims..

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-disempowered-the-left-and-let-the-right-rise

I agree with the basic premise.

I thought Bush 2 was an idiot too -- the line about him being born "with a silver foot in his mouth" was one of the great political slams in American history. Hell, lots and lots of folks thought Reagan was senile. Dan Quayle seemed to have the IQ of a sofa cushion. I disagreed with all of them politically on many issues (but not all).

But I never considered any of them fundamentally amoral or immoral. That was never an issue.

Once you become unable or unwilling to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, your empathy drops to nil and your tribalism quotient skyrockets. Dangerous for those of any political persuasion to the head that direct. It leads to dismissiveness, rigidity of thought and policy, paternalism, extremism and totalitarianism. It's a slippery slop on both sides of the political wheel. And in America, the other side will make you pay eventually.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

How stupid?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Thoughtful and interesting post. If there's one thing I would say we're seeing in a lot of places it's that when those in power consistently dismiss legitimate concerns and worries by very ordinary people, they'll eventually turn out for someone who will listen. I do hold the established political structures responsible for a lot to do with the rise of Trump. Dismissing normal concerns as the worries of the unimportant little people has a habit of coming back to bite at the ballot box, as here.

A lot of his enemies manage to play entirely into his hands with the constant outrage about everything too - many switch off over the stuff which really should cause outrage. Outrage fatigue if you like. If there might be one thing to come out of it, perhaps next time a better candidate might be selected to run against him.

I think there's outrage fatigue now. It worries me. It needs to carry through the midterms.

I do think non-Americans underestimate the faith-based voter. I know a lot of Evangelicals (not to mention a lot of farmers and ranch hands). Conservative religious values are their truth, not the Constitution. First the accepted dogma of the political party in power is that they disagree with the politics your faith informs. Then they shift to "your religious beliefs are incorrect", then to "your beliefs are stupid" then to "your beliefs are immoral." When that happens . . . look the fuck out for the backlash.

 

[Henkeman]

I think there's outrage fatigue now. It worries me. It needs to carry through the midterms.

I do think non-Americans underestimate the faith-based voter. I know a lot of Evangelicals (not to mention a lot of farmers and ranch hands). Conservative religious values are their truth, not the Constitution. First the accepted dogma of the political party in power is that they disagree with the politics your faith informs. Then they shift to "your religious beliefs are incorrect", then to "your beliefs are stupid" then to "your beliefs are immoral." When that happens . . . look the fuck out for the backlash.

I'm certain of it. It's similar in one way to the gun issue, we just can't get out heads around the views at all - it's not even disagreement, it's complete bafflement.