I came into this as open mindedly as possible.. I was honestly excited to hear his take on current things and maybe see him open up a little and admit some faults. Instead what I got was just...
I came into this as open mindedly as possible.. I was honestly excited to hear his take on current things and maybe see him open up a little and admit some faults. Instead what I got was just another 30 minutes of him blaming everyone on earth but himself for any faults and constantly tooting his own horn.
That part about him correcting the journalist about the crowd size "It was 12 000" amid the pandemic would have been hilarious years ago but nowadays it just elicits a "of course that's what he says" from me.
Because it's hard to come to terms with the fact that the United States presidency, a position held in extremely high regard, that comes with immense power and responsibility and is extremely...
Why are there still people saying shit like "I came into those open-minded"?
Because it's hard to come to terms with the fact that the United States presidency, a position held in extremely high regard, that comes with immense power and responsibility and is extremely difficult to attain, could be held by such a fucking moron.
I think it's important to separate character from intelligence. If we argue that Trump supporters are unintelligent and thus their support for him is rooted in that, we're effectively giving them...
I think it's important to separate character from intelligence. If we argue that Trump supporters are unintelligent and thus their support for him is rooted in that, we're effectively giving them a pass and opening the door to the idea that they can't "know better". We're placing their support for him in a relatively immutable consequence of circumstance. I think it's only right and fair that we acknowledge their personal responsibility in this, especially when they are members of a party that so readily champions that concept.
Personally, I think many (if not all) of them are perfectly capable of "knowing better" and have a good degree of individual choice and autonomy in choosing not to do so. Trump's rhetoric and platform is rooted in prejudice, selfishness, stubbornness, and supremacy, which are all problems of character. I ultimately believe someone choosing to support Trump right now is revealing more about their values and deliberately held beliefs than their own intelligence.
I'm right there with you. I'm originally from the south, and I too feel the same discomforts you do. There's definitely something to be said for the role of wider systemic effects (e.g....
Exemplary
I'm right there with you. I'm originally from the south, and I too feel the same discomforts you do. There's definitely something to be said for the role of wider systemic effects (e.g. misinformation, media slant and focus, etc.), but I also think those things wouldn't have as much sway as they do if they weren't finding fertile ground to land in, and I think that lies in character.
I was having a conversation with my mom about one of our family members who is an outspoken Trump supporter. I expressed some confusion about him, as he strikes me as someone who's kind and compassionate enough to see Trump for what he is. I phrased my confusion to my mom in the words "I don't think [my uncle] has a hateful heart".
My mom replied "I agree, but I do think he has a very selfish heart". Her response stuck with me, and I've thought a lot about it. My uncle is not a bad, evil, mean-spirited person. However, he is a fundamentally selfish one -- though "self-centered" is probably a better word for it. He lives and operates in a manner that puts himself, his needs, his thoughts, and his concerns first. We all do this to some extent, but with him it's almost at a level that could be considered a pathology, because instead of it manifesting as him considering himself first, before others, it has become some degree of: he considers himself only.
I think this is common for a lot of the people I know on the right who continue to support Trump. At any point they could choose to step outside of themselves, empathize, practice perspective-taking, or literally any other skill that would bypass their own self-centeredness, but they don't. In fact, when encouraged to do so, they often react with hostility, which just reduces the possibility that someone will nudge them that way again. Snap at me once, shame on you; snap at me twice...
My uncle won't even entertain discussions of what "black lives matter" means not only because his selfishness prevents him from listening in the first place but more fundamentally because his selfishness makes him believe the statement is about him in the first place. He is unable to approach it from a mindset that does not put himself first, and he is only able to see its impact as it relates to him, so of course he misses the point.
When I was growing up, right-aligned politics was very much about personal liberty and freedom from government influence. There was the idea that "don't tell me what to do" that was counterbalanced by the weight of "because I can trust myself to do what's right or accept the consequences otherwise" -- a reflection of the "personal responsibility" idea I referenced earlier.
Now that I'm older, I find much of the ideals of the American right unrecognizable because I feel like they've gone all in on the first half but forgotten the second. "Don't tell me what to do" isn't an affirmation of responsibility but instead a demonstration of petulance.
There are lots of systemic things that reinforce this and that nudge my uncle to be the way that he is and believe the things that he does, but I can't look at him and not see his obstinance and self-centeredness as root causes for his beliefs. He could choose to move past those. He could choose to listen. He could choose to try to understand. Hell, he could even choose to just stand down. He doesn't have to be out there at the protests himself, he just has to not vocally stand in their way.
But he doesn't. The further into this administration we've gotten, the more evidence we have that that Trump is a spiteful, destructive, and incompetent leader of this country. Even if we ignore his leadership though, we have plenty of evidence to speak on his character, and those that choose to stand by him are choosing to either endorse, or at the very least, permit his character. The party of personal responsibility supports a man who takes no responsibility. My very Christian family-man uncle with multiple daughters supports a man with multiple divorces, confirmed extra-marital affairs, and outright personal admissions regarding the sexual assault of women -- to say nothing of his latest show of support for a child sex trafficker. His administration has been scandal-laden enough that there have been plenty of opportunities to walk away, disavow him, and break solidarity with him. There have been plenty of chances.
Yes, his supporters might be partially duped by news media; yes, they might be unintelligent; yes, they might be living in an insular bubble. Those might be factors, but I genuinely don't think they're the cause, especially because I personally know so many exceptions. My uncle is an incredibly intelligent man. He has people in his life who have challenged his views. My mom has personally asked me, multiple times over the past months, how she might phrase or approach things in order to reach him in their ongoing conversations. My dad has sent him faith-based videos on racism and spoken to him as both a literal brother as well as a brother in Christ.
Those things, unfortunately, have not fallen on fertile ground. But Trump's actions still do. It's why I'm at the point where I have to believe that someone choosing to support Trump is doing so deliberately. And I believe they're doing it not because they've been duped into it, but because deep down inside their hearts, he represents something that they value.
This is, indeed, something I have noticed in common with most of the people on the right at the moment. Just about two days ago there was an AskReddit thread asking why people were planning on...
Exemplary
I think this is common for a lot of the people I know on the right who continue to support Trump. At any point they could choose to step outside of themselves, empathize, practice perspective-taking, or literally any other skill that would bypass their own self-centeredness, but they don't. In fact, when encouraged to do so, they often react with hostility, which just reduces the possibility that someone will nudge them that way again. Snap at me once, shame on you; snap at me twice...
This is, indeed, something I have noticed in common with most of the people on the right at the moment. Just about two days ago there was an AskReddit thread asking why people were planning on voting for Trump, and while it was a predictable shitshow like always, I took the time to find a genuine response from the most agreeable person I could find and asked them with as much respect as I could muster about the details for why they held those positions. It took some time because these beliefs are very finely layered. But at the core of everything was the idea that he was happy with his life and didn't want to see the status quo change because he feared that it would affect his life negatively.
Fear is the true center of most right-wing messaging and the point of most of their political work, and it goes hand-in-hand with that lack of empathy you were talking about. How do you get people to care about others if it triggers fear?
I do have one other thing to say: people on the right are not there for lack of intelligence. We are quick to judge them this way simply because we disagree with them on very fundamental issues - empathy for others being a particularly salient example.
Watching this interview actually opened my eyes a little; I can see why people aren't immediately put off by Trump. Sure, there's a lot of things that struck nerves for me, but through the whole thing he stayed remarkably cool and even seemed fairly approachable. And even though the arguments he was giving were pretty much all bullshit, he delivered them in a way that seems like he's an expert who is being completely sincere. With the backing of conservative media, no wonder people are falling for his shtick.
And you're right; Trump does represent something they value. For the most part, Trump is a symbol of security. He's the one who tells them that their bad ideas are all correct. Trump's "low key" acceptance of racism is a pretty good example. White people benefit from the current systemic racism, so having a president who clearly doesn't care for minority groups is extremely reassuring to them. You can also see this with how Trump adopts conspiracy theories.
Very well said. Wholeheartedly agree. I actually bristle at a lot of the "they're dumb" arguments levied against the right because it not only feels like cherry picking but ultimately I think it's...
Very well said.
I do have one other thing to say: people on the right are not there for lack of intelligence.
Wholeheartedly agree. I actually bristle at a lot of the "they're dumb" arguments levied against the right because it not only feels like cherry picking but ultimately I think it's a misidentification of the problem. As a teacher I work with students of all ability levels, from extremely gifted ones to students with cognitive or intellectual disabilities. It has helped me see that character is orthogonal to intellect, which is why I made such a big point at distinguishing between the two in my earlier comments.
I think ultimately when people criticize others for being unintelligent, what I really think they're identifying is someone acting with arrogance, or an authority that they have not earned. It's not that anti-maskers are bad because they're unintelligent -- it's that they're arrogantly asserting that their "right" to not wear a mask outweighs others' safety, and they're claiming an authority regarding the safety of masks that they haven't earned. Anyone is capable of exhibiting these traits, and I know plenty of people who would be considered "unintelligent" who nonetheless trust scientific authority and do not demonstrate regular arrogance.
When the pandemic first started becoming a reality for my classroom, a lot of my "less intelligent" students (I hate this as an identifier by the way, but that's a whole different issue) turned to me as an expert, taking their cues for what they should do from my guidance. Meanwhile, a lot of my more gifted students arrogantly assumed that they already knew what they needed to know, often because they got junk information from conspiracy theory videos on YouTube and TikTok. It wasn't my students' intelligence that was a good heuristic for their response to this -- it was their character.
Watching this interview actually opened my eyes a little; I can see why people aren't immediately put off by Trump. Sure, there's a lot of things that struck nerves for me, but through the whole thing he stayed remarkably cool and even seemed fairly approachable. And even though the arguments he was giving were pretty much all bullshit, he delivered them in a way that seems like he's an expert who is being completely sincere.
I had a similar thought, though less charitable than yours. I noticed how he would repeatedly state things as plain facts and reinforce them with phrases like "you know this", making them look like what he was saying was so obvious as to be common sense -- like anyone would be foolish not to believe it! This gave Trump that cool and approachable quality you identified. It even makes it look like he's finding common ground -- a sort of "we agree on this!". In practice, however, those assertions made the interview less of a conversation and more of a negotiation. If Swan rejects or ignores those common points, it makes Swan look like he's being combative, non-compliant, or even hostile towards Trump. If Swan yields, he loses; if he pushes, he looks bad. On the points where Swan identified that Trump was clearly in the wrong and refused to yield, Trump then switched to gaslighting, saying something is "fake news" or that he "wasn't made aware".
Add to this Trump's conversational dominance -- he didn't engage in standard conversational turn-taking at all and willfully overrode Swan's statements and questions, as well doing the standard politician strategy of pivoting to talking points instead of answering questions. I find all of this obnoxious, but someone who supports him likely sees it as skillful. For people who, as you identified, are fearful and find value in him, his display of force in the video is likely something to be admired. What ultimately troubles me is how much people are having to overlook in order to see those good qualities in him.
I rather appreciate that you use the term 'character' to describe the differences in attitudes between the left and right. When you talk about it that way, other things come to mind. One of the...
I rather appreciate that you use the term 'character' to describe the differences in attitudes between the left and right. When you talk about it that way, other things come to mind. One of the big truisms about character is that it's built on adversity, and that's one thing my right-leaning acquaintances don't tend to have a lot of experience with. One does not really understand what prejudice is until they have been made victim of it, and even still they will have no idea what broad, systemic prejudice is like.
What ultimately troubles me is how much people are having to overlook in order to see those good qualities in him.
Elsewhere in this topic, I made a bold statement that most of these people are brainwashed, and as inflammatory a statement as it is, I stand by it. These people are not overlooking the crazy things Trump says - they are actively paying attention because they believe it. And while there's certainly more to the story, conservative media filter bubbles are largely to blame. And Trump himself is fanning the flames because he knows it gives him more power.
People only tend to vote if they are highly motivated. People who believe in QAnon think Trump is saving them from the new world order, so they are all highly motivated. So naturally, Trump is the politician who is trying his hardest to court them. Likewise, people are extremely afraid of Antifa - as constructed as their fear may be - so Trump keeps talking about how tough he is on Antifa and how he's going to get rid of them because they are terrorists. Even if you don't believe everything else he says, these are enough to motivate people who think like this to vote for him. Trump keeps winning because he has found the abortion issues of the meme age.
You're absolutely right, and I don't mean to attribute everything solely to personal character. There are clearly larger systemic issues at play as well -- it's more that I feel that the...
You're absolutely right, and I don't mean to attribute everything solely to personal character. There are clearly larger systemic issues at play as well -- it's more that I feel that the individual, personal piece tends to get lost in a lot of the broad brush strokes people paint with on these issues, so I wanted to focus on and highlight that part specifically.
A good number of them are simply brainwashed. I know, it sounds farfetched and perhaps too simple to be true, but the more I peer into places like r/conservative and look at what they are saying...
A good number of them are simply brainwashed.
I know, it sounds farfetched and perhaps too simple to be true, but the more I peer into places like r/conservative and look at what they are saying to each other, the more I see evidence of it.
You will see so many instances of 'soundbytes' being quoted verbatim amongst them. If you ask them why they vote the way they do, they will say "The establishment democrats are out of control". If you ask them what they mean, you will likely not get a response, and if you do you will probably hear an example of one small subgroup doing something bad being applied to everyone - imagine antifa making up the entire voting block. The reason why these soundbytes keep circulating is because they don't have good ideas behind them, so they have to keep repeating it for it to seem to make sense.
It also seems to be why Trump gets the benefit of the doubt. Many of them disagree with him, his policies, or the republican platform, but they still vote for them because they see it's better than voting for Democrats, who are bad for reasons. They are quite literally voting Republican simply because they have a somewhat politically acceptable form of prejudice.
Now that I've put that into words, it makes more sense why they think so highly of Trump - they see themselves in him.
Not sure why trying to apply my everyday mentality of open-mindedness sparked such an aggressive response, but I’ll try not to participate in US politics threads in the future
Not sure why trying to apply my everyday mentality of open-mindedness sparked such an aggressive response, but I’ll try not to participate in US politics threads in the future
For whatever it's worth, I was happy to see your comment. Sure, it's probably not an expectation that's likely to be met, but it's still a good mindset to go in with IMO. Also, don't forget your...
For whatever it's worth, I was happy to see your comment. Sure, it's probably not an expectation that's likely to be met, but it's still a good mindset to go in with IMO. Also, don't forget your comment did get 12 votes; there were clearly plenty of people who thought it was valuable!
I used to use the malicious or noise label for this, until Deimos specifically asked me not to, saying, if I recall, that it was only for comments that were actually malicious or spam/not...
I used to use the malicious or noise label for this, until Deimos specifically asked me not to, saying, if I recall, that it was only for comments that were actually malicious or spam/not contributing at all, not just unnecessarily aggressive comments. (Note: I edited this paragraph as I now recall that this may have been the noise label.)
I think the way to respond to unnecessary aggression is still an open question.
My introduction to this interview was the following exchange regarding COVID-19 deaths in the US: Unsurprisingly, Trump never actually answers the question and only petulantly pouts about how the...
My introduction to this interview was the following exchange regarding COVID-19 deaths in the US:
TRUMP: And if you look at the death per---
SWAN: Yeah?
TRUMP: It started to go up again. TRUMP pulls out some charts
TRUMP: Well, here's one. Well, right here, United States is lowest in numerous categories. We're lower than the world.
SWAN: Lower than the world?
TRUMP: We're lower than---
SWAN: What does that mean?
TRUMP: Europe. Look, look---
SWAN: In what?
TRUMP: Take a look. Right here. Here's case death. TRUMP hands SWAN the chart. SWAN is puzzled.
SWAN: Oh, you're doing death as a proportion of cases. I'm talking about death as a proportion of population. That's where the US is really bad.
TRUMP: Well---
SWAN: Much worse than South Korea, Germany, etc.
TRUMP: You can't do that. You have to go---
SWAN: Why can't I do that?
TRUMP: You have to go by---You have to go where---Look. Here is the United States. You have to go by the cases. The cases of death---
SWAN: Why not as a proportion of population?
Unsurprisingly, Trump never actually answers the question and only petulantly pouts about how the comparison is unfair. But when you actually listen to the clip in context, you realize Trump's argument is actually much worse: he spends the previous five minutes lambasting the media for comparing the United States' number of total reported cases with other countries, which he claims is improper since the US has been testing "so much" more. However, when it comes to comparing deaths, Trump only wants to compare deaths as a percentage of cases (not percentage of population or total volume, eg), despite his earlier insistence that it's an inaccurate metric.
I understand that you can form an argument for almost anything. But at the very least, all arguments should be self-consistent. Here we have Trump vomiting out his "best" arguments, regardless of their compatibility with prior assertions. Trump candidly demonstrates his disregard for truth-finding and instead demonstrates his obsession with "winning."
In fact, Swan reinforces this idea when he beautifully sets-up Trump later by bringing up Trump's Ghislaine Maxwell comments.
SWAN: Mr President, the other day a reporter asked you about Ghislaine Maxwell. You said, quote, "I just wish her well, frankly. I've met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach. But I wish her well, whatever it is." Mr President, Ghislaine Maxwell has been arrested on child sex trafficking. Why would you wish such a person well---
TRUMP: Well, first of all, I don't know that. But I do know this.
SWAN: She has. She's been arrested for that. You know that---
TRUMP: Her friend of boyfriend---
SWAN: Epstein.
TRUMP: Was either killed or committed suicide in jail. She's now in jail. Yeah, I wish her well. I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people well. Good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty. I mean, you---do you know that she's guilty---
SWAN: Oh, so you're saying you hope she doesn't die in jail? Is that what you mean by "wish her well"---
TRUMP: Well, her boyfriend died in jail, and people are still trying to figure out how did it happen. Was it suicide? Was he killed? And I do wish her well. I'm not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking bad for anybody.
Here we see Trump confirming (or maybe just parroting) the idea that he only "wished her well" because Epstein ended up dead. But immediately after Trump says he isn't "looking [for anything] bad for anybody", Swan pivots to Portland, where Trump brags about implementing a "ten-year rule" where if "you touch our courthouse, you go to jail for ten years."
Of course, this is just a selection of the full interview. You could deconstruct the entire interview this way.
In the first 2 minutes, the first question is about Trump's adherence to the "philosophy of positive thinking", where if you envision something it will come true. And then asking how well he...
In the first 2 minutes, the first question is about Trump's adherence to the "philosophy of positive thinking", where if you envision something it will come true. And then asking how well he thinks that's working for him during a pandemic.
The answer is very predictable, and also dumbfounding given that framing. I was unaware that that was a known thing he believed. A lot of his statements make more sense now. They're still absolute batshit, but now at least I understand the origin of some of them.
He inherited this belief from his dad, who learned it from Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking in the 1950s: The same passage says "Fred wasn’t a reader, but it was impossible...
He inherited this belief from his dad, who learned it from Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking in the 1950s:
Anticipating the prosperity gospel, Peale’s doctrine proclaimed that you need only self-confidence in order to prosper in the way God wants you to. “[O]bstacles are simply not permitted to destroy your happiness and well-being. You need be defeated only if you are willing to be,” Peale wrote. That view neatly confirmed what Fred already thought: he was rich because he deserved to be. “Believe in yourself! Have faith in your abilities!… A sense of inferiority and inadequacy interferes with the attainment of your hopes, but self-confidence leads to self-realization and successful achievement.” Self-doubt wasn’t part of Fred’s makeup, and he never considered the possibility of his own defeat. As Peale also wrote, “It is appalling to realize the number of pathetic people who are hampered and made miserable by the malady popularly called the inferiority complex.”
Peale’s proto–prosperity gospel actually complemented the scarcity mentality Fred continued to cling to. For him, it was not “the more you have, the more you can give.” It was “the more you have, the more you have.” Financial worth was the same as self-worth, monetary value was human value. The more Fred Trump had, the better he was. If he gave something to someone else, that person would be worth more and he less. He would pass that attitude on to Donald in spades.
- Too Much And Never Enough, Mary Trump
The same passage says "Fred wasn’t a reader, but it was impossible not to know about Peale’s wildly popular bestseller, The Power of Positive Thinking. The title alone was enough for Fred..." So not reading is probably a habit and/or disability that Fred passed on to Donald as well.
Trump's philosophy is a perverse aberration that does no justice to the notion of positive thinking. Any ideological analysis related to him must be framed within the context of his yuge narcissism.
Trump's philosophy is a perverse aberration that does no justice to the notion of positive thinking. Any ideological analysis related to him must be framed within the context of his yuge narcissism.
Oh undoubtably. There is definitely some useful advise in thinking positively about your goals. However I immediately understood it thorough the lens of his narcissism to mean "if I believe...
does no justice to the notion of positive thinking
Oh undoubtably. There is definitely some useful advise in thinking positively about your goals. However I immediately understood it thorough the lens of his narcissism to mean "if I believe something hard enough it will come true without any further effort from me, because I am the center of the universe". And with that as one of a set of core beliefs, clearly anything that doesn't work out is someone else's fault.
I cracked and watched it. Wow. Just....wow. On one hand, it's obviously astonishing that this man is POTUS - that goes without saying. But what I hadn't expected is how tremendous Swan is. What a...
I cracked and watched it.
Wow. Just....wow. On one hand, it's obviously astonishing that this man is POTUS - that goes without saying. But what I hadn't expected is how tremendous Swan is. What a great interviewer, all credit to him for following up his questions so hard and with so much solid data and knowledge under his belt.
In a stunning display of reporting prowess, CNN has some absolutely stellar reporting on the reporting done by Jonathan Swan. /s I'm picking on CNN, but a lot of other sites are just reporting on...
I'm picking on CNN, but a lot of other sites are just reporting on the reporting and contributing basically nothing other than "look! see! we told you!".
I came into this as open mindedly as possible.. I was honestly excited to hear his take on current things and maybe see him open up a little and admit some faults. Instead what I got was just another 30 minutes of him blaming everyone on earth but himself for any faults and constantly tooting his own horn.
That part about him correcting the journalist about the crowd size "It was 12 000" amid the pandemic would have been hilarious years ago but nowadays it just elicits a "of course that's what he says" from me.
Because it's hard to come to terms with the fact that the United States presidency, a position held in extremely high regard, that comes with immense power and responsibility and is extremely difficult to attain, could be held by such a fucking moron.
I think it's important to separate character from intelligence. If we argue that Trump supporters are unintelligent and thus their support for him is rooted in that, we're effectively giving them a pass and opening the door to the idea that they can't "know better". We're placing their support for him in a relatively immutable consequence of circumstance. I think it's only right and fair that we acknowledge their personal responsibility in this, especially when they are members of a party that so readily champions that concept.
Personally, I think many (if not all) of them are perfectly capable of "knowing better" and have a good degree of individual choice and autonomy in choosing not to do so. Trump's rhetoric and platform is rooted in prejudice, selfishness, stubbornness, and supremacy, which are all problems of character. I ultimately believe someone choosing to support Trump right now is revealing more about their values and deliberately held beliefs than their own intelligence.
I'm right there with you. I'm originally from the south, and I too feel the same discomforts you do. There's definitely something to be said for the role of wider systemic effects (e.g. misinformation, media slant and focus, etc.), but I also think those things wouldn't have as much sway as they do if they weren't finding fertile ground to land in, and I think that lies in character.
I was having a conversation with my mom about one of our family members who is an outspoken Trump supporter. I expressed some confusion about him, as he strikes me as someone who's kind and compassionate enough to see Trump for what he is. I phrased my confusion to my mom in the words "I don't think [my uncle] has a hateful heart".
My mom replied "I agree, but I do think he has a very selfish heart". Her response stuck with me, and I've thought a lot about it. My uncle is not a bad, evil, mean-spirited person. However, he is a fundamentally selfish one -- though "self-centered" is probably a better word for it. He lives and operates in a manner that puts himself, his needs, his thoughts, and his concerns first. We all do this to some extent, but with him it's almost at a level that could be considered a pathology, because instead of it manifesting as him considering himself first, before others, it has become some degree of: he considers himself only.
I think this is common for a lot of the people I know on the right who continue to support Trump. At any point they could choose to step outside of themselves, empathize, practice perspective-taking, or literally any other skill that would bypass their own self-centeredness, but they don't. In fact, when encouraged to do so, they often react with hostility, which just reduces the possibility that someone will nudge them that way again. Snap at me once, shame on you; snap at me twice...
My uncle won't even entertain discussions of what "black lives matter" means not only because his selfishness prevents him from listening in the first place but more fundamentally because his selfishness makes him believe the statement is about him in the first place. He is unable to approach it from a mindset that does not put himself first, and he is only able to see its impact as it relates to him, so of course he misses the point.
When I was growing up, right-aligned politics was very much about personal liberty and freedom from government influence. There was the idea that "don't tell me what to do" that was counterbalanced by the weight of "because I can trust myself to do what's right or accept the consequences otherwise" -- a reflection of the "personal responsibility" idea I referenced earlier.
Now that I'm older, I find much of the ideals of the American right unrecognizable because I feel like they've gone all in on the first half but forgotten the second. "Don't tell me what to do" isn't an affirmation of responsibility but instead a demonstration of petulance.
There are lots of systemic things that reinforce this and that nudge my uncle to be the way that he is and believe the things that he does, but I can't look at him and not see his obstinance and self-centeredness as root causes for his beliefs. He could choose to move past those. He could choose to listen. He could choose to try to understand. Hell, he could even choose to just stand down. He doesn't have to be out there at the protests himself, he just has to not vocally stand in their way.
But he doesn't. The further into this administration we've gotten, the more evidence we have that that Trump is a spiteful, destructive, and incompetent leader of this country. Even if we ignore his leadership though, we have plenty of evidence to speak on his character, and those that choose to stand by him are choosing to either endorse, or at the very least, permit his character. The party of personal responsibility supports a man who takes no responsibility. My very Christian family-man uncle with multiple daughters supports a man with multiple divorces, confirmed extra-marital affairs, and outright personal admissions regarding the sexual assault of women -- to say nothing of his latest show of support for a child sex trafficker. His administration has been scandal-laden enough that there have been plenty of opportunities to walk away, disavow him, and break solidarity with him. There have been plenty of chances.
Yes, his supporters might be partially duped by news media; yes, they might be unintelligent; yes, they might be living in an insular bubble. Those might be factors, but I genuinely don't think they're the cause, especially because I personally know so many exceptions. My uncle is an incredibly intelligent man. He has people in his life who have challenged his views. My mom has personally asked me, multiple times over the past months, how she might phrase or approach things in order to reach him in their ongoing conversations. My dad has sent him faith-based videos on racism and spoken to him as both a literal brother as well as a brother in Christ.
Those things, unfortunately, have not fallen on fertile ground. But Trump's actions still do. It's why I'm at the point where I have to believe that someone choosing to support Trump is doing so deliberately. And I believe they're doing it not because they've been duped into it, but because deep down inside their hearts, he represents something that they value.
This is, indeed, something I have noticed in common with most of the people on the right at the moment. Just about two days ago there was an AskReddit thread asking why people were planning on voting for Trump, and while it was a predictable shitshow like always, I took the time to find a genuine response from the most agreeable person I could find and asked them with as much respect as I could muster about the details for why they held those positions. It took some time because these beliefs are very finely layered. But at the core of everything was the idea that he was happy with his life and didn't want to see the status quo change because he feared that it would affect his life negatively.
Fear is the true center of most right-wing messaging and the point of most of their political work, and it goes hand-in-hand with that lack of empathy you were talking about. How do you get people to care about others if it triggers fear?
I do have one other thing to say: people on the right are not there for lack of intelligence. We are quick to judge them this way simply because we disagree with them on very fundamental issues - empathy for others being a particularly salient example.
Watching this interview actually opened my eyes a little; I can see why people aren't immediately put off by Trump. Sure, there's a lot of things that struck nerves for me, but through the whole thing he stayed remarkably cool and even seemed fairly approachable. And even though the arguments he was giving were pretty much all bullshit, he delivered them in a way that seems like he's an expert who is being completely sincere. With the backing of conservative media, no wonder people are falling for his shtick.
And you're right; Trump does represent something they value. For the most part, Trump is a symbol of security. He's the one who tells them that their bad ideas are all correct. Trump's "low key" acceptance of racism is a pretty good example. White people benefit from the current systemic racism, so having a president who clearly doesn't care for minority groups is extremely reassuring to them. You can also see this with how Trump adopts conspiracy theories.
Very well said.
Wholeheartedly agree. I actually bristle at a lot of the "they're dumb" arguments levied against the right because it not only feels like cherry picking but ultimately I think it's a misidentification of the problem. As a teacher I work with students of all ability levels, from extremely gifted ones to students with cognitive or intellectual disabilities. It has helped me see that character is orthogonal to intellect, which is why I made such a big point at distinguishing between the two in my earlier comments.
I think ultimately when people criticize others for being unintelligent, what I really think they're identifying is someone acting with arrogance, or an authority that they have not earned. It's not that anti-maskers are bad because they're unintelligent -- it's that they're arrogantly asserting that their "right" to not wear a mask outweighs others' safety, and they're claiming an authority regarding the safety of masks that they haven't earned. Anyone is capable of exhibiting these traits, and I know plenty of people who would be considered "unintelligent" who nonetheless trust scientific authority and do not demonstrate regular arrogance.
When the pandemic first started becoming a reality for my classroom, a lot of my "less intelligent" students (I hate this as an identifier by the way, but that's a whole different issue) turned to me as an expert, taking their cues for what they should do from my guidance. Meanwhile, a lot of my more gifted students arrogantly assumed that they already knew what they needed to know, often because they got junk information from conspiracy theory videos on YouTube and TikTok. It wasn't my students' intelligence that was a good heuristic for their response to this -- it was their character.
I had a similar thought, though less charitable than yours. I noticed how he would repeatedly state things as plain facts and reinforce them with phrases like "you know this", making them look like what he was saying was so obvious as to be common sense -- like anyone would be foolish not to believe it! This gave Trump that cool and approachable quality you identified. It even makes it look like he's finding common ground -- a sort of "we agree on this!". In practice, however, those assertions made the interview less of a conversation and more of a negotiation. If Swan rejects or ignores those common points, it makes Swan look like he's being combative, non-compliant, or even hostile towards Trump. If Swan yields, he loses; if he pushes, he looks bad. On the points where Swan identified that Trump was clearly in the wrong and refused to yield, Trump then switched to gaslighting, saying something is "fake news" or that he "wasn't made aware".
Add to this Trump's conversational dominance -- he didn't engage in standard conversational turn-taking at all and willfully overrode Swan's statements and questions, as well doing the standard politician strategy of pivoting to talking points instead of answering questions. I find all of this obnoxious, but someone who supports him likely sees it as skillful. For people who, as you identified, are fearful and find value in him, his display of force in the video is likely something to be admired. What ultimately troubles me is how much people are having to overlook in order to see those good qualities in him.
I rather appreciate that you use the term 'character' to describe the differences in attitudes between the left and right. When you talk about it that way, other things come to mind. One of the big truisms about character is that it's built on adversity, and that's one thing my right-leaning acquaintances don't tend to have a lot of experience with. One does not really understand what prejudice is until they have been made victim of it, and even still they will have no idea what broad, systemic prejudice is like.
Elsewhere in this topic, I made a bold statement that most of these people are brainwashed, and as inflammatory a statement as it is, I stand by it. These people are not overlooking the crazy things Trump says - they are actively paying attention because they believe it. And while there's certainly more to the story, conservative media filter bubbles are largely to blame. And Trump himself is fanning the flames because he knows it gives him more power.
People only tend to vote if they are highly motivated. People who believe in QAnon think Trump is saving them from the new world order, so they are all highly motivated. So naturally, Trump is the politician who is trying his hardest to court them. Likewise, people are extremely afraid of Antifa - as constructed as their fear may be - so Trump keeps talking about how tough he is on Antifa and how he's going to get rid of them because they are terrorists. Even if you don't believe everything else he says, these are enough to motivate people who think like this to vote for him. Trump keeps winning because he has found the abortion issues of the meme age.
You're absolutely right, and I don't mean to attribute everything solely to personal character. There are clearly larger systemic issues at play as well -- it's more that I feel that the individual, personal piece tends to get lost in a lot of the broad brush strokes people paint with on these issues, so I wanted to focus on and highlight that part specifically.
A good number of them are simply brainwashed.
I know, it sounds farfetched and perhaps too simple to be true, but the more I peer into places like r/conservative and look at what they are saying to each other, the more I see evidence of it.
You will see so many instances of 'soundbytes' being quoted verbatim amongst them. If you ask them why they vote the way they do, they will say "The establishment democrats are out of control". If you ask them what they mean, you will likely not get a response, and if you do you will probably hear an example of one small subgroup doing something bad being applied to everyone - imagine antifa making up the entire voting block. The reason why these soundbytes keep circulating is because they don't have good ideas behind them, so they have to keep repeating it for it to seem to make sense.
It also seems to be why Trump gets the benefit of the doubt. Many of them disagree with him, his policies, or the republican platform, but they still vote for them because they see it's better than voting for Democrats, who are bad for reasons. They are quite literally voting Republican simply because they have a somewhat politically acceptable form of prejudice.
Now that I've put that into words, it makes more sense why they think so highly of Trump - they see themselves in him.
When people show you who they are, believe them.
Not sure why trying to apply my everyday mentality of open-mindedness sparked such an aggressive response, but I’ll try not to participate in US politics threads in the future
For whatever it's worth, I was happy to see your comment. Sure, it's probably not an expectation that's likely to be met, but it's still a good mindset to go in with IMO. Also, don't forget your comment did get 12 votes; there were clearly plenty of people who thought it was valuable!
I used to use the malicious or noise label for this, until Deimos specifically asked me not to, saying, if I recall, that it was only for comments that were actually malicious or spam/not contributing at all, not just unnecessarily aggressive comments. (Note: I edited this paragraph as I now recall that this may have been the noise label.)
I think the way to respond to unnecessary aggression is still an open question.
When he said essentially it was low because "you couldn't get in" I almost lost it.
My introduction to this interview was the following exchange regarding COVID-19 deaths in the US:
Unsurprisingly, Trump never actually answers the question and only petulantly pouts about how the comparison is unfair. But when you actually listen to the clip in context, you realize Trump's argument is actually much worse: he spends the previous five minutes lambasting the media for comparing the United States' number of total reported cases with other countries, which he claims is improper since the US has been testing "so much" more. However, when it comes to comparing deaths, Trump only wants to compare deaths as a percentage of cases (not percentage of population or total volume, eg), despite his earlier insistence that it's an inaccurate metric.
I understand that you can form an argument for almost anything. But at the very least, all arguments should be self-consistent. Here we have Trump vomiting out his "best" arguments, regardless of their compatibility with prior assertions. Trump candidly demonstrates his disregard for truth-finding and instead demonstrates his obsession with "winning."
In fact, Swan reinforces this idea when he beautifully sets-up Trump later by bringing up Trump's Ghislaine Maxwell comments.
Here we see Trump confirming (or maybe just parroting) the idea that he only "wished her well" because Epstein ended up dead. But immediately after Trump says he isn't "looking [for anything] bad for anybody", Swan pivots to Portland, where Trump brags about implementing a "ten-year rule" where if "you touch our courthouse, you go to jail for ten years."
Of course, this is just a selection of the full interview. You could deconstruct the entire interview this way.
In the first 2 minutes, the first question is about Trump's adherence to the "philosophy of positive thinking", where if you envision something it will come true. And then asking how well he thinks that's working for him during a pandemic.
The answer is very predictable, and also dumbfounding given that framing. I was unaware that that was a known thing he believed. A lot of his statements make more sense now. They're still absolute batshit, but now at least I understand the origin of some of them.
He inherited this belief from his dad, who learned it from Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking in the 1950s:
The same passage says "Fred wasn’t a reader, but it was impossible not to know about Peale’s wildly popular bestseller, The Power of Positive Thinking. The title alone was enough for Fred..." So not reading is probably a habit and/or disability that Fred passed on to Donald as well.
Trump's philosophy is a perverse aberration that does no justice to the notion of positive thinking. Any ideological analysis related to him must be framed within the context of his yuge narcissism.
Oh undoubtably. There is definitely some useful advise in thinking positively about your goals. However I immediately understood it thorough the lens of his narcissism to mean "if I believe something hard enough it will come true without any further effort from me, because I am the center of the universe". And with that as one of a set of core beliefs, clearly anything that doesn't work out is someone else's fault.
I cracked and watched it.
Wow. Just....wow. On one hand, it's obviously astonishing that this man is POTUS - that goes without saying. But what I hadn't expected is how tremendous Swan is. What a great interviewer, all credit to him for following up his questions so hard and with so much solid data and knowledge under his belt.
Axios is worth watching, unlike a lot of similar news shows. Their interviews are fairly consistent and the show has a really great pace.
Thanks, will take a look
Saw the link and already assumed it'd be awful, but thanks everyone for clarifying :-)
In a stunning display of reporting prowess, CNN has some absolutely stellar reporting on the reporting done by Jonathan Swan. /s
I'm picking on CNN, but a lot of other sites are just reporting on the reporting and contributing basically nothing other than "look! see! we told you!".