Trump promotes solidarity of our tribe.
Trump is appealing to his base, and the "base" means more than the identity of "white Christian identity" although it includes that group. It is more accurate to say that his base is not racial, it is psychological.
Liberals are different from conservatives. Jonathan Haidt has written, and in a Ted talk, spoken about the different values of liberals and conservatives. Liberals and conservatives are similar in considering caring and fairness and reciprocity to be important and moral. (The Golden Rule speaks to this: be as good to others as as you would want them to be to you.)
Liberals and conservatives both care about being fair, but conservatives have three additional senses of morality: in-group solidarity, respect for authority, and preserving purity and sanctity.
Liberals have bumper stickers that say "Question Authority" and "Co-exist". Conservatives have bumper stickers that say "America, love it or leave it" and a flag decal.
Liberals have bumper stickers that say "Question Authority" and "Co-exist". Conservatives have bumper stickers that say "America, love it or leave it" and a flag decal.
Haiti gives a very fast paced, amusing, and brief Ted talk. It explains his notion of those additional moral values that shape the difference between people attracted to an authoritarian personality like Donald Trump's versus people who are put off by him:
Donald Trump's formal (i.e teleprompter assisted) speech in Ohio yesterday is a textbook example of appeal to the moral values of conservatives. Not just less-educated white voters, but people of a conservative cast of mind.
He appealed to group solidarity: "Pride in our history and our values... should be impressed upon all those who come into our society and want to join our society. Our system of government is the best in the world, and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it... Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country, of which there are so many."
He appealed to purity and sanctity: "To accomplish a goal you must state a mission: The support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one."
He appealed to respect for authority: "Our system of government is the best in the world, and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it... Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country, of which there are so many. We have a divider as president, it is the thing he does best."
And he appealed to the notion of punishment and disapproval as a way to enforce those values: "The support networks for radical Islam will be stripped out and removed one by one, viciously if necessary. Viciously if necessary." Click here for short clip of Trump
Some of my readers will watch Trump and be appalled. Others will feel general approval, that Trump is talking plain sense, that America--our team-- is being threatened by outsiders and disloyal insiders who must be located and removed. This appears to be a difference in politics but at its source it is a difference in psychology. Are novel things welcomed or disliked? Do we like diversity or is diversity watering down and corrupting the specialness of America?
Trump knows whose side he is on: our side. The side of "regular" Americans, the people who dislike and are suspicious of outsiders, the ones comfortable with being vicious against outside threats because those threats corrupt the purity of our group.
Trump could have been on solid political ground. There are a great many people in this or any society who share conservative values. His problem was that he may well have drawn his team too narrowly, seduced by the GOP primary electorate. He pushed outside of his tent of inclusion too many people who belong inside it: women, Hispanics, blacks. People in those groups spank their misbehaving children. They are patriotic, salute the flag, call people "sir", go to church, respect the police. But Trump pushed them outside his tent of inclusion. This was a big mistake.
And Trump's personal style causes dissonance. He is openly disrespectful of some people who are symbols of patriotism and sacrifice for the inside group. McCain, for example. People did not see the Khan family as outsiders invading the group. They saw them as insiders protecting the group. Trump tried to show they were outsiders, making his response to the Khans about their being Muslim and Mrs. Khan perhaps having been silence. Trump miscalculated. In the case of the Khans most people see their son as a patriot first and Muslim secondary, and the parents as good people who sacrificed dearly.
Americans may well be ready to express their fear of Muslims and to treat them as a group with suspicion and viciousness. Trump probably has a majority of Americans open to his talk of dangerous-Muslims. Polls show a great many Americans consider Muslims "outside." But Trump swept with too broad a brush when he included into the excluded group women, Hispanics and blacks. That was too much and too many. He pushed away some of his own.
Trump knows whose side he is on: our side. The side of "regular" Americans, the people who dislike and are suspicious of outsiders, the ones comfortable with being vicious against outside threats because those threats corrupt the purity of our group.Trump could have been on solid political ground. There are a great many people in this or any society who share conservative values. His problem was that he may well have drawn his team too narrowly, seduced by the GOP primary electorate. He pushed outside of his tent of inclusion too many people who belong inside it: women, Hispanics, blacks. People in those groups spank their misbehaving children. They are patriotic, salute the flag, call people "sir", go to church, respect the police. But Trump pushed them outside his tent of inclusion. This was a big mistake.
And Trump's personal style causes dissonance. He is openly disrespectful of some people who are symbols of patriotism and sacrifice for the inside group. McCain, for example. People did not see the Khan family as outsiders invading the group. They saw them as insiders protecting the group. Trump tried to show they were outsiders, making his response to the Khans about their being Muslim and Mrs. Khan perhaps having been silence. Trump miscalculated. In the case of the Khans most people see their son as a patriot first and Muslim secondary, and the parents as good people who sacrificed dearly.
Americans may well be ready to express their fear of Muslims and to treat them as a group with suspicion and viciousness. Trump probably has a majority of Americans open to his talk of dangerous-Muslims. Polls show a great many Americans consider Muslims "outside." But Trump swept with too broad a brush when he included into the excluded group women, Hispanics and blacks. That was too much and too many. He pushed away some of his own.
1 comment:
Hitler did much the same thing in his political speeches. Only his rant was against the Jews, a group who he said hurt Germany and must be expunged, viciously if necessary. It was a popular notion and helped get him elected. Then he followed through on that thought in ways nobody ever imagined. I don't consider Trump to be necessarily crazy, but certainly dangerous. He could do things through Executive Orders that would be hard to stop.
Would his fellow Republicans stop him? Could they? I'm not even sure he is a real Republican. He's something else. What, I'm not sure. However, whatever he is, he certainly could do damage to our democratic form of government. That's something to be really afraid of.
Post a Comment