To beat Trump, we need to know why Americans keep voting for him. Psychologists may have the answer
To beat Trump, we need to know why Americans keep voting for him. Psychologists may have the answer
US culture is an incubator of ‘extrinsic values’. Nobody embodies them like the Republican front runner, writes Guardian columnist George Monbiot
US culture is an incubator of ‘extrinsic values’. Nobody embodies them like the Republican frontrunner
Many explanations are proposed for the continued rise of Donald Trump, and the steadfastness of his support, even as the outrages and criminal charges pile up. Some of these explanations are powerful. But there is one I have seen mentioned nowhere, which could, I believe, be the most important: Trump is king of the extrinsics.
Some psychologists believe our values tend to cluster around certain poles, described as “intrinsic” and “extrinsic”. People with a strong set of intrinsic values are inclined towards empathy, intimacy and self-acceptance. They tend to be open to challenge and change, interested in universal rights and equality, and protective of other people and the living world.
People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum are more attracted to prestige, status, image, fame, power and wealth. They are strongly motivated by the prospect of individual reward and praise. They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community. People with a strong set of extrinsic values are more likely to suffer from frustration, dissatisfaction, stress, anxiety, anger and compulsive behaviour.
It's embarrassing that nobody in mainstream liberal circles seems able to answer this very basic question: why do people vote for trump? It's not that they are racist womanizing nazis (though some of them certainly are). That is some of it, that's the convenient story, but it really misses the mark.
I'm a through and through liberal, I vote D in every race, I vote in primaries, etc. Some other comments here have gotten some good points in so I won't re-iterate them. Before all you tankies jump in and tell me that the entire point of the two party system is to capture dissent and manufacture consent and how the only point of the democratic party is to move the needle as little as possible while staying in power as often as possible, yes, obviously, we're all impressed that you went to college, now let's move on.
I'll tell you what Trump's appeal is:
- He, and his party, are the only ones who openly acknowledge that the entire system is broken and corrupt. This is a talking point among all major republican candidates. Most democrats don't even give lip service to this problem, they just blame republicans and promise things only if we somehow get them a supermajority. Bernie, AOC, and Warren may touch on this topic from time to time, but as a party, the DNC does not. Their position is largely that "the system works, and the reason it's not working well right now is because there aren't enough democrats". Trump says things are "the deep state" or "the swamp" or whatever, but he openly acknowledges that the entire system is corrupt to the core. That is very powerful and speaks to every disaffected voter regardless of why they are disaffected. He did so well and beat poll expectations in the year he won because he got people out the polls who had given up all hope in the electoral system, he got so many non-voters to vote. And they won't vote for anybody else. Hell, some trumpers are former bernie supporters who were so disgusted by the DNCs primary that they thought "well, at least this guy says it like it is, how much worse could be possibly be?". I don't know about you, but are there less disaffected people out there now than there was in 2016? Is the average person's economic position better? Are people feeling less socially isolated? Does the world feel more stable and safe? If not, that's how people like Trump get powerful. Trump is the symptom, not the cause.
- He speaks to people that, rightly or wrongly, feel ignored by those in power. Rural voters, for example, may actually get a bigger vote than those in cities, but it doesn't change that on most issues they get outvoted. They may have all of their social services funded by blue areas, but that doesn't change that their towns are constantly subject to brain drain and under-investment and have no real job opportunities, and that they are looked down upon by people in cities. Whenever politicians do pay attention to them, it's only a quick scam to get their vote and they never come through on their promises. Frankly, democrats could absolutely rake in the vote from rural counties if they wanted to, but for some reason it's like they don't even try. Their policies would be popular, much of the democrat platform is about serving the under-served, yet for some reason it's like democrats don't even try to capture rural voters. Protecting the environment is good for people who enjoy hunting and living in rural areas. Funding education and making job opportunities are easy wins in this area. Funding infrastructure is good for these areas. Remember how Trump delayed COVID checks to put his name on them? How come every build back better project doesn't have a similar requirement? Democrats are embarrassingly bad at taking credit for their wins.
- Republicans may not ever actually accomplish anything legislatively, but boy are they good at making noise and pretending to be fighting for something. And remember, if you believe the entire system is broken and corrupt, you don't care that congress isn't accomplishing anything. Hell, it might even be a good thing to you! Most democrats are absolutely milquetoast. Nobody cares about policy, they care that their politician is speaking their language and fighting for them. Republicans do this well. This grandstanding about the border? What a great show. Passing laws that have no chance of surviving a court appeal but make their base happy? Every month. Their refusal to vote for things because of the "national debt"? Great strategy. Look, I know some or all of these issues are baseless, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective.
- For all ills people are facing in life whether social or economic, the right has a clear boogeyman or two to point at and blame. Is that blame appropriate assigned? No. But at least they have somebody or something to blame. Liberals blame... republicans? That's a particularly dangerous strategy when dems are crushing it in elections and when the republicans can't even vote as a block in the house of reps. Dems are too afraid to ever point the finger at "the rich" or other easy targets, instead they're always like "it's complicated" and "nuanced" and nobody gives af about that, it's not how people vote.
- Republicans are 100% better at social media and running their own media. Fox News is a genius concept that liberals still have yet to copy effectively despite being around for.. two decades? Play the fucking game liberals, it's how you win. Democrat messaging is milquetoast through and through. Their social media game has gotten better the past few years, but I'm not convinced they have surpassed republicans in this yet.
They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community. People with a strong set of extrinsic values are more likely to suffer from frustration, dissatisfaction, stress, anxiety, anger and compulsive behaviour.
So, half the country has antisocial personality disorders, basically.
Everyone has this hot take about why people support Trump. It's not rocket science and it definitely doesn't require a PHD to understand (lord know he doesn't have one and none of his supporters do either). It's very simple: America is a country where half of the population hates everybody who isn't a conservative heterosexual cisgendered white man. Sounds crazy. But it's the truth. Trump makes these people feel okay for carrying such hatred. That's it.
Modern conservatives believe poor people have it easier than rich people and the majority ethnicity and religion are oppressed by the minorities. They are comfortable and uninterested in learning, but believe they should be treated with the upmost respect and consideration.
The factors are:
Lack of empathy
Stupidity
Fear
This writer almost gets there, but stops short of figuring it out. He cites the current British treatment of the homeless, including a £2500 fine for rough sleeping: presumably if they had £2500 to spare, they wouldn't be out on the streets.
I think it's because the current batch of Conservatives are not content with simply using their extrinsic values to shape policy, they also have to use the tools of Government to punish people who don't share their values. Look no further than all the Culture War nonsense in the US these days. Our Conservatives have turned their heartfelt belief that life begins at conception and are using it to punish those who don't believe that way. And they are openly hostile to LGBTQ+ people.
I think this study is more at the root of the issue:
"One explanation for this might be that conservatives see "loyalty" as an innate moral principle and liberals don't. There was a study that asked people to explain how they judged scenarios as right or wrong. It came to this conclusion:
Liberals have three principles by which they judge morality: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression
Conservatives have six principles by which they judge morality: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation.
This explains why it's hard for conservatives and liberals to have a debate about morality. Say the topic is flag burning. The conservative would say that burning a flag violates sanctity but a law against it violates liberty, so the principle of sanctity must be balanced against the principle of liberty. The liberal doesn't see sanctity as a moral principle so only sees the violation of liberty. The liberal can see no reason to ban flag burning and can't understand the conservative's reasoning. However, both can agree that murder is wrong because it harms people, and that rich and poor must obey the same traffic laws because of fairness.
These are two extreme examples, but if I understand the theory correctly moral reasoning exists on a spectrum. A question for those who believe they don't see sanctity as a moral principle at all: if your beloved dog died of natural causes, would you be comfortable serving its body as a meal? If you hesitated at all, you're at least slightly morally conservative.
Dead link now: https://www-bcf.usc.edu/~jessegra/papers/GrahamHaidtNosek.2009.Moral foundations of liberals and conservatives.JPSP.pdf
Possible alt: https://daverupert.com/2017/08/jonathan-haidt-the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/
More differences:
It’s easy, he positioned himself as a political outsider. He’s a fake populist, and the rubes voting for him fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Of course, in reality he’s a sociopathic loser.
You want to beat Trump in the biggest political ass whooping this country has ever seen? Let a real populist run against him, to enact meaningful progressive change to positively improve the lives of all Americans. Won’t happen because we’re held captive by other sociopathic dinosaurs and corporations all looking to line their pockets, but it’s certainly possible.
We are not born with our values. They are shaped by the cues and responses we receive from other people and the prevailing mores of our society. They are also moulded by the political environment we inhabit. If people live under a cruel and grasping political system, they tend to normalise and internalise it, absorbing its dominant claims and translating them into extrinsic values. This, in turn, permits an even crueller and more grasping political system to develop.
If, by contrast, people live in a country in which no one becomes destitute, in which social norms are characterised by kindness, empathy, community and freedom from want and fear, their values are likely to shift towards the intrinsic end. This process is known as policy feedback, or the “‘values ratchet”. The values ratchet operates at the societal and the individual level: a strong set of extrinsic values often develops as a result of insecurity and unfulfilled needs. These extrinsic values then generate further insecurity and unfulfilled needs.
This is the actual interesting point here. Framing with some epiphany about "extrinsic" and "intrinsic" values is just putting a psychology-friendly label on things we've been saying since 2015.
On the other hand, I fully admit I thought that Trump being elected would backfire big on the GOP, and that America, seeing how awful he was and how readily GOP members of congress flipped on democracy and embraced fascism, would recoil. I thought after a horrible 4 years, the GOP would be done in the country. And at first, it was true. The "Muslim ban" and his other nonsense always triggered 5-10% drops in polls, which then recovered thanks to Fox News and other news orgs normalizing it. And then...it just stopped. It became fully normalized around 2018. After that, nothing impacted his polls.
Now we're staring down 2024 with Trump at all-time highs and the right-wing base is just getting worse and worse. Trump's supporters have abandoned their moral standards, abandoned actually testing their candidate (Trump) against any values they previously held. So now, I at least find that this explanation makes sense.
It's a nihilistic view of humanity - that people will just get worse and worse if people like Trump continues to be allowed to make the behavior "acceptable." - but at least it explains the data.
Some psychologists believe our values tend to cluster around certain poles, described as “intrinsic” and “extrinsic”. People with a strong set of intrinsic values are inclined towards empathy, intimacy and self-acceptance. They tend to be open to challenge and change, interested in universal rights and equality, and protective of other people and the living world.
People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum are more attracted to prestige, status, image, fame, power and wealth. They are strongly motivated by the prospect of individual reward and praise. They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community. People with a strong set of extrinsic values are more likely to suffer from frustration, dissatisfaction, stress, anxiety, anger and compulsive behaviour.
Pretty garbage takes here: we have the good, properly motivated group that votes for good guys and the bad people who are attached to the superficial and illusions...
This would not be different from a conservative analyzing the left as motivated by prestige/status (proper virtue signaling as approved by academia/mass media) and material gain through democrat policies, while the right is motivated by reason and real values, true philosophy, etc. Something I think we've heard done...
Pathologizing your political opponents is absolutely never a good look whether left or right does it.
I will not say that there are aspects of the above that are not true, however, just as how some leftists are very performative and only concerned with appearing correct and receiving accolades from people they admire. But to really suggest the majority of Trump voters (which are conservatives in general) are not motivated by their own principles and visions is just demonizing your opponents.
Conservatives believe in a hierarchy and stratification of society.
They simply place themselves as the leaders and arbiters of that order based on their self-appointed superiority. They will always place themselves at the top of the totem pole.
Therefore, even if they were to completely acknowledge their failings (not a chance), their failings will never be reason to upset that order; but everyone else's failings, perceived or real, will be more than sufficient to be kept to the end of the totem pole stuck in the dirt.
- The internet makes people feel that they are actually smart - Like they possess a lot of knowledge just because they have access to it, in theory
- This country was founded in part, by very deeply racist people. That racism never actually "left", it's just had moments of quiet, but it's always there because we didn't punish the traitors behind the civil war hard enough. We also allowed the daughters of the confederacy to attempt to literally rewrite history.
- trump is a poor person's idea of a rich person. They also see him and think inside, quietly, "he's an idiot, so that means if I wanted to be the president, I could be the president, I just don't want to right now". Then when people attack trump, they feel personally attacked and defend him.
It's somewhere in the balance of these three points.
Jfc, this is pathetic, but sadly reflective of the actual big picture it thinks it's giving - trump is a symptom. He is not the cause, he is not the single issue that we need to "beat", the system that enables him to exist is.
That same system that indoctrinates all of society in to capitalism and the systems of oppression it (and the likes of trump) relies on.
The same system this psychologist is conveniently ignoring to get their nonsense published as some sort of revelation, when in reality it is serving that very system by continuing to deepen the divide in the working class and blame those being manipulated instead of those in charge of the system based on manipulation.
Some people being able to break free from that indoctrination doesn't magically make those who don't [insert ableist slur/armchair diagnosis], it makes them victims of a scam. And you don't free them (and by extension yourself) by blaming them and pretending like if only they voted for the other puppet in the 4-yearly illusion of choice show all our problems would be solved, you free them by ending the fucking scam.
(to be clear - this doesn't mean you don't hold people accountable for their actions, but that you look at the big picture to gain some fucking perspective and understanding, and then hold people accountable for what they're actually responsible for, rather than everything that is wrong in the world and systems far beyond their control, and then pull a shocked pikach face when it doesn't work. No fucking shit sherlock..)
Trump's team realised how many racists exist in America when they saw how popular his birther campaign was. These people are overwhelmingly conservative.
The interesting thing about America is that it was founded on the idea that people are equal, religion has no place in politics and conservative rules were holding back the common man. They fled the monarchies of Europe to create a more egalitarian society but ended up creating a divided and racist society with a capitalist aristocracy.
lead poisoning
I read the whole article, yet in my head it was being narrated by Adam Curtis. Same vibes.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
From the tower bearing his name in gold letters to his gross overstatements of his wealth; from his endless ranting about “winners” and “losers” to his reported habit of cheating at golf; from his extreme objectification of women, including his own daughter, to his obsession with the size of his hands; from his rejection of public service, human rights and environmental protection to his extreme dissatisfaction and fury, undiminished even when he was president of the United States, Trump, perhaps more than any other public figure in recent history, is a walking, talking monument to extrinsic values.
If people live under a cruel and grasping political system, they tend to normalise and internalise it, absorbing its dominant claims and translating them into extrinsic values.
If, by contrast, people live in a country in which no one becomes destitute, in which social norms are characterised by kindness, empathy, community and freedom from want and fear, their values are likely to shift towards the intrinsic end.
Ever since Ronald Reagan came to power, on a platform that ensured society became sharply divided into “winners” and “losers”, and ever more people, lacking public provision, were allowed to fall through the cracks, US politics has become fertile soil for extrinsic values.
Under the criminal justice bill now passing through parliament, people caught rough sleeping can be imprisoned or fined up to £2,500 if they are deemed to constitute a “nuisance” or cause “damage”.
If so, his victory will be due not only to the racial resentment of ageing white men, or to his weaponisation of culture wars or to algorithms and echo chambers, important as these factors are.
The original article contains 1,061 words, the summary contains 274 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
We talk about society’s rightward journey. We talk about polarisation and division. We talk about isolation and the mental health crisis. But what underlies these trends is a shift in values. This is the cause of many of our dysfunctions; the rest are symptoms.
Toxoplasmosis.
Mental illness
Feels like some BS, using many words to separate the world into sane people and Trump (or his kind) supporters.
The author should pick a line between "inclination towards empathy, intimacy and self-acceptance" being attributed to one side and "dismissing social impacts" being attributed to another. Because "self-acceptance" is in direct conflict with "social impacts".
And a lynching crowd is a "social impact" too, for example.
Also behaving rudely and behaving aggressively is not the same. Most of time aggressive behavior is not rude and rude behavior is not aggressive in my personal social experience.
They have little interest in cooperation or community.
So every commenter here saying nothing meaningful except for "another part of my country consists of idiots and I'm of course smarter than them" is interested in cooperation and community?
However, I'm pleased by "intrinsic" here being something good and "extrinsic" being something bad. At least my kind of people is presented as the better kind for a difference.
are more likely to suffer from frustration, dissatisfaction, stress, anxiety, anger and compulsive behaviour
Well, of course people in pain would be less pleasant. But your usual average human would say that they are themselves to blame, because the universe is a fair game (except for market economics and climate change and gender dynamics, of course, here they do notice problems or pretend to notice), so let's just call them all idiots who should be stripped of voting rights or something.
I agree with everything you said, except I think you chose a weird example. Burning flags especifically is a nuanced issue. I'd argue that a lot of liberas would be in favor of not burning flags, because of the harm principle you mentioned. There is no non-viopent situation in which you burn a flag, therefore laws like these tend to be supported by both sides.
But can psychologists explain why neoliberal, procorporate "moderate" Democrats would rather lose to Trump than compromise with leftists?
Because deep down many Americans dream of being outlaws on the run in the wild west being chased down by federales. They see themselves as the next Pancho and Lefty or Billie the Kid.