Understanding Trump

[GSOgymrat]

This is an excellent analysis by cognitive and linguists expert George Lakoff on the difference between conservatives (Strict Father family) and progressives (Nurturant Parent family), exactly how Trump has succeeded and how Democrats should respond, e.g. give up identity politics. This is probably my favorite political article so far this election cycle.

Understanding Trump

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/understanding-trump_b_11144938.html

... Donald J. Trump has managed to become the Republican nominee for president, Why? How? There are various theories: People are angry and he speaks to their anger. People don’t think much of Congress and want a non-politician. Both may be true. But why? What are the details? And why Trump?

He seems to have come out of nowhere. His positions on issues don’t fit a common mold.

He has said nice things about LGBTQ folks, which is not standard Republican talk. Republicans hate eminent domain (the taking of private property by the government) and support corporate outsourcing for the sake of profit, but he has the opposite views on both. He is not religious and scorns religious practices, yet the Evangelicals (that is, the white Evangelicals) love him. He thinks health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, as well as military contractors, are making too much profit and wants to change that. He insults major voting groups, e.g., Latinos, when most Republicans are trying to court them. He wants to deport 11 million immigrants without papers and thinks he can. He wants to stop Muslims from entering the country. What is going on?

The answer requires a bit of background. ...

[stromboli]

Bookmarked it. Excellent article. will read in depth and follow up later. Thanks GSO. 

[Hydra009]

Most of the analysis of Trump's demagogery and why it appeals to some people isn't particularly new to me.  But the recommendations for liberals was interesting:

keep out of nasty exchanges and attacks. Keep out of shouting matches. One can speak powerfully without shouting. Obama sets the pace: Civility, values, positivity, good humor, and real empathy are powerful. Calmness and empathy in the face of fury are powerful. Bill Clinton won because he oozed empathy, with his voice, his eye contact, and his body. It wasn’t his superb ability as a policy wonk, but the empathy he projected and inspired.

I agree to some extent, but bashing someone for doing/saying something stupid is my area of expertise.  Is it productive?  Probably not.  Is it satisfying?  YES.

Values come first, facts and policies follow in the service of values. They matter, but they always support values.

Eh, I dunno about that one either.

Give up identity politics. No more women’s issues, black issues, Latino issues. Their issues are all real, and need public discussion. But they all fall under freedom issues, human issues. And address poor whites! Appalachian and rust belt whites deserve your attention as much as anyone else. Don’t surrender their fate to Trump, who will just increase their suffering.

I agree, but good luck getting the progressives to go along with that.

[GSOgymrat]

Values come first, facts and policies follow in the service of values. They matter, but they always support values.


Eh, I dunno about that one either.

Give up identity politics. No more women’s issues, black issues, Latino issues. Their issues are all real, and need public discussion. But they all fall under freedom issues, human issues. And address poor whites! Appalachian and rust belt whites deserve your attention as much as anyone else. Don’t surrender their fate to Trump, who will just increase their suffering.

I agree, but good luck getting the progressives to go along with that.

Regarding values coming before fact, I think that when facts are not used to support values that someone can agree with the listener can often "fly from facts." This reminds me of a conversation I was having with my husband just yesterday where I could sense him flying from facts. I was saying that generally speaking human experience is probably better now than it has been and citing decline in world poverty and hunger, increased life expectancy, increased education, increased access to knowledge, decline in violence and such. He wasn't buying it and referenced terrorist attacks as evidence the world is in terrible shape. I began using statistics of how violent crime has gone down, there are fewer wars, the number of people killed by terrorists is relatively minuscule compared to other causes of death, etcetera. He said, "I don't care about statistics. You can cite numbers all day about how unlikely it is to be killed in a terrorist attack but as soon as I see someone's head get cut off or a truck running over people your statistic don't matter. The world is not safe anymore." I then explained how that is precisely how terrorism works. Excessively violent, highly publicized, unpredictable attacks that instill a level of fear and perceived risk that is disproportionate to the actual threat. It's like shark attacks.

On identity politics, I've run into a surprising level of resistance from progressives online for merely questioning the efficacy of identity politics. I recognize part of the of the disagreement has to do with my way of dealing with the world. I tend to focus on individuals, not groups, and rational problem solving, not expressions of emotions. When it comes to protests I question what exactly is the goal, is this type of protest effective, is this lawful, will this action harm others, not "We're mad as hell and our anger is righteous!" Many progressives are emotionally attached to the concept of identity. It appeals to a sense of tribalism and empathy, identifying the oppressed and supporting them gives them a sense of moral satisfaction. They live in a world of the privileged and the oppressed with the formula of intersectionality to identify who is oppressed in any situation. This is one way of viewing the world but not the ONLY way of viewing it. Unfortunately some people are so invested in this view they cannot see anything else, which is why some people have compared this form of social justice as religion. We all know how difficult it is to change someone's religion.

[Hydra009]

He said, "I don't care about statistics. You can cite numbers all day about how unlikely it is to be killed in a terrorist attack but as soon as I see someone's head get cut off or a truck running over people your statistic don't matter. The world is not safe anymore."

I run into those sort of people all the time and usually end the conversation with some form of insult.  In my rare moments of saintlike patience, I'm able to calmly explain how the world generally being more peaceable means that less people experience that sort of carnage than used to.  And news coverage gives an inaccurate picture of the state of the world through wall-to-wall coverage of tragic events which gives the impression of a more violent world than the one that actually exists.

I tend to focus on individuals, not groups

You don't see yourself and others as a part of some white man collective, black man collective, etc?  That sounds problematic, non-inclusive, and possibly ableist.

[GSOgymrat]

You don't see yourself and others as a part of some white man collective, black man collective, etc?  That sounds problematic, non-inclusive, and possibly ableist.

I'm American, wealthy, white and male. All I need is a little reparative therapy, take the golden ring of heterosexuality, and I will be reach the pinnacle of privilege!

https://youtu.be/spHEw2n9LwE

[Baruch]

Great film of Hillary at the Lord of the Rings convention ;-)

I fear women megalomaniacs more than Sauron.

[SGOS]

This is an excellent analysis by cognitive and linguists expert George Lakoff on the difference between conservatives (Strict Father family) and progressives (Nurturant Parent family), exactly how Trump has succeeded and how Democrats should respond, e.g. give up identity politics. 

I've read a couple similar explanations for conservative/liberal differences, but not in this much detail, and while I agree that they are spot on, I also wonder what psychological conditioning I may have undergone that make me [think I am] so aware of the psychology of conservatism.  In addition to just being "prone" to agree with these explanations, I plainly see the authoritarian family influence among the few family relatives I have who are right wing conservatives.  While that's a small sample, it fits the description to a "T".

This article could have used more discussion of the psychology of liberals and the unconscious motives that drive them, not because it would only be fair to take the liberals out to the woodshed for a similar dressing down and to expose their equally shallow motivations, but because being a liberal myself, it would help me plumb the depths of my own subconscious, rather than just observe the dynamics of human frailty from afar as it manifests itself in the opposing camp.  But even in the other more even handed explanations of the psychology of political motivation that address both sides, the conservative mental process always comes out looking way more unflattering than the liberal one.

One of the things that come to mind during the beginning of Trumps success, was watching several man in the street interviews asking voters who they supported and why, and by far, the biggest reason to support Trump was "because he tells it like it is."  Now that reasoning can't get much cleaner or more direct, but its totally lacking in any explanation of what "it" is that Trump tells, and what "like it is" is really like.  But it does fit nicely on a bumper sticker.  Conservatives do often to seem to know the truth, because it's the truth, and don't want to be bothered with explaining why.  It's the authoritarian father; "You do what I say, because I told you to do it."  While that is clear and direct enough for the simplest mind to follow, it nether offers or requires any thought.  And it describes a lot of right wing conservatives very well.  More moderate conservatives, not so much.

[GSOgymrat]

This article could have used more discussion of the psychology of liberals and the unconscious motives that drive them, not because it would only be fair to take the liberals out to the woodshed for a similar dressing down and to expose their equally shallow motivations, but because being a liberal myself, it would help me plumb the depths of my own subconscious, rather than just observe the dynamics of human frailty from afar as it manifests itself in the opposing camp.  But even in the other more even handed explanations of the psychology of political motivation that address both sides, the conservative mental process always comes out looking way more unflattering than the liberal one.

An issues with liberals I recognize is that the problem isn't usually with motivation but with policy, basically that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberals tend to sympathize with the oppressed and in an effort to help sometimes make situations worse. Liberals, like permissive parents, can dismiss core values and rules that keep a family (society) running smoothly. For example, accepting large numbers of refugees into a country when the refugees don't have the education, skills, language or values to successfully integrate or participate in the greater society. The motivation is good but results can be ghettoization and a bad situation for all involved.

[Hydra009]

Yeah, a common liberal problem is good intentions that don't pan out well.  A common conservative problem is bad intentions that do.

[SGOS]

An issues with liberals I recognize is that the problem isn't usually with motivation but with policy, basically that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberals tend to sympathize with the oppressed and in an effort to help sometimes make situations worse. Liberals, like permissive parents, can dismiss core values and rules that keep a family (society) running smoothly. For example, accepting large numbers of refugees into a country when the refugees don't have the education, skills, language or values to successfully integrate or participate in the greater society. The motivation is good but results can be ghettoization and a bad situation for all involved.

I may have been too hard on authoritarian values.  They do serve a purpose.  They work well in the military, where getting the job done can outweigh thought, although somewhere in the system, thought is required, and presumably that thought is done at the top of the hierarchy.  Unfortunately, among our governmental leaders, that thought is too often directed toward self preservation, rather than the collective good.  I see it as a major problem, but I don't know how to fix it.

[SGOS]

Yeah, a common liberal problem is good intentions that don't pan out well.  A common conservative problem is bad intentions that do.

That's the way I see it too.  But I'm still drawn to the liberal intentions, and I'm willing to take the risks associated with them.  In theory, good intentions that turn out bad, can be fixed, assuming people are willing to fix them.  But if they are clung to stubbornly, they suffer the same flaw as the conservative values.  That is, if we define conservative as "resistance to change."

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Republicans and conservatives sold many people on the notion that liberals only wanted to take YOUR hard earned money and give it all to the laziest people in society. They often would make an example of one person who may or may not have been gaming the system (welfare queen under Reagan) to make it sound as if it ALL came directly out of your pocket which simply wasn't and still isn't true. It's the politics of resentment that someone else is getting something you're not getting. They made it sound as if everyone who ever received even the smallest amount of money from government was living high on the hog living in extreme luxury with the pittance of a few hundred bucks and decide to have baby after baby after baby and never have to struggle while YOU had to work hard all day, every day without even the slightest amount of help. They like to portray all taxes going to support the laziest in society AS IF even mundane things like stop signs aren't paid for with taxes.. Plenty of people bought into the narrative..