What is this election missing? Empathy for Trump voters. - WaPo

316 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I've been called a Nazi.

So has every single person on babble, at one point or another.

[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/34zzzpt.jpg[/IMG]

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Here's a nice little article at our (bought and paid for!!!) CBC that throws some shade on the trope that Trump supporters don't really hate Hispanic murderers and rapists, or Muslim-Amercans -- they're just economically disadvantaged and suchlike!!

Pondering

If everyone who voted Trump is a Trump clone then everyone who voted for Mulcair is a Mulcair clone.

The working class does not recognize people on the left as interested in their fate. Trump had support from all kinds of people not just poor white men.

Voting Trump was a big screw you to the establishment. It is recognition that it likely does not matter who wins the election because all politicians are sell-outs. At least with Trump shaking the tree there is a chance some plums might fall for the rabble to collect. Trump is an anti-government vote.

Illegal immigration has been used to keep labour cheap. It is no wonder that working class Americans resent them and want them kicked out no matter how nice they are. Legal immigrants and POC want their jobs protected too so even though Trump is such an obvious racist they will vote for him anyway. Of course he also attracts all the racists and gun nuts and they figure prominently but he did not win this election solely on the votes of racist sexist poor ignorant white men.

quizzical

funny you say so pondering when the data says otherwise.

according to Global this morning the largest voting block for Trump were uneducated white men.

Aristotleded24

quizzical wrote:
funny you say so pondering when the data says otherwise.

according to Global this morning the largest voting block for Trump were uneducated white men.

So going to University and reading books, doing assignments, and writing tests automatically makes you better than people who don't or can't go that route?

No wonder people don't take the left seriously. It's hard to listen to someone who continually implies that you are stupid. The first socialist government in North America was elected by dumb farmers and labourers, not well-educated political theorists. It's a lesson the NDP ignores at its peril.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

funny you say so pondering when the data says otherwise.

according to Global this morning the largest voting block for Trump were uneducated white men.

Largest not only and uneducated white men are not the ones with power. Many are part of a growing group of underprivileged people even though their skin is white. Even if some of them are racist and sexist they are still underprivileged.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

funny you say so pondering when the data says otherwise.

according to Global this morning the largest voting block for Trump were uneducated white men.

Largest not only and uneducated white men are not the ones with power. Many are part of a growing group of underprivileged people even though their skin is white. Even if some of them are racist and sexist they are still underprivileged.

 

Sorry but I do not think you understand the dynamic of what happened last night or you would not have phrased this as you have. Please think about what I am saying here as I think you may get it upon reflection. I think this is the issue that most explains the election result and tone.

I read an analysis of Trump supporters showed that they are not underprivileged. In fact they are very often over privileged. Partly by whiteness and maleness but not just that. This analysis showed they are below average in education, yet above average in income. They are more white and male than the rest of the population. This screams privilege.

It is true they are not making progress but they are not the ones suffering most or the underprivileged. They are losing some of the benefits of their privilege and that is the issue. In a non-racist and non-sexist society these people would be on the bottom of the income ranges. We can say we would like these ranges to have less inequality but it is still right that lower education and ability should create lower income rather than race and gender as it now does.

This group are terrified of those who are more educated than they are but who are earning less. Without their privilege they know what will happen -- no longer will a lack of education be able to deliver an income that is above average. Those who have privilege by being white and male have good cause to be worried when others who are non-male, non-white have higher educations and make less money. They need a racist and sexist maintenance of privilege to keep their status. In fairness the anger is cloudy and I don't think they all have thought this through fully but the demographics of Trump supporters: White; Male; low education; higher than average income has to be seen together. Sympathy is more complicated when you see the wider picture. It was pointed out that this is the last kick at the can for racist, sexist America.

The rustbelt delivered Trump the presidency so think of the implications for blue collar unions. Unions were an advantage some low education people had in order to get above average incomes. I thought of the above average income/low education dynamic as the results came in from there. This situation is what is placing many unionized workers on the other side. Unions are being attacked as they lose the benefits of unionization and the only thing many of these people have are gender and race privilege. This lack of understanding of what was happening in white, male dominated and threatened blue collar unions is why Clinton ultimately lost. It is also what explains the tone of the election.

There are a lot of problems with Clinton but the "liberals" in the US, the establishment, and the minorities largely stayed with her. The group she lost was the working people who have male and white privilege and who are losing the ability to get good union jobs. The fact that inequality is so great in the US makes this situation so desperate. High inequality is what makes privilege so valuable.

Unions have to confront this. Some of their weaknesses are embedded in this. That many union jobs are "old boys networks" provided to white and male people with connections is part of the problem. This is a recognized dynamic as immigrants are often shut out of these kinds of jobs. The fact that few ever open up and layoffs appear to be more common only makes this inequality worse. The private sector union movement is largely white, male, threatened and angry even if they are making more than average right now. This is the dynamic the left in the US has ignored.

In Canada it exists as well and this will grow here if blue collar unions do not diversify their memberships enough. A white, male, privileged union membership will turn on the union and what the union movement wants to do here as well as in the US. When you give people a benefit others can't have by virtue of race and gender, and then see that being removed, you can expect sexism and racism. The answer for blue-collar unions is diversification so that the privilege of unions is not gendered or racialized. In the end this will threaten the union. Those unions proposing affirmative action are being attacked but they are correct. Their survival depends on it as the white males will destroy the unions as well.

For now, it is time to stop presuming low education means low privilege -- the ones most upset are those who use their privilege to parlay a low education into a better than average income and are fearful of losing that.

Understand this and you will get what happened last night.

 

Rev Pesky

Here's some facts about union membership in the USA, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Quote:
In 2015, the union membership rate continued to be slightly higher for men (11.5
percent) than for women (10.6 percent). (See table 1.) The gap between their rates
has narrowed considerably since 1983 (the earliest year for which comparable data are
available), when rates for men and women were 24.7 percent and 14.6 percent, respectively.

Among major race and ethnicity groups, Black workers continued to have a higher union
membership rate in 2015 (13.6 percent) than workers who were White (10.8 percent), Asian
(9.8 percent), or Hispanic (9.4 percent).

...State union membership levels depend on both the employment level and the union
membership rate. The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.5 million)
and New York (2.0 million). Roughly half of the 14.8 million union members in the
U.S. lived in just seven states (California, 2.5 million; New York, 2.0 million;
Illinois, 0.8 million; Pennsylvania, 0.7 million; and Michigan, Ohio, and New Jersey,
0.6 million each), though these states accounted for only about one-third of wage and
salary employment nationally.

Sorry Sean, but what you're saying about unions just doesn't make sense given the actual numbers.

 

Cody87

This is not a value statement, but is it possible that certain types of people feel less welcome at places of higher education? And if so, are there related reasons why they might be more likely to support Trump?

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

Here's some facts about union membership in the USA, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Quote:
In 2015, the union membership rate continued to be slightly higher for men (11.5
percent) than for women (10.6 percent). (See table 1.) The gap between their rates
has narrowed considerably since 1983 (the earliest year for which comparable data are
available), when rates for men and women were 24.7 percent and 14.6 percent, respectively.

Among major race and ethnicity groups, Black workers continued to have a higher union
membership rate in 2015 (13.6 percent) than workers who were White (10.8 percent), Asian
(9.8 percent), or Hispanic (9.4 percent).

...State union membership levels depend on both the employment level and the union
membership rate. The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.5 million)
and New York (2.0 million). Roughly half of the 14.8 million union members in the
U.S. lived in just seven states (California, 2.5 million; New York, 2.0 million;
Illinois, 0.8 million; Pennsylvania, 0.7 million; and Michigan, Ohio, and New Jersey,
0.6 million each), though these states accounted for only about one-third of wage and
salary employment nationally.

Sorry Sean, but what you're saying about unions just doesn't make sense given the actual numbers.

 

Your argument goes along fine until you address the difference between public and private sector unions and white collar and blue collar unions.

I am speaking about the lower educated blue collar unionized workers (many in manufacturing) that have been identified as with Trump. Lumping them in with Nurses and other public services makes no sense in this context.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

This is not a value statement, but is it possible that certain types of people feel less welcome at places of higher education? And if so, are there related reasons why they might be more likely to support Trump?

I don't think this is the point actually. Many poeple simply cannot continue due to cost (living as well as tuition).

If you look at the white people who do not have higher education you will see their income levels are higher than all people who do not have higher educaiton. This group is the one losing their privilege -- at the same time as those jobs are getting scarcer. They ahve reason to be worried and it is being expressed as a desire to hang on to the racial and gender advantages that traditionally allowed them to make it even with the education.

So look at the group who has less than average education yet managed to have greater than average income and that is the typical core of Trump support.

Sure there are other supports but this one made the difference this time I think. This explains the ability to connect the race, gender and rage you are seeing.

6079_Smith_W

Posted this elsewhere. Probably worth pointing out here too:

Educated, wealthy, white.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-don...

White people. Male and female (doesn't mean there wasn't plenty of sexism at play here):

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13574032/exit-polls-whi...

 

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I read an analysis of Trump supporters showed that they are not underprivileged. In fact they are very often over privileged. Partly by whiteness and maleness but not just that. This analysis showed they are below average in education, yet above average in income. They are more white and male than the rest of the population. This screams privilege.

Privilege is relative and Trump supporters are not above average in income.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trump...

Back in December, a Washington Post analysis found that Trump's support skewed male, white, and poor. The male-female gap was 19 percentage points (47 percent support among men vs. 28 percent among women). He won a whopping 50 percent of voters making less than $50,000, 18 percentage points ahead of his support with those who earned more than that amount.

- But voters who agreed with the statement “people like me don't have any say about what the government does” were 86.5 percent more likely to prefer Trump. This feeling of powerlessness and voicelessness was a much better predictor of Trump support than age, race, college attainment, income, attitudes towards Muslims, illegal immigrants, or Hispanic identity.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
It is true they are not making progress but they are not the ones suffering most or the underprivileged. They are losing some of the benefits of their privilege and that is the issue.

Unions delivered justice to workers not privilege. Technically you could say poor people on welfare are privileged because in other countries they would be worse off.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
In a non-racist and non-sexist society these people would be on the bottom of the income ranges. We can say we would like these ranges to have less inequality but it is still right that lower education and ability should create lower income rather than race and gender as it now does.

It is not that simple. Race and gender are factors but they are not the only factors or even the main factors and the solution is not ignoring the needs of whites until everyone is equally under-priviledged.

The Rust Belt is a term for the region straddling the upper North-Eastern United States, the Great Lakes, and the Midwest States, referring to economic decline, population loss, and urban decay due to the shrinking of its once-powerful industrial sector. The term gained popularity in the U.S. in the 1980s.

This is not an area of privilege. The powerful are laughing all the way to the bank as they set people against one another based on race and relative privilege at the lower level of the income scale. Neglecting the white men who have lost the "privilege" of a living wage hands them over to the neoliberals.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The rustbelt delivered Trump the presidency so think of the implications for blue collar unions. Unions were an advantage some low education people had in order to get above average incomes. I thought of the above average income/low education dynamic as the results came in from there. This situation is what is placing many unionized workers on the other side. Unions are being attacked as they lose the benefits of unionization and the only thing many of these people have are gender and race privilege. This lack of understanding of what was happening in white, male dominated and threatened blue collar unions is why Clinton ultimately lost. It is also what explains the tone of the election.

You make it sound like they didn't deserve their "privilege". They did deserve it and probably more. The problem is that non-unionized people also deserve the "privilege" of a living wage and decent working conditions. Who is more privileged, Obama or an unemployed 50 year old white man in the rust belt who lost his house when he lost his union job? That some people are even less privileged than he is based on race and gender doesn't make him privileged and doesn't mean he isn't suffering.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The group she lost was the working people who have male and white privilege and who are losing the ability to get good union jobs.

That race and gender lead to some people being under-privileged doesn't mean that the non-discriminated against are all priviledged in comparison. The POC female engineer might not make as much as the male white engineer but a white person sleeping under a bridge is not privileged in comparison to the POC engineer. The white man sleeping under a bridge doesn't want to wait until there is a properly balanced demographic sleeping under the bridge with him.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
There are a lot of problems with Clinton but the "liberals" in the US, the establishment, and the minorities largely stayed with her.

It benefits the establishment to keep the focus on poverty as a function of gender and race so that all they have to address is gender and race rather than systemic poverty.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The fact that inequality is so great in the US makes this situation so desperate. High inequality is what makes privilege so valuable.

Correct. and that is how the powerful keep us in line. They divide into warring constituencies fighting over an ever shrinking piece of the pie while they walk away with the rest.

Although CUPE has fought CETA we cannot look to unions as our saviors. It is up to activists to find a way to reach the 99%, or at least a solid portion of it. Calling former union workers now unemployed privileged is unhelpful. They are not privileged because there are other groups that are even more under-priviledged than they are. They have to be reached out to not shunned as unworthy of help.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I read an analysis of Trump supporters showed that they are not underprivileged. In fact they are very often over privileged. Partly by whiteness and maleness but not just that. This analysis showed they are below average in education, yet above average in income. They are more white and male than the rest of the population. This screams privilege.

Privilege is relative and Trump supporters are not above average in income.

 

I wrote this before some of the articles came out. Here are two from before and one from today:

Typical Trump voter earns above average income, study finds

A major new study has investigated why Donald Trump's supporters are so drawn to his promise to 'Make America Great Again'. The study of 87,000 Americans overturns a widely-held perception that Trump voters are the disenfranchised and those left marginalised by globalisation. While the research confirms Trump's typical supporter is an older white male with a below-average education he's also relatively sheltered, with an above average income.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-13/typical-trump-voter-earns-above-av...

The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support
His voters are better off economically compared with most Americans.

As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-clas...

Far from being purely a revolt by poorer whites left behind by globalisation, who did indeed turn out in greater numbers for the Republican candidate than in 2012, Trump’s victory also relied on the support of the middle-class, the better-educated and the well-off.

Of the one in three Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year, a majority voted for Clinton. A majority of those who earn more backed Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-don...

You are flat wrong to say that Trumps voters are underpriveleged. Period.

The last quote Smith posted before you replied-- although I assume you crossposted it.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

 

You make it sound like they didn't deserve their "privilege". They did deserve it and probably more.

After reading this, I am convinced that you do not understand the concept of privelege and are incapable of understanding what I said. Let's be clear as I was -- I am talking about white, male privelege.

You are talking about it being deserved. There are no words worth reading of yours that could follow.

Please, the next person who wants to convince me that I should be polite to you -- just think of this and explain why I should.

 

 

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

You make it sound like they didn't deserve their "privilege". They did deserve it and probably more.

After reading this, I am convinced that you do not understand the concept of privelege and are incapable of understanding what I said. Let's be clear as I was -- I am talking about white, male privelege.

I understand the concept of "privilege" and "oppression" just as I understand the redefinition of "racism" and "sexism." So within that academic framework, you're correct that she did not use privilege in the way it's meant in academia.

And I understand that according to the concept of privilege a straight white man who makes $25k a year working two minimum wage jobs is privileged while a black woman who makes $200k a year on the board of some bank is oppressed.

I ask you to try to understand why the above concepts might be offensive to the "privileged" white males.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

You make it sound like they didn't deserve their "privilege". They did deserve it and probably more.

After reading this, I am convinced that you do not understand the concept of privelege and are incapable of understanding what I said. Let's be clear as I was -- I am talking about white, male privelege.

I understand the concept of "privilege" and "oppression" just as I understand the redefinition of "racism" and "sexism." So within that academic framework, you're correct that she did not use privilege in the way it's meant in academia.

And I understand that according to the concept of privilege a straight white man who makes $25k a year working two minimum wage jobs is privileged while a black woman who makes $200k a year on the board of some bank is oppressed.

I ask you to try to understand why the above concepts might be offensive to the "privileged" white males.

I guess you did not read carefully.

We are talking about males with lower than average education and higher than average incomes not comparing a well off POC with a poor white person.

If you have a statistically relevant population of people who are both lower edcuated and with higher incomes, I think you are mostly likely talking about privilege. Limited number of jobs for lower educated people that actually pay more.

These jobs are threatened and those who have them worry they will lose them -- but theya re threatened by the idea that they will lose their advatnage in getting those jobs -- and this explains the level of vitriol that racializes the conversation. the conversation is not coming out about the economics it is coming back in sexist and racist terms  -- so ask yourself how does one affect the other?

Pondering

">http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-clas...

What does "typical" mean? Your numbers appear to be from the primaries not the general election.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Far from being purely a revolt by poorer whites left behind by globalisation, who did indeed turn out in greater numbers for the Republican candidate than in 2012, Trump’s victory also relied on the support of the middle-class, the better-educated and the well-off. 

Yes, ALSO being the operative word. "The left" needs the support of the working class and the lower middle class. "The left" is not winning either. Trump did win the Rust belt.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You are flat wrong to say that Trumps voters are underpriveleged. Period.

You are flat wrong to declare that none of them are. I do not recall saying they were under privileged, just that many of them are not living privileged lives.

Yes we are all the 1% to the rest of the world so in that sense you can say that indigenous people in Canada are "privileged" but I use the layman definition of privilege not the academic and in my version indigenous people are not privileged just because they don't have it as bad off as other people in the world.

Why is there such an aversion to representing the 99%? As long as the left refuse to the right will take their votes.

 

 

 

Aristotleded24

Cody87 wrote:
I understand that according to the concept of privilege a straight white man who makes $25k a year working two minimum wage jobs is privileged while a black woman who makes $200k a year on the board of some bank is oppressed.

I ask you to try to understand why the above concepts might be offensive to the "privileged" white males.

Nina Turner actually spoke about issues of gender and race in the US, and she was able to do it in a way that didn't come across to say, "but you're white, male, and and priviledged, so don't whine to me about your problems."

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Empathy for Trump voters...Fuck them. Seems the photo isn't working..It was a popular Trump t-shirt from this election. It pictures Clinton with the word 'Cunt'

How about Clinton's head on a pike? How about the neo-nazis showing up at rallies? I saw what Trump supporters were all about. It's amazing that people here haven't.

I hope they all end up with flesh eating disease in their necks.

wage zombie
Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Empathy for Trump voters...Fuck them. Seems the photo isn't working..It was a popular Trump t-shirt from this election. It pictures Clinton with the word 'Cunt'

How about Clinton's head on a pike? How about the neo-nazis showing up at rallies? I saw what Trump supporters were all about. It's amazing that people here haven't.

I hope they all end up with flesh eating disease in their necks.

They don't represent all Trump supporters. This is no different than suggesting all Muslims are terrorists because some are.

Neo-nazis have been brainwashed. They weren't born that way.

Pondering

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-20...

I am so grateful that I can say my parents didn’t vote for Mr. Trump, but last night, not only did most of my neighbors here in Nebraska vote for him, but much of my extended family in Florida gave their crucial vote to a candidate who would be more than happy to have them deported. My partner’s father — a Cuban man who fled a dictatorship that, like Mr. Trump, promised to jail his political opponents — voted for Mr. Trump despite hours of phone conversations urging him otherwise. I cannot make sense of these choices. There is no sense to be made.

...... To be Cuban in Miami may feel like a kind of white, and so these relatives might not see themselves in the various groups Mr. Trump has disparaged over the course of this election,

The left better learn to make sense of it.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Jesus Christ..all these Trump apologists. I'll leave that to you. How am I supposed to empathize with these cretins? I wouldn't piss on a Trumper if they were laying on the sidewalk in flames.

They don't deserve empathy and they sure as hell don't deserve my respect. Donald Trump is the scum of the Earth. His groupies are just as vile,probably more vile the Orangutan himself.

And the fact that so many here are finding excuses for these lunatics is all the proof one needs to know that Babble has changed --- for the worst.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Jesus Christ..all these Trump apologists. I'll leave that to you. How am I supposed to empathize with these cretins? I wouldn't piss on a Trumper if they were laying on the sidewalk in flames.

They don't deserve empathy and they sure as hell don't deserve my respect. Donald Trump is the scum of the Earth. His groupies are just as vile,probably more vile than that Orangutan himself.

Then prepare to lose all elections because they form the majority. They come primarily from the 99%. 

The situation may not be as extreme in Canada but the Conservatives are leading in Ontario and the NDP almost equal to the Liberals. If Ford were still alive he would probably be Mayor of Toronto.

No one aims at these people:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires...

1% of people own more wealth than the other 99% combined.

As long as the 99% are busy condemning each other the 1% is laughing all the way to the bank no matter what their colour or gender.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

 

You are flat wrong to declare that none of them are.

Please, please please would you kindly stop lying?

Thanks.

I would appreciate it and so would your reputation (whatever it is). It would reduce the fights a lot. You might even feel better yourself.

You were the one who characterized them as an underprivileged group. I said they are not. I did not say none. I do not tend to speak in absolutes. Most people don't but those who are very dishonest and want to mischaracterize an opposing argument do. Just like you. And you ahve used this tactic many times. It is lying.

So again. Please do yourself, everyone else reading these threads and me that one little favour and please stop lying your head off to make points that are meaningless when soemoen simply takes the moment to look upthread and see.

Thanks again.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

 

As long as the 99% are busy condemning each other the 1% is laughing all the way to the bank no matter what their colour or gender.

Well this is not wrong -- it does not negate sexism or racism but it certainly is the tactic of the wealthy to have the middle turn on the poor and ignore those who walk off with the bags of cash. This is why you always hear the wealthy freeloaders whine about so-called welfare cheats etc.

bekayne

Pondering wrote:

Then prepare to lose all elections because they form the majority. 

Majority? They weren't even a plurality.

Pondering

bekayne wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Then prepare to lose all elections because they form the majority. 

Majority? They weren't even a plurality.

Trump won the election. Vilifying the people who voted for him will not win them over.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You are flat wrong to say that Trumps voters are underpriveleged. Period. 

Looks to me that you do speak in absolutes and I obviously did not claim that all Trump voters are underprivileged. I said that white men who lost their union jobs and are struggling are not privileged. There is a reason it is called the "Rust Belt".

I am not using the academic definition of the word. I don't care about academics or semantics. I care about uniting the 99% against neoliberalism. Vilifying Trump voters is self-defeating. The following is not about Trump voters it is about Trump supporters within the Republican party.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trump...

But voters who agreed with the statement “people like me don't have any say about what the government does” were 86.5 percent more likely to prefer Trump. This feeling of powerlessness and voicelessness was a much better predictor of Trump support than age, race, college attainment, income, attitudes towards Muslims, illegal immigrants, or Hispanic identity.

......

But he has also told a simple three-part narrative to attract the despondent demographic: America is losing; Donald Trump is a winner; and if Trump becomes president, America will become a winner, too.....

The classic definition of authoritarianism implies a tradeoff—more security for less liberty—but MacWilliams says it’s also about identifying threatening outsiders and granting individuals special powers to pursue aggressive policies to destroy them. The best predictor of Trump support isn't income, education, or age, he says. In South Carolina, it was “authoritarianism … [and] a personal fear of terrorism” that best predicted Trump’s support across the state.

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/trump-support-authoritarianism

Both surveys measured authoritarianism with a simple battery of four questions related to parenting. Political scientists, including Marc Hetherington, Jonathan Weiler, and Karen Stenner, have used these questions since the early 1990s to estimate authoritarianism because of their accuracy in predicting authoritarian behavior.

Individuals with a disposition to authoritarianism demonstrate a fear of "the other" as well as a readiness to follow and obey strong leaders. They tend to see the world in black-and-white terms. They are by definition attitudinally inflexible and rigid. And once they have identified friend from foe, they hold tight to their conclusions. This intransigent behavioral tendency of authoritarians may help explain why Trump’s support can seem, as a strategist for Marco Rubio complained in the New York Times, like "granite."

Trump supporters are not the enemy. Trump is. His supporters are people we want/need to convert in order to defeat neoliberalism. 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Trump supporters are not the enemy. Trump is.

Which would you rather see exist in the world?

1.  Donald Trump, but with no supporters

2.  "Trump" supporters, but with no Donald Trump

Cody87

alan smithee wrote:

I hope they all end up with flesh eating disease in their necks.

What the fuck?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Trump supporters are not the enemy. Trump is.

Which would you rather see exist in the world?

1.  Donald Trump, but with no supporters

2.  "Trump" supporters, but with no Donald Trump

If there were no Donald Trump there would be no Donald Trump supporters. There would be people who feel battered and threatened and who would be looking for a target. Maybe someday the left will decide to put the people that should be targeted in the line of fire.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

As long as the 99% are busy condemning each other the 1% is laughing all the way to the bank no matter what their colour or gender.

Well this is not wrong -- it does not negate sexism or racism but it certainly is the tactic of the wealthy to have the middle turn on the poor and ignore those who walk off with the bags of cash. This is why you always hear the wealthy freeloaders whine about so-called welfare cheats etc.

I find it very frustrating that the right has managed to convince the middle that the poor are at fault so that the middle associates their best interests with the wealthy when the opposite is true. Then the left focuses on the downtrodden further convincing the middle class that the wealthy are right.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Who is trying to win them over?

I'm done with the high road. You fight fists with fists and you fight bullets with bullets.

There is no reason for me to pat them on the back and tell them I understand. I don't. I'm extremely anti-authoritarian. Hence,I hate Donald Trump and I hate his white mobs who spent this entire campaign threatening the press,beating up protesters and calling for Clinton to be hanged.

Oh yeah...I can really empathize with these people. Cut the bullshit. Especially wasting my empathy on people who have absolutely none for anyone.

Who is trying to win them over? The only thing they deservbe is some good old fashioned Conservative compassion. AKA a hard kick in the teeth.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Just some disenfranchised Americans desperate for change because the country hasn't been working for them

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Who is trying to win them over?

I'm done with the high road. You fight fists with fists and you fight bullets with bullets.

There is no reason for me to pat them on the back and tell them I understand. I don't. I'm extremely anti-authoritarian. Hence,I hate Donald Trump and I hate his white mobs who spent this entire campaign threatening the press,beating up protesters and calling for Clinton to be hanged.

Oh yeah...I can really empathize with these people. Cut the bullshit. Especially wasting my empathy on people who have absolutely none for anyone.

Who is trying to win them over? The only thing they deservbe is some good old fashioned Conservative compassion. AKA a hard kick in the teeth.

So you intend to execute them so they can't vote anymore? How are you going to accomplish that?

I am not talking about taking the high road. I'm talking about how to defeat the Trump types. If we could direct the fury of Trump voters at the real culprits we would win. They are not wrong to be angry at the political establishment.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

No intention to execute them. But if they want physical violence,I'd be happy to oblige.

I think back to the old angry men who despise progress and espouse racist and misogynist values. If they threw a punch at me,I'd knock their dentures out.

I'm not the stereotypical liberal/progressive who thinks we can change the world by singing Kum ba ya with a bunch of regressive pissants who think they can push around progressives because we're 'peaceniks'

That's not me. I'm not a pacifist. It's high time that progressives get angry. We have much more to be angry about.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

BTW.

http://www.burrardstreetjournal.com/trump-canada-independence-was-mistake/

Can we now move away from the empathy and recognize Trump as the enemy? I hope he visits Canada. I have a lot eggs waiting and that's my idea of non-violent protest. I'm not going to mention here on babble what I really think we should do to this Orange fuckface.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

"Beat his ass"

I thought to put this in the "Trump Gets Ready to Be a Bad Loser" thread, but they seem to be having an actual discussion in that one and I didn't want to disrupt it.

Seriously, though.  Violence?  Riots?  Protests?

Didn't everyone hear?  The official protest against Trump was held nationwide on Tuesday, at polling stations.  Protesters were asked to bring ID and a pencil.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Didn't everyone hear?  The official protest against Trump was held nationwide on Tuesday, at polling stations.  Protesters were asked to bring ID and a pencil.

Whose denying that? This isn't about questioning the results. This thread is about how we should empathize with those who voted for this prick.

If you don't like this thread,stick to the ones that are 'serious'

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

 I'm not the stereotypical liberal/progressive who thinks we can change the world by singing Kum ba ya with a bunch of regressive pissants who think they can push around progressives because we're 'peaceniks'

That's not me. I'm not a pacifist. It's high time that progressives get angry. We have much more to be angry about.

Absolutely. I'm not a pacifist either. Trumps core supporters are probably just as horrible as he is but the majority who voted for him are not. If they were the US would be a very different place and Obama would never have been elected.

One of the core reasons people voted for Trump is that he isn't a politician, or wasn't. It the same reason a lot of people voted for Ford. Ironically it is also the reason many supported Trudeau. Harper and Mulcair's insistence on focusing on Trudeau's lack of political background helped Trudeau by positioning him as an outsider (even though he isn't one). Disparaging his teacher background underlined that he had an ordinary job. Tactics are important. The mistakes of Trudeau's opponents helped him win.

I firmly believe that if even 30% of the population knew what neoliberalism has wrought and that we can defeat it that socialism would soar in popularity and progressives would be in power at every level of government.

Anger is definitely a tool the left should be using and revving up. The growing anger many people feel is absolutely justified; it's just misdirected. Violence I am not so sure but it may come to that. If so it should be directed at leaders not followers unless in self-defense. Forming armies and having them fight against each other

The thing is you can't force people to be your followers. You have to convince them to follow you. The left seems stuck making long-winded explanations trying to convince people that they are right. That is not a winning strategy. The French Revolution didn't succeed because the majority of peasants understood how commerce of the day worked or what would replace the monarchy as a power structure. It succeeded because a whole lot of people were pissed off at the right target instead of at each other.

 

 

I hear you. And I don't necessarily disagree with you.

This is what's driving me out of my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG11njU3nO0

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

BTW.

http://www.burrardstreetjournal.com/trump-canada-independence-was-mistake/

Can we now move away from the empathy and recognize Trump as the enemy? I hope he visits Canada. I have a lot eggs waiting and that's my idea of non-violent protest. I'm not going to mention here on babble what I really think we should do to this Orange fuckface.

No one is showing empathy for Trump. Obviously he is an enemy but he is not The Enemy and the people who voted for him aren't either. They are part of the 99% and they are being used to serve the interests of oligarchs.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

 I'm not the stereotypical liberal/progressive who thinks we can change the world by singing Kum ba ya with a bunch of regressive pissants who think they can push around progressives because we're 'peaceniks'

That's not me. I'm not a pacifist. It's high time that progressives get angry. We have much more to be angry about.

Absolutely. I'm not a pacifist either. Trumps core supporters are probably just as horrible as he is but the majority who voted for him are not. If they were the US would be a very different place and Obama would never have been elected.

One of the core reasons people voted for Trump is that he isn't a politician, or wasn't. It the same reason a lot of people voted for Ford. Ironically it is also the reason many supported Trudeau. Harper and Mulcair's insistence on focusing on Trudeau's lack of political background helped Trudeau by positioning him as an outsider (even though he isn't one). Disparaging his teacher background underlined that he had an ordinary job. Tactics are important. The mistakes of Trudeau's opponents helped him win.

I firmly believe that if even 30% of the population knew what neoliberalism has wrought and that we can defeat it that socialism would soar in popularity and progressives would be in power at every level of government.

Anger is definitely a tool the left should be using and revving up. The growing anger many people feel is absolutely justified; it's just misdirected. Violence I am not so sure but it may come to that. If so it should be directed at leaders not followers unless in self-defense. Forming armies and having them fight against each other serves the powerful.

The thing is you can't force people to be your followers. You have to convince them to follow you. The left seems stuck making long-winded explanations trying to convince people that they are right. That is not a winning strategy. The French Revolution didn't succeed because the majority of peasants understood how commerce of the day worked or what would replace the monarchy as a power structure. It succeeded because a whole lot of people were pissed off at the right target instead of at each other.

 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

“I personally think it was the biggest mistake in American history, giving Canada back. Look at that place now, it’s falling to pieces. It’s overrun by godless, gunless hippies and it’s such a shame to see.”

The fact that he is allegedly so hostile toward our country and absolutely ignorant of American history makes him a dangerous lunatic. If he tries to interfere with our sovereignty,he should be treated as a hostile enemy of our state,something that,if it isn't it should be a capital crime and he should be arrested the minute he crosses the border.

This is very serious. If this article is true,he's an enemy that,the moment he steps foot on Canadian soil, should be arrested charged and,well,I'll let you connect the dots.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

I hear you. And I don't necessarily disagree with you.

This is what's driving me out of my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG11njU3nO0

At about the 3 minute mark he talks about the potential for a unified opposition because of how terrible Trump is. If it happens it is not something that would have happened under Clinton.

There is also a possiblity that when Trump fails to deliver his supporters will be disillusioned and up for grabs.

Frighteningly Republicans have the house and the senate as well. Even though this is scary they will have nothing to hide behind. If they actually try to enact much of their agenda the opposition will be massive. If Trump fails to deliver his supporters will be disillusioned and up for grabs.

The most powerful (wealthy) people on Earth want trade and they want the US military to be used strategically to serve their purposes. If Trump interferes too much with that I would not be at all surprised if he is assasinated from within.

A Clinton presidency would have meant just staying on course or moving right of Obama. There would be no revolution. Core Trump supporters would be furious but beyond that I doubt there would have been much reaction.

A Trump presidency has sent protesters into the streets already without any chance to really organize as few believed this could happen.

Already children at school have been shocked at hostile comments from class mates telling them they are going to be deported. A woman had her hijab pulled off by another woman in Walmart. Trump has emboldened racists bringing them into the light of day and they expect his support. They expect him to deport people who immigrated illegally. They expect him to build that wall and deliver jobs.

I have no clue what will happen but I don't think it will be business as usual. It is not just "progressives" that are upset and will become more upset. It is all kinds of people from left to right.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
They are part of the 99% and they are being used to serve the interests of oligarchs.

Quote:
There is also a possiblity that when Trump fails to deliver his supporters will be disillusioned and up for grabs.

Wow.

Dibs on the disillusioned masses.

Quote:
Already children at school have been shocked at hostile comments from class mates telling them they are going to be deported. A woman had her hijab pulled off by another woman in Walmart.

Are you sure you're not reading old stories set in the UK, post-Brexit?  Because I've got some deja vu here.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You are flat wrong to say that Trumps voters are underpriveleged. Period. 

Looks to me that you do speak in absolutes and I obviously did not claim that all Trump voters are underprivileged. I said that white men who lost their union jobs and are struggling are not privileged. There is a reason it is called the "Rust Belt".

I am not using the academic definition of the word. I don't care about academics or semantics. I care about uniting the 99% against neoliberalism. Vilifying Trump voters is self-defeating. The following is not about Trump voters it is about Trump supporters within the Republican party.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trump...

But voters who agreed with the statement “people like me don't have any say about what the government does” were 86.5 percent more likely to prefer Trump. This feeling of powerlessness and voicelessness was a much better predictor of Trump support than age, race, college attainment, income, attitudes towards Muslims, illegal immigrants, or Hispanic identity.

......

But he has also told a simple three-part narrative to attract the despondent demographic: America is losing; Donald Trump is a winner; and if Trump becomes president, America will become a winner, too.....

The classic definition of authoritarianism implies a tradeoff—more security for less liberty—but MacWilliams says it’s also about identifying threatening outsiders and granting individuals special powers to pursue aggressive policies to destroy them. The best predictor of Trump support isn't income, education, or age, he says. In South Carolina, it was “authoritarianism … [and] a personal fear of terrorism” that best predicted Trump’s support across the state.

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/trump-support-authoritarianism

Both surveys measured authoritarianism with a simple battery of four questions related to parenting. Political scientists, including Marc Hetherington, Jonathan Weiler, and Karen Stenner, have used these questions since the early 1990s to estimate authoritarianism because of their accuracy in predicting authoritarian behavior.

Individuals with a disposition to authoritarianism demonstrate a fear of "the other" as well as a readiness to follow and obey strong leaders. They tend to see the world in black-and-white terms. They are by definition attitudinally inflexible and rigid. And once they have identified friend from foe, they hold tight to their conclusions. This intransigent behavioral tendency of authoritarians may help explain why Trump’s support can seem, as a strategist for Marco Rubio complained in the New York Times, like "granite."

Trump supporters are not the enemy. Trump is. His supporters are people we want/need to convert in order to defeat neoliberalism. 

 

I am convinced you do this on purpose. I can't imagine you could be this stupid.

The only absolute I used was that you were wrong. I stand by it. Your response is tactics like this.

***

You stated Trump supporters were underpriveleged. As a general statement they are not and I said so.

You came back saying that I claimed none of them were. That was a lie.

Now you come back saying you did not say all of them were pretending I said that you claimed this. Also a lie.

I never claimed that none of them were I never claimed that you said all of them were.

You are just lying by running to never stated absolutes to avoid the challenge to your statement that Trump supporters were underpriveleged.

Seems you are a Person of Sneakiness which I will shorten to POS.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture
Pondering

Whatever Sean. As long as your focus is semantics rather than the entire message I'm not really interested.

Pages