Doug:
I've been trying to understand Trump's appeal. Here is an article that is very interesting, and very long (but worth the read):
It argues that there is a strong correlation with those that have authoritarian tendencies ("a desire for order and a fear of outsiders") and support for Trump:
David:
It is a fairly long article, but has quite a few interesting assertions. And, it may help to explain why individuals like Donald Trump periodically rise to national prominence using essentially the same messages.
Doug:
Yes, I agree. There is a segment of the population that finds that Trump's message resonates with their values. Although it doesn't have much to do with "conservatism" these people have found a home in the Republican party.
David:
This study does provide evidence that those who have a strong sense of tradition and traditional values find themselves innately drawn to Republicans, rather than Democrats. Perhaps in a similar way that atheists are drawn to the Democratic Party like bugs to a bug zapper.
I do find fault in this article with what I see as an inherent bias in the writing. The authors continue throughout to claim that people with authoritarian tendencies have some “fear” of immigrants, or people that are not like them. I think the authors would like to believe that anyone who supports Trump is a bigot and a racist. I did not find any evidence to support that idea. There is nothing in the questions they posed to test subjects that would lead me to think there was “fear” expressed in the answers. The folks with authoritarian tendencies do appear to prefer the status quo, and to desire order and lawfulness.
Doug:
Perhaps "fear" is not quite the right word, especially for those that would not want their strength questioned. They do have "suspicion" and "apprehension" of outsiders. "Fear" does capture some of that feeling. Whatever word one chooses, it seems the meaning is clear.
David:
But there is no evidence for those words either. The study indicates that those who ascribe to the trends being studied simply have a preference for tradition and a strong support for the law.
Doug:
Fine, we'll use "preference for people like themselves" rather than "fear of outsiders."
David:
Even the term “authoritarian” has some negative connotations. The authors admit this, but choose to leave that moniker in place. It makes me look much closer at their findings, because these two naming issues suggest an agenda that the authors were hoping to prove. After all, words do have meaning, especially in “scientific” studies.
Doug:
One should always look close at findings, regardless of the terminology. Try to look beyond the specific terms used, and try not to imagine what the authors think---look at the data. It does seem to explain Trump's support. It does evoke a certain analogy with Germany in the early 20th century (see Hitler's rise to power).
David:
Ah. Now I see where we’re heading. It wouldn’t be a good discussion about people who connect with the Republican Party without somehow invoking Hitler. That now seems to be the train that all of the left-leaning media has hitched a ride on. A late-night talk show even had a comedienne appear in full Hitler regalia last week, with the imitation Hitler complaining that Trump was giving him a bad name, even though the two of them were basically on the same page ideologically.
Doug:
Funny that we have been discussing the Republican Party for many months, and we haven't ever invoked similarities with Hitler before. Maybe we just haven't had a "good discussion" until now? I don't think you have to be "left-leaning" to see similarities between Trump's supporters and German nationals in the early 20th century. But I disagree that Trump gives Hitler a bad name. On the contrary, I think it shows that a nationalistic, authoritarian government can spread quickly from general apprehension of outsiders, not from some inherent "evil".
David:
It goes without saying that Hillary and Bernie are both much more aligned with Hitler’s Socialist Party ideals than Donald Trump, but who’s going to point that out? Not the media that currently controls the majority of the airwaves.
Doug:
I'm not sure you understand what "goes without saying" means. But now that you say it, I totally see that Bernie (a Jew) is aligned with Hitler's ideals. And there is a conspiracy of the media to hide that fact. No, I think it is pretty clear that such a claim is "inaccurate and ridiculous." Nationalism is the key word that makes a direct analogy between Trump and Hitler.
David:
Socialism is the key word that makes a direct analogy between Sanders and Hitler. Hitler was a National Socialist (which was Socialism based on race, rather than class). Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were both “nationalists”. My point being that you should be very careful when you invoke the name of Hitler into the discussion. The Nazi Party ideology borrowed heavily from several ideological sources to suit their brand of National Socialism. When you start comparing someone to Hitler, that alone changes the entire dynamics of the conversation, and causes anyone listening (or reading, as the case may be) to turn you off. The article we are discussing makes some very valid and interesting points. Don’t derail it by bringing in Hitler.
Doug:
What is Hitler known for? His healthcare system? No, his nationalistic pride that caused a world war. I don't bring up the analogy to Hitler lightly. There are many people who don't want to see our country become Germany 1930. Tune out of the apt analogy at your own peril.
David:
Hitler’s nationalistic pride would not have amounted to a hill of beans, if not for the facts Germany had just lost WWI (The war to end all wars…), and the terms of surrender were too harsh for the German people. The worldwide Great Depression had a bit to do with it as well. Hitler used a great deal of Socialist language, and his initial appeal to the destitute Germans was as a Socialist. That’s called history.
Doug:
That's called inaccurate and ridiculous by historians.
What scares me is: what comes next? There is a fairly good sized segment of the population (perhaps 25%) that believe in these ideas independent of Trump's candidacy. They believe that diplomacy is for the weak. They want to crush the "enemy" (whoever that might be today). They cheer when Trump advocates war crimes, like torture and saying things like "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families.” That type of rhetoric has no place in a civilized society.
What is going to finally quell this primitive, animalistic anti-politics?
David:
Primitive and animalistic? I don’t recall reading those words in the article. First,Trump is Hitler, and now he is a primitive animal. Wow. That type of rhetoric has no place in a civilized discussion.
Doug:
I'm not running for President of the United States of America claiming that we should ban people of certain religions from entering the country, claiming that most people coming from other countries are rapists, and claiming that we need to kill the families of terrorists. Pointing out that that kind of thinking is nationalistic, criminal, chest-thumping should be part of the discussion. Are you defending Trump? Do you really think he is conservative?
David:
Not at all. We both know he says crazy things that would derail a typical campaign. But don’t read more into what he says than what he says. I’m sure the majority of folks following him would strongly disagree with your interpretation, but then again, I’m not sure exactly how they can so easily overlook those statements.
Doug:
You advise not to read into Trump's statements more than what he says, but you lament that people overlook what he does say. That sounds like picking and choosing to me. Listen to everything that he says, and attempt to understand what he means. That is a challenge.
David:
Donald Trump is something completely new. His celebrity can be compared to Teddy Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan, but reality TV has brought celebrity to a whole new, (and apparently Teflon-coated) unprecedented level. Donald Trump doesn’t follow any specific ideology, and that makes him unpredictable, to both his critics and his followers. You and I examine all of his statements, and look for ways to make sense of them, but his followers appear to give him a pass when he says things that are not politically expedient. It’s part of his “charm”.
Perhaps the folks who are following Trump are worried about their children’s future. Perhaps they see a dismal future job market, and a current administration that appears to have sold the farm and the cow for a few magic beans. They see in Donald Trump a character that promises to bring back a degree of pride they once felt in our country, that now seems a distant memory due to squandering our position of power. There is no evidence they want to bail out on diplomacy, but instead want to have leaders negotiate “better” deals.
Doug:
That sounds like you align with the authoritarian world view. Do you too find diplomacy weak? You value "pride of country" over peaceful negotiation? When was that time to go "back [to] a degree of pride"? Do you value "power" over peaceful existence?
David:
“Make a deal at any cost” is not diplomacy. So yes, I do find the diplomacy of President Obama to be weak. The diplomacy of Neville Chamberlain was weak, and arguably allowed Hitler’s rise. (Since you want to bring Hitler into the conversation, I’ll try to at least make it relevant.) Reagan used a position of superior military spending to break up the Soviet Union, which arguably made the world a much safer place for the past few decades.
Having pride in your country does not make you a war-monger. You seem to believe that one equates with the other. It does not.
Doug:
You do realize that the worst terrorist attack on US soil happened during this time that you claim was "much safer"? I don't think you understand what diplomacy is. And you are claiming that Chamberlain’s weakness allowed Hitler's "rise"? Then we should really be concerned about Trump's "rise" and not stopping him is a weakness.
David:
The USSR did not attack us. And yes, we are safer without the USSR striving for world dominance. ISIS is another story, and one that will not be negotiated away.
Chamberlain and Hitler were enemies, and Chamberlain had the ability to stop his incursions into other countries but chose not to. Donald Trump and the Republican Party are not your enemies. Nor, are they enemies of the United States, despite what Hillary says.
Obama, along with Hillary Clinton, have enabled Vladimir Putin to begin to piece the USSR back together, or at least have allowed the Russians to invade and take over an independent country. Diplomacy has it’s place, but it needs to have a big stick behind it, or it becomes worthless babble. (Like a red line drawn in the sand…..)
But back to the article, when discussing the ignorant, jingoistic, ridiculous, blabbering things Donald Trump says, I’m not sure if his supporters support it all, or if they’re just willing to give him a pass on those sputterings because they support the rest of the image. The article supports that understanding.
Doug:
How do you separate the ridiculous from the reasonable? How would someone in Germany in 1920 separate what Hitler said that sounded reasonable, and those comments that sounded like he was headed for attempting world domination?
David:
Hitler again? Trump isn’t Hitler. However, he may be Herbert Hoover. His economic stances are eerily similar to the stances that many feel triggered the Great Depression, and coming at a time that mirrors the world-wide economic situation that preceded the depression.
Doug:
Hitler wasn't "a Hitler", until he was. That is, he could have headed in a different direction. But he took the world down an ugly path. Trump seems to have all of the traits to do the same.
David:
“The Art of the Deal” is not “Mein Kampf”. And Trump is not set on conquering the world, or exterminating a race or religion.
Doug:
Remember that Trump says that in order to stop terrorists you have to "kill their families." Where does one's family stop? Cousins? Second cousins? It is sickening to think that we should be asking a US presidential candidate on exactly which innocent people he would be killing if he were elected.
David:
I don’t recall many Democrats asking how President Obama could kill American citizens with drone strikes, without trial. Remember when Obama had his “Kill List”? Interesting that you can now extrapolate from Trump’s outrageous comment that he now wants to eliminate the entire Muslim race. Oh, I get it now. That’s how you connect the dots to say he’s Hitler, right?
Doug:
There are many people angry about the drone program, and the killing of any people. But one doesn't have to extrapolate from Trump's comment to compare him to Hitler. Advocating killing a single innocent family is enough.
David:
So let’s move on.
David:
So let’s move on.
World dominion is not what sets Hitler apart from other leaders through history. Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great; They all wanted to conquer the world. Hitler set out to exterminate the Jewish race, with starvation, poison gas, and furnaces. Hitler is in a class of his own (although he might share it with Pol Pot), which is why comparisons to him change the discussion. No one running for president this year, from either party, should have to be compared to Hitler.
Doug:
Doug:
I'm not moving on. Authoritarian governments are dangerous, and I'll continue to examine those aspects of Trump's nationalistic demagoguery. If Trump doesn't want to be compared to Hitler, then he should change his rhetoric.
David:
So, in your mind, any candidate that holds a single similar ideological stance, or says something that resembles what Hitler said or did, then they must explain why they are not Hitler? That’s your position? Because that’s crazy talk.
Doug:
Any candidate that advocates such authoritarian views, such as killing a terrorist's innocent family, is comparable to Hitler. Pretty straightforward in my mind.David:
And your argument is faulty at it’s core, anyway. Your premise is that authoritarian governments are dangerous. However, the US does not have an authoritarian government, nor could the election of an authoritarian individual make it so. (After all, President Obama has acted as an authoritarian by executive fiat numerous times, and is now facing numerous court challenges. So far, he’s lost every case.) You also surmise that nationalistic rhetoric leads to someone being equal to Hitler. As I pointed out earlier, there have been numerous former presidents who have used stronger nationalists rhetoric, including Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and LBJ. I don’t hear you calling them Hitler.
I guess I’d say I’m not really scared of what comes next, but I’m intensely confused and curious to see how all of this unfolds. Here’s another interesting article about understanding the Trump bandwagon:
Doug:
"Confused and curious" sounds like you are hedging your bets. As to that article, I completely agree that that is a great way to battle authoritarianism: find someone that is a "surprising validator" to speak up and make him look ridiculous. You could be one of those people. But derailing Trump is a bandaid on the bandwagon. I'm more scared of the band of people in that wagon. Where do they try to take us next?
David:
Admitting I have no idea where this will all end up is just an honest reflection of the facts. No one knows where we’re heading. There have been similar personalities in history, but all of the pundits have so far been wrong as to the Trump (and Sanders) phenomenon. Unlike some others in history, however, Trump does not seem to have an underlying ideology to explain his statements (which are all over the board). The article (although I believe it may be biased) does explain some of his magnetism, but does not make any predictions as to how he will act.
Doug:
"I believe [the article] may be biased." That is a scathing rebuttal. But we have found some agreement: no one ever knows where we're heading. Although it always seems the "other side" can predict where "one's own candidate" is going. But if you vote for your authoritarian candidate, don't be surprised by his authoritarian actions.
David:
He’s not the Republican nominee yet. And it appears I am no “surprising validator”, although I am surprised. I find it ironic that, as a founder of the tea party in Indianapolis, Trump supporters now consider me “establishment” because Trump isn’t my preference. Go figure.
