I started reading this book:
And I got stuck in the preface, where the author explains why Trump won:
It seems to me that these concerns can’t be economic: Those in Trump’s base who aren’t wealthy vote against their own economic interests.
The author of this (excellent!) WaPo article on Trump’s demagoguery says this:
Ok, so. What precisely are the frustrations of millions of people that Trump understands so well?
Here’s a roundup of scholars on the issue showing that it’s all about race.
Hahl, Kim, & Sivan, in “The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue,” discuss a “a crisis of legitimacy” explain that a “crisis of legitimacy” happens when people don’t think the government governs on their behalf. Article here:
This occurs when they think the “political establishment is favoring new social groups over established groups.”
From Yale Prof. Jason Stanley, those on the far right end of the political spectrum (let’s call them right wing authoritarians or RWAs) believe nature favors a hierarchy:
When out-groups (minorities) seek equality, RWAs believe this means displacing them. This is why the GOP present themselves as victims.
In the words of Harvard Profs. Levitsky and Ziblatt “Ethnic majorities do not give up their dominant status without a fight”:
Two University. of Kansas profs, David Norman Smith and Eric Allen Hanley, analyzed data from the 2016 American National Election Study. Their analysis backs this up.
Their article is here. If you don’t have access, a good summary is here.
Specifically they conclude that “Authorities who do not take sides against resented minorities and women are regarded as illegitimate usurpers who favor the “undeserving” over the deserving.”
The best explanation I’ve seen for Trump’s rise to power is described by profs. Jonathan Haidt (NYU) and Stenner (Princeton) in their essay, “Authoritarianism is Not a Momentary Madness, but an Eternal Dynamic within Liberal Democracies” in this book:
An “authoritarian dynamic” occurs when a person with an “authoritarian disposition” is faced with a “normative threat.” A “normative threat” is a perceived threat, even though there’ve been no hostile acts or outward reasons for fear.
Those with “authoritarian dispositions” are averse to complexity & diversity, and have a bias against different others (minorities, refugees, ‘deviants,’ etc.)
When faced with a normative threat, those with authoritarian dispositions (or RWAs) have a powerful reaction. They become fearful and angry. They can be violent, and tolerate cruelty to others. Fear of immigrants isn’t fear of lost jobs. It’s a discomfort with people who are different.
The dynamic occurs because liberal democracy (see definition) naturally becomes more diverse. Liberalism, for example, seeks to expand voting rights to all people, which creates diversity. (Liberal means broadminded, so liberals by definition are open and inclusive.) The growing diversity triggers fears in authoritarian persons, creating backlash. Hence, a cycle.
Thus, according to the authors, Trump happened because liberal democracy in America exceeded many people’s capacity to tolerate it.
So my first thought is: “What the heck? So liberals are at fault? What are we supposed to do, coddle them?”
Well, maybe. Stick with me here.
Before the Civil Rights and women’s movement, power was concentrated in the hands of white men. From the early 20th century until about 1955 (Brown v Board) the two parties were relatively civil to each other. Both abided by democratic norms. Why all the harmony?
Because they weren’t that different! Both parties were controlled by white men.
Then came the 50s & 60s. The electorate expanded, diversity grew, the RWAs grew fearful, and the conditions ripened for a demagogue. Trump had a few warmup acts.
Historian Richard Hofstadter, in his classic work explained that “status anxiety” and “overaggressive” politics occurs when a dominant group feels an “existential threat” (fear of losing dominant status)
It’s not like Trump and pals hide their feelings about diversity.
Remember Tucker Carlsons “anti-diversity” rant? And how Ann Coulter doesn’t like immigrants? And when Katie Hopkins praises Russia as being “untouched by the myth of cultural multiculturalism and deranged diversity”?
If the “concerns” of those millions who feel “left out” are about race and diversity, easy to see why liberal elites weren’t addressing their concerns: The liberals were trying to create more diversity, thus working hard to create the very conditions that upset the RWAs.
This brings me to the work of psychologist Karen Stenner, who has contributed much to the scholarship on RWA personality. From her website 1/3 of the population will always have a fear of diversity.
She says, “Democracy is most secure, and tolerance maximized, when we design systems to accommodate how people actually are. Because some people will never live comfortably in a modern liberal democracy.” What do we do if they’re made that way? (Or molded and can’t change?)
All of this means, I suppose, that liberals—while creating the conditions allowing diversity to flourish—must also find ways to address the fears of those who cannot tolerate diversity.
Otherwise, there will always be another Trump around the corner.
