I had an interesting exchange with a buddy of mine about Trump. He is no Trump supporter but suggests that I’m too condescending toward those who do support Trump. I’ve received a similar charge from Aaron Renn (who, incidentally, thinks that Donald “telling it like it is” Trump is just in a “rhetorical mode” and is the candidate most aligned with urban success.)
The tweet that earned me this rebuke was:
I have the same visceral response to Trump bumper stickers as I do to Confederate flags. Probably similar demographics.
This is, perhaps, a little aggressive. But, it’s: a) true that Trump support provokes the same emotional response in me that Confederate flags do; and b) while I couldn’t say what percentage of Trump supporters are nostalgic for the Confederacy, I feel fairly confident that public display of Confederate regalia is a good predictor of Trump support. My friend said that something more common to Trump supporters was resentment of condescending and sweeping generalizations like that. To which I responded:
Condescension can’t be something that bothers a Trump supporter. The guy oozes condescension. It’s his go-to move.
His response to that was where we unearthed something I thought was interesting enough to merit a post. He said:
It’s the love of a bully getting bullied that helps [the average] joe stomach Trump trumping the Press & PC warriors’ snotty arrogance. In the last 45 days or so though, it has become a Bugs Bunny cartoon back & forth of each character pulling out bigger & bigger weapons.
My response:
I think your response gets at something fundamental. And it has to do with how one perceives the power of white men in America. I think Trump supporters see it as eroding. Certainly a lot of the guys who support Trump don’t see themselves as having much power.
Meanwhile, a lot of the folks who can’t stand Trump see his supporters as clinging to unmerited privilege white men tend to have over and above similarly situated women and minorities.
The white guy Trump supporter looks around and says, “Privilege? What privilege? I’m getting kicked around daily.” Meanwhile, the Trump opponent says, “Are you kidding? A black woman in your position would be struggling even more.”
Incidentally – as a privileged white guy myself – my opposition to Trump has little to do with questions of gender or race. I see him as dangerously unqualified without the humility or patience to understand what he doesn’t know. A hothead like that shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the command of our military.
With respect to the condescension charge, I will say that I have spent time trying to see things from the perspective of a Trump supporter. Even having done that, I don’t regard their perspective as justifying the support of this guy. I don’t think most Trump supporters would do me the same courtesy of spending time trying to climb inside my head and figure out why I think the way I do.
I would not consider the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states won handily by Trump to be the cradle of the Confederacy in America. Nor would one consider out neighbor Illinois which Trump won as being cut from Confederacy cloth either. No, it’s not white privilege angst, racism, misogyny, bigotry or any other alluded Trump malady. At the very core of it all this Trump support is the economy. I realize that someone will retort that the Trump phenomena is not about the economy. To which I would reply that when most people say it’s not about the money, it usually is.
This is just my 2 cents woth.
“…”
Why did you just trail off like that?
You can’t just point to a state and consider the analysis complete. In Connecticut (to take a recent example), Trump received 123,000 votes out of about 205,000 cast. Compare that to general election numbers. In 2008, a hotly contested general election campaign, there were about 1.6 million votes cast. (Obama got 1 million and McCain got 600,000.) You can say that Trump won the Republican primary there. You can’t say that those Connecticut Trump supporters had much in common with Connecticut citizens generally.
If I looked at every Connecticut voter who displays a Confederate flag, I’m still fairly confident that a huge percentage of them support Trump.
Vox has an article written by Max Fischer entitled the “Credibility Trap,” a systemic rationalization that US credibility (or any other great world power’s) is always on the line. http://www.vox.com/2016/4/29/11431808/credibility-foreign-policy-war”
“If we don’t stop the commies in Saigon, we will have to stop them at San Francisco.”
Or “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not about Ukrainian factors or Russian interests, in our view, but rather it is a story about America failing to live up to its ideals in the world.”
“It [the theory] portrays the world as a place where the world turns on American power, whose assertion is inherently a force for justice and stability…’
It’s a world where the United States is the protagonist of every story — because every conflict is a test of our credibility, we are at the center even of events that seem to have nothing to do with us — and where the US is best served by personifying the characteristics of a Hollywood action movie hero…’
Fisher then quotes political scientist Jon Mercer as he puts a masculinity gloss on the concept:
“The toughness fascination emerges from a variety of gender tropes that extend back pretty far that associate toughness with manliness,” he wrote. “This understanding manifests in diplomacy through the obsession with reputation. Combine that with the regular diplomatic over-emphasis on the effect of US action, and you get a compulsion to look at every event in terms of whose dick is longer.’
While gendered norms do not necessarily have to play out along black-and-white gender lines, it is hard to ignore that American foreign policy is notoriously male-dominated. Proponents of reputation theory tend to speak in explicitly male metaphors — playground brawls, barroom fights, sports matches — whereas critics of reputation are often wome.[or the Leeden Doctrine]. That seems striking.”
The blogger Digby then tweaks it like this:
“I can’t imagine who among the presidential candidates might act out militarily just to prove that, can you?”
The Credibility Theory, the Reputation theory, the hypermasculinity concept, are all writ large in Trump. Trump is the ultimate narcicist. He is the Alpha Male and the Omega Man. “I win states because they love me.” “I lose states because the party rigged the rules.”
Every political loss a personal slight that must be avenged. Every win a touchdown football that must be spiked in the loser’s face.
I see that two ad hoc groups of questionable size are coming to Cleveland to stand by Trump and beat up protestors. Bikers for Trump and Truckers for Trump. The base with tire irons and unregistered pistols.
The problem with this analysis…and it pretty much blows a hole right through it…is that Trump is an isolationist. Not a militarist. He didn’t serve in the military, he doesn’t seem to have much support in the military, and has been consistent in his opposition to foreign adventures like Iraq.
It’s not that he’s particularly altruistic or cares overmuch about Iraqis or Afghans; he just thinks it’s not in the US interests to waste American lives and money on adventures like that.
It’s the same reason that claims that Trump is a fascist are false – fascism has a fascination with military power as the ultimate embodiment of the state. Trump doesn’t.
Which is not to say he isn’t a narcissist, bully, or wannabee tough guy. It’s just that his behavior doesn’t fit into the “Credibility Trap”, which is an explanation of foreign military adventures. Trump doesn’t care about foreign military adventures.
The thing is that the past foreign military efforts didn’t involve Donald Trump. He’s maybe not interested in foreign military intervention as part of larger political goals, but everything is about him. So every foreign policy slight to the United States will automatically be a personal attack on Trump personally — which he’ll have to respond to with force to preserve his fragile ego.
And, as Bob Knight says, Trump has “the guts” to drop the bomb like Harry Truman.
And Trump is specifically saying that he is going to rebuild the military, and make it bigger. Those aren’t isolationist words.
PeteW, you misread the article. The Credibility Trap is not a formula for “foreign military advantages.” It is a mode of reaction to foreign, or perhaps domestic, challenges.
Trump does appear to make isolationist claims. But these are more challenges to allies to pay more for their own defense, blind to the fact that the US has nurtured careful relationships with former adversaries and European allies to keep a balance of lower level military power to deter warmaking countries. Before World War II, European nations were frequently at war. But since WWII, the only conflicts have been in the Balkans and were relatively low level.
Similarly, the US maintains such a policy in the Sea of Japan, maintaining a bargain struck at the end of WWII to keep Japan from rearming. He hints that Japan may need to develop nuclear weapons to defend itself from North Korea. Trump referring to Japan and other nations, has said “let those countries defend themselves.”
In fact, Trump, in his incredulous and delusional foreign policy speech, mans immediately up to the theory. Foreign countries, he claims, “look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honour their agreements with us.”
What Trump is really tells the world is that the US will become a capricious potentate. Unpredicatable, as he promised in the speech, and demanding obsequiouness and servility from all nations. Consistently, with Trump, it will always be about him. And should he win the election, the world will be all about him. And an infinitely more dangerous place.
I noted your friend’s claim that Trump supporters resentment of “sweeping generalizations,” yet that is a part of Trump’s core message. He talks about
Growl. He talks about “Mexicans”, “the blacks”, “the media”, “Muslims” and so forth. Everyone stereotyped and pigeonholed, usually as good or bad, on the basis of sweeping generalizations applicable to a group, but heaven forbid someone make similar generalizations about Trump supporters.
Truly a thin-skinned demagogue. At a time when we need better leaders, not incompetent ones.
It’s sad and ironic that people don’t have serious public discussions (that supporters hear) about guys like this. All the warning lights of serious people are flashing. There is limited satisfaction in saying “I told you so” after the fact. Too bad that people are more focused on being mad and getting rid of people or processes they don’t like, rather than focusing on the future of the republic.
Politics is not the sort of business he runs. Consider Rauner who drew his line in the sand the first day, as if he were some sort of boss/ruler and who still doesn’t have a budget. The idea that “this is a business guy who gets things done” is fraught with problems, especially when people don’t understand the qualities of truly successful business leaders. He is likely to cave on critical issues after hearing bad advice urging expediency, and carp on small ones, and someone who may be impeached soon after he takes office, providing he wins. His way of making a deal is mafia-like rather than through respectful negotiation. Another bad sign is that this guy has never held an elected office but thinks he has the skills to run the office of president.