An interesting new book is coming out this week. It is from a Sociologist who has spent a lot of time in Tea Party and Trumpist organizations and communities, observing some very interesting things. Notably, the notion that Trumpism is about economic anxiety is largely inaccurate, at least at its base. It is largely about a general cultural anxiety and regional pride that has been challenged by a variety of changes to the world and, for which, many heavily individually-motivated people are looking for a source to place the blame and relieve shame that they feel for the condition of their areas. These emotions and needs are felt particularly strongly not by the truly poor (who often have a minimal sense that they are responsible for changes) but by those that are locally well-off, but nationally poor (i.e., those who have substantial economic and cultural influence in dying areas, but who wouldn't be particularly well-off in more well-off sections of the country). They tend to feel these emotions most strongly and are more strongly looking for a group of outsiders to blame. Enter Trump, who allows them to blame "globalists," corporations, communists, coastal elites, academics, immigrants, minorities, etc. Essentially, whatever resentment best fits with an individual's priors in attempting to place the blame for the condition of their local areas beyond themselves. He serves as both a bully, to make them feel like they are fighting back, and perpetual victim, who matches their feelings of constantly being under attack. Trump’s biggest fans aren’t who you think I think it is important to accurately depict the issue here. Unfortunately, I think many Trump folks are pretty unreliable narrators of the true source of their resentments and what they really want. It is why I think they got even angrier while Trump was President (eventually resulting in many of them violently trying to overthrow the election). It is also why many from the outside struggle to really define the issue. I think this is one of the better takes on the phenomenon.
I gave everyone here an excellent analysis why Trump became the head of the tea party, asked for their support, used Make America Great Again as the new slogan, and then changed the republican party from within which is why the old guard republicans are never Trumpers. I also included my thoughts on socialists/communists joining the democratic party to take over from within which unfortunately for the US has been successful. When lifelong democrats like Alan Dershowitz are bailing on the furthest left party in US history, you have a problem. The above article is buffoonery.
I can buy that. As you quoted below they seem to be pissed their despicable ideas aren’t mainstream. As they love to say “F their feelings”. “Trump’s strongest supporters in rural areas tend to be angry that their regions don’t set the social terms of American life: that they don’t control the halls of power and that, as a consequence, both political and cultural life is moving away from what they’re comfortable with. Economic decline surely exacerbates this sense of alienation, but it isn’t at the heart of it.”
You really want to tie yourself to Alan Dershowitz between Epstein massages? Dershowitz is actually a pretty good demonstration of a different group of people for whom resentment is appealing: those that have been disgraced in the greater society. But, to you, he is somebody to emulate?
I must have missed you talking about communism in the thread where Trump proposed a Sovereign Wealth Fund. Wonder why.
That was quite the deflection. Is that because you don't want to make a full throated defense for how you ended up on the same side as Dershowitz because you share a common trait (resentments against society)? I think I'll stick with an award winning sociologist on her topic of interest compared to our resident expert on climate, New York criminal procedures, fed decision making, and now political movements and the psychology of voters, who deeply understands why everything is happening but doesn't seem to have much factual knowledge beyond that.
I think we are all interested in your thoughts on Trump’s chicom proposal. Can’t wait to see you try to spin that shit.
Interesting post, thanks for sharing. To me, I've always believed that "disaffection sells" when it comes to politics. Many politicians use it to their benefit - particularly in opposition - but then it's really hard to row back in power. I'm not saying everything is peachy in the world - far from it - but malaise is overplayed in both politics and the media because it raises blood pressure and therefore engagement. It's a clever strategy... until you have to do something with that power which follows.
It was determined after 2016 that it wasn't about economic anxiety. At it's core, it's about the deep seeded desire of most MAGAts to be able to openly use the n-word in conversation without social shunning.
