I’m not a huge fan of the Weekly Standard but this article is by far the most cogent explanation I’ve seen so far for the power and reach of the appeal of Donald Trump.
In sum, beyond the PT Barnum hucksterism the serious message is that Trump is all about being focused on American doing well and concerned with it’s own needs and not worrying about whether it’s offending other groups. It’s a special blend of unapologetic nationalism that’s very attractive to people feeling adrift and powerless which are the older white Americans that comprise the main GOP cohort.
Looking to remove birth right citizenship does not look moderate to me. Nor it is the idea to remove 11 million illegals and not letting all how much that is going to cost.
So what politics is he appealing to from his followers if not the ones that are divisive?
The general tone of that article is also related to the meme that America is not great, as compared to who? When you look at the troubles in Europe, in Asia and Africa currently we continue to be much better than many nations.
Click on “Show all Rankings”
What is peculiar is the item that we were doing had the highest (as in bad) (a score of 5 out of ten) relates to Group Grievances.
Trump doesn’t have a serious message. He’s selling political woo. Sure, there are people who like it - just like there are people who like every other kind of woo.
Whether you think his message is “serious” or not is not the issue and the author addresses exactly this point re people being baffled at his PT Barnum style appeal. His message is “American first and foremost and unapologetic about it” and this has huge resonance across a wide swatch of the political spectrum, especially in contrast with his comparatively bloodless competitors. IMO a message is “serious” if it works and has real consequences. Jimmy Carter was full of very serious plans and Reagan’s “It’s morning in America” feel good message “woo” beat him like a kettle drum.
Umm, I do not think that Trump’s message is as good as Reagan.
IMHO it does explain why Trump is ahead with a base that in reality is not big enough to win in the general election, but the author is ignoring a lot of the poison.
There’s no question that Trump is not (IMO) temperamentally suited to be POTUS, but what I think is beside the point if he winds up against a beatable Democratic candidate and the Democratic field is not looking all that buff right now. Hillary Clinton is (again IMO) a very beatable candidate as I think her personal appeal is limited. I think people on the progressive side are way over estimating her appeal to the general electorate.
I’m afraid this is missing that if Bush was the candidate it would limit the loss of Hispanic and other minority votes and you are ok with what you claim here. With Trump it is clear that the chances you are talking about change a lot and in favor of any Democratic candidate.
I have to agree with Nate Silver from 538, currently a lot of the support seen by Trump depends on low information voters, once many others begin to look more carefully there are a lot of controversies and skeletons that will limit Trump’s appeal for many, even among moderate Republicans and independents.
Very interesting article – and it’s true, he does tap into a mentality common among that base that is feeling disempowered.
Also, whether Donald J. Trump makes it or not, his run has had the effect of further emboldening fans of the “America, Fuck Yeah, don’t bother with details” platform and the “don’t fuck with me or I’ll make you sorry you did, you weak loser” style of interaction with everyone – and otherwise serious candidates downticket will again be the ones to take the hit just as the prior crop of Republicans and Blue Dog Dems did with the original Tea Party over the past 7 years. So, sure let’s say the safe money is on that Trump will not make it… I got the feeling he’ll still beget a number of state legislators, governors and junior Congressmen in his mold, if not now in 2018, to make life hard even for a mainstream Republican POTUS or Speaker.
I think your analysis is prescient and spot on. Regardless of how the race shakes out the ‘cojones out’ approach is going to be taken up by lot of aspiring political wannabes given the success he’s having with it.
Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, posted a blog last week that was an interesting take on Trump. He ties his success to his art of persuasion akin to hypnosis.
The “cojones out” approach can be positive if the candidate is being ballsy by daring to be right in a way that makes some people uncomfortable. Trump is not that kind of candidate. He challenges orthodoxy, but more often than not orthodoxy is right and Trump is wrong.
I still think there’s room for a 21st century Andrew Jackson type who doesn’t give a damn what the elites think so long as the people back him. But there’s no one like that right now.
Agreed. There’s also the fact that “Morning in America” was pitched to a country that was in the middle of some pretty tough economic times. Those kinds of pocketbook concerns aren’t really there to make “Making America Great Again” ring true.
Yeah, I’m gonna go ahead and file that under ‘still more stuff Scott Adams is wrong about’. Though if he’d care to bet on his ‘Trump wins the general by a large margin’ prediction, I’ll happily take his money.
Trump becoming president is slightly more likely than the Reagan/Jesus ticket they were discussing in the next thread over, but only slightly.
The best explanation I’ve seen is 538’s “Trump is the King of the Trolls” hypothesis, in which his goal is not to be elected or nominated, but simply to remain the center of attention for as long as possible.
I think the difference between Trump and the other candidates is Trump has no real plans to be elected. He doesn’t want to be President; he just likes the attention he gets from running for President. The other candidates actually want to get elected and expect to have to follow through on at least the broad outlines of what they’re promising. Trump, on the other hand, can promise anything because he knows he won’t have to deliver.
So Trump can promise that he’ll build a wall along our southern border and make Mexico pay for it. And he can promise that he will keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And he can promise that he will defeat ISIS. And he can promise he will stop companies from opening a factory in Mexico. Would he be able to deliver on any of these promises if he was President? Almost certainly not - they all require agreement from people a President has no direct control over.
Trump’s stance on immigration is extreme and divisive. On other major issues, he’s basically the same as Hillary. And of course his stance on immigration is pure opportunism; he was pro-immigration not long ago.
For the record, I would never vote for Trump, not even if he ran against the offspring of Eva Peron and George W. Bush. I do think that the article astro linked to is an intelligent piece of writing that explains a lot of Trump’s popularity, and that everyone should read it and take it seriously. The term “political correctness” is overused, but it is tiring and frustrating for ordinary people to watch the cowardice and dishonesty of our politicians day after day, never getting a break. For example, after the shootings in Paris in January, every politician from Obama on down told us that the terrorists weren’t motivated by Islam and the kosher food store wasn’t chosen because it served Jewish people.
I don’t know what Trump would do when Al Queda murders Jews. Maybe he’d use it as an opportunity to market his new line of $500 Trump-brand yarmulkes. But he obviously wouldn’t go the politically correct route of denying who the terrorists are and who the victims are, and that has appeal for many voters.
This BTW is one more point in favor of the explanation that it is low information voters the ones that are making Trump soar now.
Indeed I do think that it has to be taken seriously, but one should not ignore the things that the article is omitting. But I thank you for telling others that you will never vote for him, it really gives me hope. It really does.
Actually I remember more how Obama was criticized for not going to the march in Paris in the memory of the victims and to confront the violence. What Obama explained then was that “Al-Qaeda and ISIL, and groups like it, are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam. That’s why ISIL presume to declare itself the Islamic State. And they propagate the notion that America, and the West generally, is at war with Islam. That is how they recruit. That is how they try to radicalize young people.”
“We must never accept the premise that they put forward. Because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy they seek. They are not religious leaders, they are terrorists.”
I actually then lose hope, I do remember what happened when Bush talked about going to a crusade and his “Bring 'em on.” to the insurgents in Iraq then.
