GOP2020: What Becomes Of The Collaborators Post-Trump?
yahooyahoo said:
Racism.
I usually find there to be a heirarchy of reasons for any action but, indeed, I suppose racism could be at the top. Is it possible to encourage them to reconsider their position/vote and, if so, what might that entail? Then, there's that 8% of African-American voters who voted for Trump.
All Trump voters are all horrible in their own special ways.
In terms of persuading them - most of these people are simply died-in-the-wool Republican voters. If a man like Trump can't get them to reconsider their vote, I don't think any amount of encouragement, gentle or otherwise, would get them to change their votes.
Republicanism is the true pathology- not Trumpism.
drummerboy said:
Republicanism is the true pathology- not Trumpism.
The true pathology is stupidity.
Strangely, I think I gained some understanding of the Trump phenomena after watching a recent interview with Justine Bateman (actress made famous by "Family Ties" many decades ago).
During the interview, she talked about her face. Unlike most Hollywood women, she has not undergone plastic surgery, and she related how some people become angry at her for looking her age. And I felt a twinge, because I kinda also wanted her to look more like she did decades ago.
Then it struck me: *Why* would it make people angry that an actress appears to be aging at a normal rate?
And I think the answer links to why some people are attracted to Trump. They want to believe a "pretty" non-reality. It doesn't matter that TV shows aren't real, while people aging *is* real. There is a place in the human world-view to hold onto false-images and hopes (especially if "attractive"), and we can get mad at anyone who might take away those illusions.
It seems a bizarre way to approach life, but it may be a small jump to go from understanding television as just a form of entertainment, to having television form some of your memories and beliefs. Trump jumped that threshold a long time ago, so he believes his own lies and propaganda quite easily, and gets mad at the TV when it says mean things about him. So, he has no problem enticing others that prefer their "prettier" TV-based-realities to the harder real-life realities.
drummerboy said:
All Trump voters are all horrible in their own special ways.
In terms of persuading them - most of these people are simply died-in-the-wool Republican voters. If a man like Trump can't get them to reconsider their vote, I don't think any amount of encouragement, gentle or otherwise, would get them to change their votes.
Republicanism is the true pathology- not Trumpism.
While again noting that I strongly disagree with the action of voting for Trump, how do you go from there to concluding that the voters -- not the vote they took, but the actual person -- are horrible? Does the converse apply -- are all non-Trump voters virtuous in their own special ways? Does someone who is a dyed-in-the-wool Democratic voter get credit in an an equal measure to that which the Republican voter gets blame, even if perhaps neither is quite the coolly rational voter we imagine them to be? Is a voter reducible to the sum of their votes?
(I ask this in the midst of holiday travels -- this year in the purple state of PA where I end up socializing with fleecy dyes of both colors, though in other years it's in the deep midwest where the wool is an unrepentant red...)
PVW said:
Does the converse apply -- are all non-Trump voters virtuous in their own special ways?
No. Not doing something terrible doesn't make a person virtuous.
PVW said:
While again noting that I strongly disagree with the action of voting for Trump, how do you go from there to concluding that the voters -- not the vote they took, but the actual person -- are horrible? Does the converse apply -- are all non-Trump voters virtuous in their own special ways? Does someone who is a dyed-in-the-wool Democratic voter get credit in an an equal measure to that which the Republican voter gets blame, even if perhaps neither is quite the coolly rational voter we imagine them to be? Is a voter reducible to the sum of their votes?
(I ask this in the midst of holiday travels -- this year in the purple state of PA where I end up socializing with fleecy dyes of both colors, though in other years its in midwestern travels where the wool is a deep and unrepentant red...)
You set this up as Action X and Action Y. What if it’s viewed more as Action X and Not-Action X? Would that give someone like drummerboy (or you) more leeway to avoid the “what reflects ill on one must reflect well on the other” conundrum?
And not for nothing, but the way you handled that typo was masterly.
ETA: ml1 put my question more succinctly (not to mention more declaratively).
I suppose what I'm driving at is that voting is an action, but too often we fall into this shorthand of describing the people who vote as being the same as the act. I think this leads us astray, in a number of ways.
In the first place, I don't actually think people can be good or bad. People do things, and those actions I think we can judge, but people are not just a collection of actions. Maybe this comes across as too subtle a distinction, but I find it meaningful (even if I sometimes fall short here and catch myself talking in a way that collapses a person and their actions).
Second, even if the converse isn't intended (ie not doing something terrible does make a person virtuous), I think the implication hangs there anyway, which I think can let those of us doing Not-Action X off the hook a bit. For instance, Trump is clearly racist, and those voting for him at the least are willing to tolerate that, but I gotta say the color lines here in the Democratic northeast are stark and noticeable...
Finally, I think this just fundamentally misunderstands how voting works. I can't quite condense the thought here into something that clearly and succinctly fits on a post just now, but this idea that people say "I like what candidate X says, and so that's who I'm voting for" just doesn't reflect reality, in my observations and in what I read about research on voting.
I have to think a bit more about what point I'm trying to make here, exactly, but the general thrust is that if we're interested in persuasion (and I take it as a baseline assumption that if you believe an action -- say a particular vote -- to be beneficial to society as a whole, then one should be interested in persuading more people to act likewise), then it's important to better understand why and how people vote.
PVW said:
I suppose what I'm driving at is ...
I’m following along and will try to give this some thought, too. It was just that the idea that heaping scorn on a Trump voter requires conveying nobility on an opposite voter, which was how I understood it, seemed too easily dismissed to shed light (because, for instance, we can condemn a murderer without necessarily honoring a non-murderer).
sprout said:
Strangely, I think I gained some understanding ...
I’ll also be giving this post some thought. Thanks, sprout.
Maybe this helps, @PVW: Is it that how a person voted says less about him or her than other things in life, and therefore shouldn’t supersede all else when someone is engaging that person politically?
I don't think non-Trump voters are particularly noble. As ml1 says 'not doing something terrible doesn't make them virtuous'.
But the act of voting for Trump was a particularly horrible act - on a number of levels. Levels which have been plastered across MOL for years now.
Certainly there has not been a vote in the last 100 years which produced such a stark choice between - literally - good and evil. And those who came down on the side of evil have revealed themselves to be - in large part - horrible. That doesn't mean they don't love their children, or don't produce good acts in their lives.
But, on this particular personality test they have failed miserably, and have told us about a very dark part of their makeup.
Did people vote for Trump based on his promises?
All throughout his campaign he was spewing hateful messages. How could the Trump voters not know he was divisive and segregationist? The people in the NY area already knew who he was.
I can understand the rural folks voting for Trump based on his rhetoric and views on immigrants, but the people in these parts, I'm having a hard time believing.
I honestly think it was the hatred for Obama that triggered these people into voting for Trump. Which only proves that racists are alive and well among us.
Trump was the key to the closet door that let them out...
Jaytee said:
Did people vote for Trump based on his promises?
All throughout his campaign he was spewing hateful messages. How could the Trump voters not know he was divisive and segregationist?
I'm going to counter that while his bigotry, misogyny, narcissism, and total incompetence as a politician has become much clearer throughout his presidency, at the time of his election, we had clues of this, but could still be unsure who he really was (vs. how much was an act), and what kind of president he would be.
He could have turned out to be a very productive president that worked across the aisle as a unicorn Republican from NYC who actually took into account the needs of both sides and made deals. He could have rebuilt the crumbling infrastructure of the country and created real jobs. After Trump's election, this seemed a possibility, and these types of successes might have grown the Republican party.
Two years later it's clearer that Trump really is a tyrant who cares about nothing but his image. From the midterm elections, it appears that while his persona still holds his base, his authoritarian approach is splintering and shrinking the Republican party.
sprout said:He could have turned out to be a very productive president that worked across the aisle as a unicorn Republican from NYC who actually took into account the needs of both sides and made deals. He could have rebuilt the crumbling infrastructure of the country and created real jobs. After Trump's election, this seemed a possibility, and these types of successes might have grown the Republican party.
Yep. Trump defeated the political establishment and if he actually had a centrist, populist vision and even the slightest ability to implement said vision, he would have the leadership of both parties eating from his hands.
tjohn said:
sprout said:Yep. Trump defeated the political establishment and if he actually had a centrist, populist vision and even the slightest ability to implement said vision, he would have the leadership of both parties eating from his hands.
He could have turned out to be a very productive president that worked across the aisle as a unicorn Republican from NYC who actually took into account the needs of both sides and made deals. He could have rebuilt the crumbling infrastructure of the country and created real jobs. After Trump's election, this seemed a possibility, and these types of successes might have grown the Republican party.
Yes, I agree with that. But there was no way that was ever going to happen, because he is too damaged a person (both in terms of his history as well as mentally)
There are people who voted for Trump because they saw him as the lesser of two evils. They really believed the anti-Hillary propaganda. They were wrong. Some of them may now have seen the light.
His popularity rating in the Polls is lower than his the % of his popular vote.
tjohn said:
sprout said:Yep. Trump defeated the political establishment and if he actually had a centrist, populist vision and even the slightest ability to implement said vision, he would have the leadership of both parties eating from his hands.
He could have turned out to be a very productive president that worked across the aisle as a unicorn Republican from NYC who actually took into account the needs of both sides and made deals. He could have rebuilt the crumbling infrastructure of the country and created real jobs. After Trump's election, this seemed a possibility, and these types of successes might have grown the Republican party.
He would have been destroyed. A real populist would have been killed by corporate adverts. Averts saturated non-stop on all media.
An example is the Ohio Drug Relief Act referendum that Ohio voters rejected by a 4 to 1 margin. Voters voting to continue their higher drug price ripoffs, fueled by scary adverts from big pharma.
DaveSchmidt said:
Maybe this helps, @PVW: Is it that how a person voted says less about him or her than other things in life, and therefore shouldn’t supersede all else when someone is engaging that person politically?
Yes, that's a big piece. Also, I think those of us who follow politics closely enough that we spend our free time discussing it online really underestimate how loosely most other people follow politics. For most people, it's just a lot of noise, and a party identification works like any other brand does -- it sends an easy, familiar signal that effectively cuts through all that noise. Most people don't like politics -- so should we be surprised that party identity (eg brand loyalty) is so sticky? Voting the party line makes a task many people find onerous and unpleasant much easier. Even if what your brand has on offer is unappealing (and recall that plenty of Republicans expressed misgivings about Trump), actually switching to another brand can take more effort and engagement than I think most people really want to put in. (given this, Democrats' success in expanding their electoral map in the midterms is even more impressive).
Now, one might counter that people really should be more engaged, that doing so is part of being a responsible citizen, and I wouldn't disagree with that. But that's already a different argument than "Trump voters are all terrible people."
PVW said:
DaveSchmidt said:Yes, that's a big piece. Also, I think those of us who follow politics closely enough that we spend our free time discussing it online really underestimate how loosely most other people follow politics. For most people, it's just a lot of noise, and a party identification works like any other brand does -- it sends an easy, familiar signal that effectively cuts through all that noise. Most people don't like politics -- so should we be surprised that party identity (eg brand loyalty) is so sticky? Voting the party line makes a task many people find onerous and unpleasant much easier. Even if what your brand has on offer is unappealing (and recall that plenty of Republicans expressed misgivings about Trump), actually switching to another brand can take more effort and engagement than I think most people really want to put in. (given this, Democrats' success in expanding their electoral map in the midterms is even more impressive).
Maybe this helps, @PVW: Is it that how a person voted says less about him or her than other things in life, and therefore shouldn’t supersede all else when someone is engaging that person politically?
Now, one might counter that people really should be more engaged, that doing so is part of being a responsible citizen, and I wouldn't disagree with that. But that's already a different argument than "Trump voters are all terrible people."
Yeah, yeah. Well if 'a person' voted for Hitler, they better be prepared to suffer the consequences. And I don't see how that's any different for 'a person' that voted for Trump.
PVW said:“Trump voters are all terrible people."
are there people seriously making this claim? I think about the people going to the rallies, wearing the hats, arguing I support of him on social media, telling pollsters they support him, etc. The hard core.
I'm sure a lot of people voted for Trump out of party loyalty and not because they endorsed the bigotry and misogyny (although it apparently wasn't a deal breaker.). And a lot of other people just were not aware of how terrible Donald Trump has always been. Not to mention how ignorant and crooked he has been.
PVW said:Yes, that's a big piece. Also, I think those of us who follow politics closely enough that we spend our free time discussing it online really underestimate how loosely most other people follow politics. For most people, it's just a lot of noise, and a party identification works like any other brand does -- it sends an easy, familiar signal that effectively cuts through all that noise. Most people don't like politics -- so should we be surprised that party identity (eg brand loyalty) is so sticky? Voting the party line makes a task many people find onerous and unpleasant much easier. Even if what your brand has on offer is unappealing (and recall that plenty of Republicans expressed misgivings about Trump), actually switching to another brand can take more effort and engagement than I think most people really want to put in. (given this, Democrats' success in expanding their electoral map in the midterms is even more impressive).
Excellent!
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:“All Trump voters are all horrible in their own special ways.” Earlier in this thread. I took it as a serious claim.
PVW said:are there people seriously making this claim?
“Trump voters are all terrible people."
I usually don't take claims with absolutes in them seriously.
ml1 said:
DaveSchmidt said:I usually don't take claims with absolutes in them seriously.
ml1 said:“All Trump voters are all horrible in their own special ways.” Earlier in this thread. I took it as a serious claim.
are there people seriously making this claim?
Sure. But how we take them may be different from how they were intended. Based on a couple of years of comments, I’ll submit that DB stands as an answer to your question. And I don’t think he’s alone on this board.
Then again, maybe he’ll disagree.
The option of voting for Trump was sui generis. People who voted for him failed a test of basic humanity and civic duty.
They made a horrible decision - whether the decision was based on ignorance, or their basic disconnect from politics, or whether it was racism.
If you do a horrible thing - you're horrible. You don't get to excuse your behavior. You flocked up big time. Your decision has affected millions and millions of people in a bad way.
I mean, dear god - Steven Miller is one of the most powerful men on the planet. Just for that they deserve scorn.
Pick your adjective - horrible or something else. But what they did was bad in a way that's never happened before within this context.
What are we supposed to do - just give them a pass? Oops, maybe you'll do better next time?
This is worth a subscription to the WaPo.
drummerboy said:
What are we supposed to do - just give them a pass? Oops, maybe you'll do better next time?
Well that depends, doesn't it?
For instance, if a candidate for office voted for Trump, I'd be very hesitant to support them -- best case scenario, they don't follow public policy discussions closely enough to merit faith in their ability to responsibly carry out their duties. Worst case scenario, they are in favor of policies I would believe are actively harmful.
OTOH, what if I learned my dentist voted for Trump? Does the question "what are we supposed to do [with them]" even make sense in this context?
IOW, to what purpose is the determination that someone who voted for Trump is a "horrible person" addressed?
PVW said:
drummerboy said:Well that depends, doesn't it?
What are we supposed to do - just give them a pass? Oops, maybe you'll do better next time?
For instance, if a candidate for office voted for Trump, I'd be very hesitant to support them -- best case scenario, they don't follow public policy discussions closely enough to merit faith in their ability to responsibly carry out their duties. Worst case scenario, they are in favor of policies I would believe are actively harmful.
OTOH, what if I learned my dentist voted for Trump? Does the question "what are we supposed to do [with them]" even make sense in this context?
IOW, to what purpose is the determination that someone who voted for Trump is a "horrible person" addressed?
well, what one does with that information is a personal thing. If you found out that your dentist attended the occasional KKK meeting, what would your reaction be?
People are complicated. Judging them is even more complicated. Some people choose not to judge others at all.
A person's life is made of thousands of individual behaviors and decisions. Some are good. Some are bad. Some are horrible. To me, a Trump vote is arguably the worst decision that a Trump voter has ever made in their life.
There is no set answer as to what you should do when faced with a someone who has done something you abhor. However, to the extent one even gives a crap about another's decisions, it seems that this particular one should loom pretty large in their calculus as they evaluate another person.
Racism.