Trump, Authenticity, and the Illegitimacy of the political establishment

[OldLady]

That is the subject of a recent article in the American Sociological Review (PDF attached; see below for citation).

Thinking of Trump, the authors want to better understand what makes him seem authentic or trustworthy to certain voters despite the fact that he sometimes deliberately says things those voters know to be false. The question is essentially: why don't those falsehoods diminish his credibility?

They carry out an experiment to try to test a theoretical hypothesis, but I thought it would be interesting to see if Trump supporters here consider the conclusions they reach to be valid. To paraphrase, they argue that rather than causing Trump to lose credibility, those deliberate lies become further evidence of his authenticity to those voters because they perceive the lies in the context of a larger crisis of political illegitimacy. That is, they perceive Trump to be challenging an illegitimate political order, and his tactics justified by that context.

The authors describe the perception of illegitimacy (in general) like this:

"these crises involve three groups: (1) a political establishment; (2) an incumbent group who sees itself as the “real people” (Müller 2016) but has been losing power; and (3) a group of erstwhile outsiders who are rising and whom the incumbent group views as being unfairly favored by the establishment." (8)

"Such a power-devaluation crisis thus creates conditions under which a traditionalist or right-wing lying demagogue should have authentic appeal. The logic is the same as in a representation crisis, but now the demagogue is challenging new norms rather than existing ones, and he is arguing that the establishment is illegitimate because it has betrayed the values and interests of an incumbent group that had previously held sway for appropriate reasons. Again, the demagogue will seem more of an authentic champion insofar as her norm-breaking induces the (new) establishment to denigrate her, thus making her seem more committed to the aggrieved constituency than is a candidate who does not flagrantly break (the new) norms." (9)
​

Please ignore the apparently pejorative connotations of "lying demogogue", they give the term a somewhat more technical gloss, but I'm interested in whether this narrative makes sense to people who identify as Trump supporters. Is Trump "an authentic champion" because he breaks norms (i.e. of political correctness, or etc.)? Do you consider yourself to be a member of a group that is losing relative status or power to other less deserving groups of people? If you disagree with the authors, what do you think they get wrong?

1) Hahl, Oliver, Minjae Kim, and Ezra Sivan. 2018. "The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue:

Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy." American Sociological Review, 83(1):1-33.​

LOL
Here is a simple answer : Partisanship. This is nothing new. Obama could have shot someone on 4th avenue, and his supporters wouldnt give a shit. Same goes for many past Presidents.
Why does it seem like "educated" people are often dumb as fuck?

In Trump's case, it is more than partisanship, TN. I think the OP is asking a perfectly reasonable question. Why so touchy?

LOL
We have had presidents that lied with substance OL. Trumps lies are usually about bullshit. Lies to skew public opinion over MAJOR issues like regulation of 20% our economy. Wars. His/Their supporters didnt bat an eye. THEY STILL DENY IT.
This is only reasonable if you dont consider our past.
Im only 32 and i know this is routine with partisan hacks. Hell, people would take bullets to their integrity for Presidents that lead before they were even born!
Partisanship is a disease.

Of course the dyed in the wool Republicans voted for the Republican candidate; they would have voted for whatever/whomever was offered to them. You're absolutely right that there is some sort of disease at work there, in this case. But that is NOT who the OP is asking. Since neither of us support Trump, he's not looking for our answers either.
I find a well educated and thoughtful liberal to be a welcome addition here, instead of the usual "blow me, Nazi" conversations we tend to have.
This guy is not 320. Ease down.

 

[TNHarley]

That is the subject of a recent article in the American Sociological Review (PDF attached; see below for citation).

Thinking of Trump, the authors want to better understand what makes him seem authentic or trustworthy to certain voters despite the fact that he sometimes deliberately says things those voters know to be false. The question is essentially: why don't those falsehoods diminish his credibility?

They carry out an experiment to try to test a theoretical hypothesis, but I thought it would be interesting to see if Trump supporters here consider the conclusions they reach to be valid. To paraphrase, they argue that rather than causing Trump to lose credibility, those deliberate lies become further evidence of his authenticity to those voters because they perceive the lies in the context of a larger crisis of political illegitimacy. That is, they perceive Trump to be challenging an illegitimate political order, and his tactics justified by that context.

The authors describe the perception of illegitimacy (in general) like this:

"these crises involve three groups: (1) a political establishment; (2) an incumbent group who sees itself as the “real people” (Müller 2016) but has been losing power; and (3) a group of erstwhile outsiders who are rising and whom the incumbent group views as being unfairly favored by the establishment." (8)

"Such a power-devaluation crisis thus creates conditions under which a traditionalist or right-wing lying demagogue should have authentic appeal. The logic is the same as in a representation crisis, but now the demagogue is challenging new norms rather than existing ones, and he is arguing that the establishment is illegitimate because it has betrayed the values and interests of an incumbent group that had previously held sway for appropriate reasons. Again, the demagogue will seem more of an authentic champion insofar as her norm-breaking induces the (new) establishment to denigrate her, thus making her seem more committed to the aggrieved constituency than is a candidate who does not flagrantly break (the new) norms." (9)
​

Please ignore the apparently pejorative connotations of "lying demogogue", they give the term a somewhat more technical gloss, but I'm interested in whether this narrative makes sense to people who identify as Trump supporters. Is Trump "an authentic champion" because he breaks norms (i.e. of political correctness, or etc.)? Do you consider yourself to be a member of a group that is losing relative status or power to other less deserving groups of people? If you disagree with the authors, what do you think they get wrong?

1) Hahl, Oliver, Minjae Kim, and Ezra Sivan. 2018. "The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue:

Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy." American Sociological Review, 83(1):1-33.​

LOL
Here is a simple answer : Partisanship. This is nothing new. Obama could have shot someone on 4th avenue, and his supporters wouldnt give a shit. Same goes for many past Presidents.
Why does it seem like "educated" people are often dumb as fuck?

In Trump's case, it is more than partisanship, TN. I think the OP is asking a perfectly reasonable question. Why so touchy?

LOL
We have had presidents that lied with substance OL. Trumps lies are usually about bullshit. Lies to skew public opinion over MAJOR issues like regulation of 20% our economy. Wars. His/Their supporters didnt bat an eye. THEY STILL DENY IT.
This is only reasonable if you dont consider our past.
Im only 32 and i know this is routine with partisan hacks. Hell, people would take bullets to their integrity for Presidents that lead before they were even born!
Partisanship is a disease.

Of course the dyed in the wool Republicans voted for the Republican candidate; they would have voted for whatever/whomever was offered to them. You're absolutely right that there is some sort of disease at work there, in this case. But that is NOT who the OP is asking. Since neither of us support Trump, he's not looking for our answers either.
I find a well educated and thoughtful liberal to be a welcome addition here, instead of the usual "blow me, Nazi" conversations we tend to have.
This guy is not 320. Ease down.

Drink some coffee madam
Thinking of Trump, the authors want to better understand what makes him seem authentic or trustworthy to certain voters despite the fact that he sometimes deliberately says things those voters know to be false. The question is essentially: why don't those falsehoods diminish his credibility?
My comments are on point and relevant to the OP.

 

[OldLady]

That is the subject of a recent article in the American Sociological Review (PDF attached; see below for citation).

Thinking of Trump, the authors want to better understand what makes him seem authentic or trustworthy to certain voters despite the fact that he sometimes deliberately says things those voters know to be false. The question is essentially: why don't those falsehoods diminish his credibility?

They carry out an experiment to try to test a theoretical hypothesis, but I thought it would be interesting to see if Trump supporters here consider the conclusions they reach to be valid. To paraphrase, they argue that rather than causing Trump to lose credibility, those deliberate lies become further evidence of his authenticity to those voters because they perceive the lies in the context of a larger crisis of political illegitimacy. That is, they perceive Trump to be challenging an illegitimate political order, and his tactics justified by that context.

The authors describe the perception of illegitimacy (in general) like this:

"these crises involve three groups: (1) a political establishment; (2) an incumbent group who sees itself as the “real people” (Müller 2016) but has been losing power; and (3) a group of erstwhile outsiders who are rising and whom the incumbent group views as being unfairly favored by the establishment." (8)

"Such a power-devaluation crisis thus creates conditions under which a traditionalist or right-wing lying demagogue should have authentic appeal. The logic is the same as in a representation crisis, but now the demagogue is challenging new norms rather than existing ones, and he is arguing that the establishment is illegitimate because it has betrayed the values and interests of an incumbent group that had previously held sway for appropriate reasons. Again, the demagogue will seem more of an authentic champion insofar as her norm-breaking induces the (new) establishment to denigrate her, thus making her seem more committed to the aggrieved constituency than is a candidate who does not flagrantly break (the new) norms." (9)
​

Please ignore the apparently pejorative connotations of "lying demogogue", they give the term a somewhat more technical gloss, but I'm interested in whether this narrative makes sense to people who identify as Trump supporters. Is Trump "an authentic champion" because he breaks norms (i.e. of political correctness, or etc.)? Do you consider yourself to be a member of a group that is losing relative status or power to other less deserving groups of people? If you disagree with the authors, what do you think they get wrong?

1) Hahl, Oliver, Minjae Kim, and Ezra Sivan. 2018. "The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue:

Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy." American Sociological Review, 83(1):1-33.​

LOL
Here is a simple answer : Partisanship. This is nothing new. Obama could have shot someone on 4th avenue, and his supporters wouldnt give a shit. Same goes for many past Presidents.
Why does it seem like "educated" people are often dumb as fuck?

In Trump's case, it is more than partisanship, TN. I think the OP is asking a perfectly reasonable question. Why so touchy?

LOL
We have had presidents that lied with substance OL. Trumps lies are usually about bullshit. Lies to skew public opinion over MAJOR issues like regulation of 20% our economy. Wars. His/Their supporters didnt bat an eye. THEY STILL DENY IT.
This is only reasonable if you dont consider our past.
Im only 32 and i know this is routine with partisan hacks. Hell, people would take bullets to their integrity for Presidents that lead before they were even born!
Partisanship is a disease.

Of course the dyed in the wool Republicans voted for the Republican candidate; they would have voted for whatever/whomever was offered to them. You're absolutely right that there is some sort of disease at work there, in this case. But that is NOT who the OP is asking. Since neither of us support Trump, he's not looking for our answers either.
I find a well educated and thoughtful liberal to be a welcome addition here, instead of the usual "blow me, Nazi" conversations we tend to have.
This guy is not 320. Ease down.

Drink some coffee madam
Thinking of Trump, the authors want to better understand what makes him seem authentic or trustworthy to certain voters despite the fact that he sometimes deliberately says things those voters know to be false. The question is essentially: why don't those falsehoods diminish his credibility?
My comments are on point and relevant to the OP.

So you think every single Trump supporter here (let alone those all over the country) is in it for the party platform alone? At least that's what "partisan" means to me. Maybe it means something else to you.

 

[TNHarley]

LOL
Here is a simple answer : Partisanship. This is nothing new. Obama could have shot someone on 4th avenue, and his supporters wouldnt give a shit. Same goes for many past Presidents.
Why does it seem like "educated" people are often dumb as fuck?

In Trump's case, it is more than partisanship, TN. I think the OP is asking a perfectly reasonable question. Why so touchy?

LOL
We have had presidents that lied with substance OL. Trumps lies are usually about bullshit. Lies to skew public opinion over MAJOR issues like regulation of 20% our economy. Wars. His/Their supporters didnt bat an eye. THEY STILL DENY IT.
This is only reasonable if you dont consider our past.
Im only 32 and i know this is routine with partisan hacks. Hell, people would take bullets to their integrity for Presidents that lead before they were even born!
Partisanship is a disease.

Of course the dyed in the wool Republicans voted for the Republican candidate; they would have voted for whatever/whomever was offered to them. You're absolutely right that there is some sort of disease at work there, in this case. But that is NOT who the OP is asking. Since neither of us support Trump, he's not looking for our answers either.
I find a well educated and thoughtful liberal to be a welcome addition here, instead of the usual "blow me, Nazi" conversations we tend to have.
This guy is not 320. Ease down.

Drink some coffee madam
Thinking of Trump, the authors want to better understand what makes him seem authentic or trustworthy to certain voters despite the fact that he sometimes deliberately says things those voters know to be false. The question is essentially: why don't those falsehoods diminish his credibility?
My comments are on point and relevant to the OP.

So you think every single Trump supporter here (let alone those all over the country) is in it for the party platform alone? At least that's what "partisan" means to me. Maybe it means something else to you.

Do you ever notice the members of a parties policies and "beliefs" change when a new party takes control?
Look at the trump supporters.. when he was talking about amnesty, did you notice how their "beliefs" changed regarding that issue? Or their fiscal beliefs?
Look at obama and his corporatism. Same thing.
I can go on and on and on.
Its partisanship. I dont understand the loyalty to something that doesnt give a shit about you..

 

[OldLady]

In Trump's case, it is more than partisanship, TN. I think the OP is asking a perfectly reasonable question. Why so touchy?

LOL
We have had presidents that lied with substance OL. Trumps lies are usually about bullshit. Lies to skew public opinion over MAJOR issues like regulation of 20% our economy. Wars. His/Their supporters didnt bat an eye. THEY STILL DENY IT.
This is only reasonable if you dont consider our past.
Im only 32 and i know this is routine with partisan hacks. Hell, people would take bullets to their integrity for Presidents that lead before they were even born!
Partisanship is a disease.

Of course the dyed in the wool Republicans voted for the Republican candidate; they would have voted for whatever/whomever was offered to them. You're absolutely right that there is some sort of disease at work there, in this case. But that is NOT who the OP is asking. Since neither of us support Trump, he's not looking for our answers either.
I find a well educated and thoughtful liberal to be a welcome addition here, instead of the usual "blow me, Nazi" conversations we tend to have.
This guy is not 320. Ease down.

Drink some coffee madam
Thinking of Trump, the authors want to better understand what makes him seem authentic or trustworthy to certain voters despite the fact that he sometimes deliberately says things those voters know to be false. The question is essentially: why don't those falsehoods diminish his credibility?
My comments are on point and relevant to the OP.

So you think every single Trump supporter here (let alone those all over the country) is in it for the party platform alone? At least that's what "partisan" means to me. Maybe it means something else to you.

Do you ever notice the members of a parties policies and "beliefs" change when a new party takes control?
Look at the trump supporters.. when he was talking about amnesty, did you notice how their "beliefs" changed regarding that issue? Or their fiscal beliefs?
Look at obama and his corporatism. Same thing.
I can go on and on and on.
Its partisanship. I dont understand the loyalty to something that doesnt give a shit about you..

I'll agree with the last comment, for sure.

 

[well named]

The study's focus on 'culture wars', #metoo, and affirmative action is also tilted far to the left. Speaking for myself, that stuff is more like noise than actual issues.

I might suggest thinking of it in terms of social movements and counter-movements. #metoo, BLM, and etc. are social movements on the left. I agree with you on that point. The article is interested in how Trump's populist appeal involves his opposition to those movements, i.e. as a kind of counter-movement, although they don't use that framing.

I think it is a great mistake to frame an argument that white people are afraid of minorities. This misses the point entirely, and I believe the argument is a construct in itself to promote racial conflict. It really is much more basic and fundamental. 'Equal opportunity' vs Equal outcomes' I think people should be allowed to succeed. 'Personal freedom vs Social Safety Nets' People should be allowed to make good choices. To assume most people can't is pretty pessimistic. Not everyone makes good choices, but safety nets should just be for people who need help. Again, people should be allowed the chance to succeed. 'Globalism' vs 'Nationalism' Why should people even vote if the country they live in does not have sovereignty on how its people live? There is nothing wrong with countries looking out for their own interests, and unlike many posters on this board, I do not believe nationalism makes you a monstrous nazi. There is so much going on that has nothing to do with ethnicity, that I feel ethnicity itself is just being used to create and maintain division.

There's lots of interesting things in there to discuss, but since I framed the OP around a specific set of questions I'll try to avoid derailing my own thread, at least for a little while.

LOL
Here is a simple answer : Partisanship. This is nothing new. Obama could have shot someone on 4th avenue, and his supporters wouldnt give a shit. Same goes for many past Presidents.

So you think every single Trump supporter here (let alone those all over the country) is in it for the party platform alone? At least that's what "partisan" means to me. Maybe it means something else to you.

Partisanship is clearly important. I skipped over it for the sake of brevity and because it wasn't my main interest. I would suggest defining partisanship more in terms of commitment to party than commitment to ideology, though. Ideological alignment is one reason for partisanship, but it's also true that both the GOP and the Democratic Party contain multiple factions that don't entirely agree on everything. There's a fair amount of research on the way that identity informs partisanship going beyond just agreeing with party platforms.

Anyway, the authors do take partisanship into account, but they refer to various survey data which suggest that partisanship alone is insufficient to explain differing perceptions about Clinton and Trump (pp. 2-3). Just as an example, there existed strong Republican partisans who did not consider Trump "authentic" (cf. the National Review issue "Conservatives against Trump").

 

[DustyInfinity]

On the one hand, in my experience I have found that people who think themselves scholarly often have far too much free time.

On the other hand, such overwrought analysis has resulted in some wonderful literary fiction.

Seems like a fairly one sided article that makes many assumptions. It is a fairly standard 'people who were once in power' afraid of 'the new group gaining power' argument.

My wife's grad school advisor once said something like "a sociologist is someone who will take thousands of dollars and 18 months to tell you something your taxi driver would have told you for free." More recently, I heard someone describe social science research as "made up but thought provoking". I think there's at least a hint of truth in both of those

This assumes traditional values are a thing of the past that should be let go in favor of larger government control and power. If you believe in traditional values such as individual freedom you are backwards for not letting the government gain more and more control of your life.

I suspect that the authors might view "traditional values" in the way you suggest, but I don't think the research itself makes any of the assumptions you list, despite a few of the choices in terminology. Both it and this thread are more interested in how Trump supporters perceive the situation for themselves. I've completely skipped over the actual experiment they performed, but it's an interesting read.

As far as the traditional vs new values in question, I would suggest based on the other research they cite and the outline of the argument they made that they are thinking about political issues involving immigration, affirmative action, #metoo and the like, more so than "larger government control" in the abstract. The contention is that it's more about cultural change and the so-called "culture wars".

I don't see it as a past vs future thing. There is no need to discard freedom in the name of 'newness'. Trump is not hanging on to the past. He believes people should have control of their own lives. This belief does not make him or his voters backwards. He is not selling people things that he is not delivering. He has been fairly effective doing exactly what he said he was going to do. People definitely respect that. I really don't care if he is wrong on crowd sizes, or if he cheats on his wives. People gave him a job, and he has stuck to his promises more than any other president I can remember. I am curious about all the lies that are giving you problems. So far, he has not had a 'you can keep your doctor' moment.

Thanks for posting your thoughts. If I'm understanding you, you would say that for you it's not so much that you're willing to excuse some statements which you would otherwise consider egregious on the basis that Trump is a champion against an illegitimate establishment. Rather, you just don't think he's told any particularly egregious lies. Do I have that right?

FWIW, one example the article uses of a blatant lie is the claim that climate change is a chinese hoax. But to be clear I'm not looking for an argument on the veracity of specific claims in this thread.

I'd like to contribute more, but you nave not been around long enough to trust to click on that link. Sorry.

No problem. You can always copy/paste the title of the article into the search engine of your choice if you want to read the article.

The study's focus on 'culture wars', #metoo, and affirmative action is also tilted far to the left. Speaking for myself, that stuff is more like noise than actual issues. I think it is a great mistake to frame an argument that white people are afraid of minorities. This misses the point entirely, and I believe the argument is a construct in itself to promote racial conflict. It really is much more basic and fundamental. 'Equal opportunity' vs Equal outcomes' I think people should be allowed to succeed. 'Personal freedom vs Social Safety Nets' People should be allowed to make good choices. To assume most people can't is pretty pessimistic. Not everyone makes good choices, but safety nets should just be for people who need help. Again, people should be allowed the chance to succeed. 'Globalism' vs 'Nationalism' Why should people even vote if the country they live in does not have sovereignty on how its people live? There is nothing wrong with countries looking out for their own interests, and unlike many posters on this board, I do not believe nationalism makes you a monstrous nazi. There is so much going on that has nothing to do with ethnicity, that I feel ethnicity itself is just being used to create and maintain division.

I think it is a great mistake to frame an argument that white people are afraid of minorities.
Where on earth did that come from? Because the OP mentioned affirmative action?
Pretty sure that is not what the article was referring to.

I mentioned the racial component because it is a common democrat argument that the old 'white men' are having a cow because of the new 'minorities' gaining demographic power. I thought this was related to the OP. I'm sure the sociology experts run with this and promote it as the main motivation for any Trump supporter on any issue. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I really don't care about any of that stuff. I'm more ideologically driven. I don't care what someone looks like if they treat others well and value personal freedom.

 

[Richard-H]

That is the subject of a recent article in the American Sociological Review (PDF attached; see below for citation).

Thinking of Trump, the authors want to better understand what makes him seem authentic or trustworthy to certain voters despite the fact that he sometimes deliberately says things those voters know to be false. The question is essentially: why don't those falsehoods diminish his credibility?

They carry out an experiment to try to test a theoretical hypothesis, but I thought it would be interesting to see if Trump supporters here consider the conclusions they reach to be valid. To paraphrase, they argue that rather than causing Trump to lose credibility, those deliberate lies become further evidence of his authenticity to those voters because they perceive the lies in the context of a larger crisis of political illegitimacy. That is, they perceive Trump to be challenging an illegitimate political order, and his tactics justified by that context.

The authors describe the perception of illegitimacy (in general) like this:

"these crises involve three groups: (1) a political establishment; (2) an incumbent group who sees itself as the “real people” (Müller 2016) but has been losing power; and (3) a group of erstwhile outsiders who are rising and whom the incumbent group views as being unfairly favored by the establishment." (8)

"Such a power-devaluation crisis thus creates conditions under which a traditionalist or right-wing lying demagogue should have authentic appeal. The logic is the same as in a representation crisis, but now the demagogue is challenging new norms rather than existing ones, and he is arguing that the establishment is illegitimate because it has betrayed the values and interests of an incumbent group that had previously held sway for appropriate reasons. Again, the demagogue will seem more of an authentic champion insofar as her norm-breaking induces the (new) establishment to denigrate her, thus making her seem more committed to the aggrieved constituency than is a candidate who does not flagrantly break (the new) norms." (9)
​

Please ignore the apparently pejorative connotations of "lying demogogue", they give the term a somewhat more technical gloss, but I'm interested in whether this narrative makes sense to people who identify as Trump supporters. Is Trump "an authentic champion" because he breaks norms (i.e. of political correctness, or etc.)? Do you consider yourself to be a member of a group that is losing relative status or power to other less deserving groups of people? If you disagree with the authors, what do you think they get wrong?

1) Hahl, Oliver, Minjae Kim, and Ezra Sivan. 2018. "The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue:

Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy." American Sociological Review, 83(1):1-33.​

Its simple:

1. Trump is a lying bag of shit and trumpbots are lying bags of shit. They like him because he is like them.

2. Americans politics have always been 'played between the 40 yard lines'. Politicians on both sides have made outrageously stupid promises to their base in order to get elected, but when they get to Washington they use their brains and swing to the center. The result has been that America is the most powerful nation in history in just about every way imaginable. Washington bureaucracy has served us well.

3. Now we have a President that's a fucking idiot supported by fucking idiots.

 

[well named]

I mentioned the racial component because it is a common democrat argument that the old 'white men' are having a cow because of the new 'minorities' gaining demographic power. I thought this was related to the OP.

It is definitely related to the OP. There's a fair amount of evidence for the claim that some (not nearly all, to be sure) support for Trump is driven by status anxiety felt by white voters. Not purely on matters of race relations between whites and blacks, but in relation to immigration, refugees, the Muslim ban, and so on. This is not to say that these issues motivate you, but it's not a phenomenon that Democrats made up.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Trump's populism isn't a counter culture move against democrat movements. Again, I'm only speaking for myself, but at the most, I view that stuff as annoying. Trump's populism is more of a push against democrat abuse of power (IRS), Clinton, Holder, Lynch, and Rice. Trump also promised to enforce the law on immigration, and keep other countries from taking advantage of us on both trade and foreign policy. He brought a common sense and very un-establishment look at how to help businesses. I think the main pushback against stuff like BLM and #metoo is the fact that the left and the media have bashed conservatives every chance they get as anti-women, and racist. We have heard so much of it that it is literally nauseating. After being vilified for decades, you expect republicans to embrace this stuff? Support for Trump has little to do with social issues.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

LOL
Here is a simple answer : Partisanship. This is nothing new. Obama could have shot someone on 4th avenue, and his supporters wouldnt give a shit. Same goes for many past Presidents.
Why does it seem like "educated" people are often dumb as fuck?

In Trump's case, it is more than partisanship, TN. I think the OP is asking a perfectly reasonable question. Why so touchy?

LOL
We have had presidents that lied with substance OL. Trumps lies are usually about bullshit. Lies to skew public opinion over MAJOR issues like regulation of 20% our economy. Wars. His/Their supporters didnt bat an eye. THEY STILL DENY IT.
This is only reasonable if you dont consider our past.
Im only 32 and i know this is routine with partisan hacks. Hell, people would take bullets to their integrity for Presidents that lead before they were even born!
Partisanship is a disease.

Of course the dyed in the wool Republicans voted for the Republican candidate; they would have voted for whatever/whomever was offered to them. You're absolutely right that there is some sort of disease at work there, in this case. But that is NOT who the OP is asking. Since neither of us support Trump, he's not looking for our answers either.
I find a well educated and thoughtful liberal to be a welcome addition here, instead of the usual "blow me, Nazi" conversations we tend to have.
This guy is not 320. Ease down.

Drink some coffee madam
Thinking of Trump, the authors want to better understand what makes him seem authentic or trustworthy to certain voters despite the fact that he sometimes deliberately says things those voters know to be false. The question is essentially: why don't those falsehoods diminish his credibility?
My comments are on point and relevant to the OP.

So you think every single Trump supporter here (let alone those all over the country) is in it for the party platform alone? At least that's what "partisan" means to me. Maybe it means something else to you.

Maybe not every single one, but certainly most partisans here act like politics is an organized sport, IMO. Party over policy is the norm rather than the exception.

 

[well named]

I think the main pushback against stuff like BLM and #metoo is the fact that the left and the media have bashed conservatives every chance they get as anti-women, and racist. We have heard so much of it that it is literally nauseating. After being vilified for decades, you expect republicans to embrace this stuff? Support for Trump has little to do with social issues.

The first couple sentences here seem to be in some tension with your last sentence. Doesn't it seem understandable if Trump support is in part backlash against villification that you/they find nauseating? It would seem odd to me to characterize the situation in such strong terms while at the same time arguing that his support has nothing to do with those sentiments.

 

[DustyInfinity]

I find racial politics and false accusations by women to be annoying, but neither would be a reason to vote for someone or to support them politically. These are not voting issues. I think there are quite a few republicans that don't care at all about social justice issues. Obviously, everyone should be treated equally under the law, but this quickly escalates into victim group politics, which I don't think has anything to do with equality. I'll go back to the argument of old 'white' vs new 'minority'. Why does the demographic change have to be about race at all? Why haven't your professors or the media made a peep about the political ramifications of adding a demographic that votes overwhelmingly one way? This is clearly a political threat, not a cultural one. If the illegal immigrants voted republican, would it still make sense to call it a racial issue? I think this argument is an invention by democrats to create division, because it seems pretty obvious that it is not what people look like, but more about competing political views that is the problem. I'll be even more specific. Cuban immigrants in Florida have a history of voting republican. Hispanics don't HAVE to be democrats. I obviously value their political support, and it has nothing to do with race. People might be sick of racial slander and using women as political weapons, but that is a separate issue than Trump support or politics. That is more of a media issue, and a divisive DNC strategy. I don't think it is wise to mix cultural motivations and political ones as if they are the same thing.

 

[well named]

Why haven't your professors or the media made a peep about the political ramifications of adding a demographic that votes overwhelmingly one way?

There's plenty of academic work in political science on demographics, polarization, and so on, and I've read plenty of media coverage of the political ramifications of demographic changes in the US in the last decade too, from a variety of different perspectives. I don't think the premise of your question is really true.

This is clearly a political threat, not a cultural one.

I think it's interesting (re: the subject of this thread) that you view it as a threat, whether cultural or otherwise, and that was kind of the point of my last post to you. You say that these things don't really matter to your voting preferences but you also keep using words that strongly suggest that they probably do matter at least a little (threat, villification, nauseating).

If the illegal immigrants voted republican, would it still make sense to call it a racial issue?

Well, first of all illegal immigrants can't vote, and despite what you may have heard there is no evidence of a problem involving vote fraud committed by immigrants. But i'll answer your question as if you asked about immigrants who have become naturalized citizens, or about Americans of hispanic ethnicity. I'm not sure if by "racial issue" you mean merely an issue that involves differences between people of different races, or "issue" in the sense of a problem. I think in your hypothetical it would remain a "racial issue" in the sense that there's an interesting phenomena involving race. It's not clear that it would be evidence of a social problem; that depends on the reasons.

I think this argument is an invention by democrats to create division, because it seems pretty obvious that it is not what people look like, but more about competing political views that is the problem. I'll be even more specific. Cuban immigrants in Florida have a history of voting republican. Hispanics don't HAVE to be democrats.

You are correct about Cuban immigrants in Florida, but I don't think this supports your conclusion that there is some argument being invented by democrats to create division. It's also the case that hispanic voters in general used to be more evenly split between the parties, e.g. in 2000 Bush got about 44% of hispanic voters according to exit polls. It makes more sense to conclude that declining support for the GOP among hispanic voters in general (especially Mexican-Americans) reflects the changing policy preferences and attitudes towards immigrants between the two parties, and especially a perception among those voters that the GOP is hostile to them in a bigoted way (whether you call it racism or just xenophobia).

I don't find the argument that it's really just about party leaders "creating division" very compelling. It would be like arguing that you only vote Republican because you've been duped by the GOP; it's a cheap argument that denies you of your own agency. Hispanic, black, and asian voters also have agency, and we shouldn't dismiss out of hand that they have their own motivations, which is of course also apparent in the fact that no group votes uniformly for one party. It's also an argument that simply assumes that there is no legitimacy to complaints about racism made by members of those minority groups. In fact there's also plenty of evidence of the continued salience of racism in American society, which is a much larger topic but another reason why I don't find that argument compelling. To sum it up: racial (or gender, for that matter) trends in voting can't be easily hand-waved away by saying there's nothing there but Democratic manipulation. The Democratic party has increasingly moved in the direction of directly representing those groups -- including their complaints -- that's fair enough. But they didn't have to manipulate people into having those complaints to begin with.