13 ms·

> We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. > I don’t understand how 43% of th

by lhnz 10y ago

> We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. > But I’d like to find out, because we have to include > everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to > stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, > we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020. > > That kind of diversity is painful and unpopular, but > it is critical to health of a democratic and pluralistic > society. We shouldn’t start purging people for > supporting the wrong political candidate. > That's not how things are done in this country. This impresses me. That is exactly what I was trying to explain to somebody else in the other thread, and I was starting to feel like it was a position that nobody else held.

gkoberger 10y ago
Sam tweeted that this was his favorite article about the election: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on... It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  > It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters. I think what we're seeing are the results of taking 6 trillion dollars that should have been spent building infrastructure for working class Americans and instead wasting it in Iraq.
  - ones_and_zeros 10y ago
    Without the war there would not have been 6 trillion dollars to spend... I think Trump supporters are regular simple Americans who are looking around and seeing they haven't benefited from the economic prosperity at a rate equivalent to their output and are facing an all out assault on their labor via neo-liberal policies adopted by both major parties. Neither party is going to point back at themselves and Trump has seized their support by blaming common scapegoats and tapping in to populist racial, gender and religious discrimination. Democrats have and do do this too, ie "super predators", etc.
  - twoodfin 10y ago
    Holy moly that number keeps getting bigger. The budgetary cost of the Iraq war was, according to the Congressional Research Service, $815 billion[1]. Even if you would rather model long-term or indirect costs, there was never, ever $6 trillion in the Federal budget over the corresponding period that could have been redirected to "infrastructure for working class Americans". [1] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
  - hacker42 10y ago
    I think this is basically the major and effective meme/emotion that Trump plays into: Nostalgia. Thiel also voiced concerns about the state of the infrastructure at a GOP Convention. Nostalgia is a strong emotion and it is often based on false memories or weak comparisons. Sure, large parts of our infrastructure are worse than they were 50 years ago, but on the other hand we had very different problems back then. We used to consume goods that turned out to be toxic. Today almost everyone has access to extremely fast transportation via air travel. Almost everyone has access to the world's knowledge at any time. Medicine has improved a lot. "Make it great again" is the central lie and people are dumb enough not to question it and to believe his financial independence would make him a superior leader, when in fact he only displays characteristics that are opposed to the ones we should expect from a good leader, for example decency and intelligence.
- sigil 10y ago
  If you found the Cracked article insightful, an even deeper discussion of this "dark matter" phenomenon ("I don't know anyone who supports candidate X, but I can measure their gravity, so they must be out there somewhere") is in this essay from Slate Star Codex. "I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup" http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
- enjo 10y ago
  I spent my high school years in rural Arkansas (after living a more urban existence for most of my life). This article does a fantastic job of articulating exactly what I've observed.
- pnathan 10y ago
  For a more formal look at this, I'd suggest looking at Sarah Kenzidor's work over the past year. She's a journalist in St. Louis with a PhD in... sociology? (I think?), specializing in the Uzbekistan country & regime. She's brought that knowledge to bear on the Trump campaign and has spent a lot of time trying to explain to the 'coasts' Why Trump. Her book on this is called the "View from Flyover Country". I haven't read the book, specifically, but I've read most of her articles on the matter since the spring.
- michaelbuckbee 10y ago
  The article (and phrase) I found really helpful in understanding the split in support is: "The press takes him (Trump)literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-ma...
  - monk_e_boy 10y ago
    I'm not from the US, so take this as an outsiders view. Clinton says different things in public than she does to her friends. She also flip flops. This is not trustworthy. Trump is unpleasant, but at least he talks straight. I think this could be the last election of its kind in the USA, a two party system that works to produce these two candidates? Someone (Facebook, google, twitter) will come up with a better way of informing the public how unfair the system is. How is electoral reform view in the US? In the UK it is very popular and there is often talk of STV or something similar. [edit] I am losing valuable imaginary internet points! Oh no! Here, this makes my point better than I can: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/n...
    - int_19h 10y ago
      Electoral reform is a hot topic, but what people usually mean by it is not a change in how the votes are counted. The most popular issue is campaign financing (with the current arrangement being that there's no practical limit a private party can pour into the elections, so long as they do the Super-PAC dance). Another big issue of concern is gerrymandering. For Democrats, the way their primaries function (superdelegates etc) has been in the spotlight. As far as voting system itself is concerned, electoral college is the most common issue that is raised, and switching to national popular vote counting is the most common proposal to fix it. There's an ongoing attempt to do this from bottom up, by signing up enough states that they can basically impose this without changing the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... Things like STV for presidential elections, or MMP for parliamentary, are mostly under the radar - there are certainly people who are aware of them and push for them, but they're a very small minority, and the public is largely unaware. Just to give you some sense of how these stack up, the only electoral issue that has been discussed at length in this political campaign by any of the major candidates (including primaries) is campaign finance reform. I haven't heard a peep about electoral college or proportional representation.
- sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
  I'm kind of surprised 'Hillbilly Elegy' hasn't come up yet. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-lives-of-poor-white-people http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-lives-... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-original-underclass/492731/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-orig...
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    I feel like this deserves a link to the rebuttal. I'm not embracing it (or Jacobin), but it's a plausible indictment of Elegy. On a related note, it should be noted that the average Trump supporter earns more than the average white American. There's a more subtle grouping here than "rural poor". [1] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/hillbilly-elegy-review-jd-vance-national-review-white-working-class-appalachia/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/hillbilly-elegy-review-jd...
- SonicSoul 10y ago
  i found this article enlightening as well: http://www.stirjournal.com/2016/04/01/i-know-why-poor-whites-chant-trump-trump-trump/ http://www.stirjournal.com/2016/04/01/i-know-why-poor-whites...
- Yhippa 10y ago
  That article is rough around the edges but very insightful. I keep this in mind a lot. I think to just go ahead and label all Trump supporters as idiots or degenerates is very unproductive. There is some message that speaks to the people left behind that maybe the Democrats are ignoring.
- findjashua 10y ago
  The Guardian also published a really good article explaining how blue-collar workers are hurting because of their jobs being off-shored, and how Trump's promise to end free-trade agreements and bring those jobs back to the US is the biggest reason behind his appeal: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald...
- whybroke 10y ago
  >The vast majority of possible careers involve moving to the city, and around every city is now a hundred-foot wall called "Cost of Living." It's impossible to over emphasize how core to the problem this is. From social mobility to resentment of the "elites" and a dozen others.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  It's a great article, but only describes a very small minority of Trump supporters. The median household income of a Trump supporter is $72,000, well above that of the median voter, or the median Clinton supporter. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-...
  - noobermin 10y ago
    That surprises me greatly. I'm assuming that the fact that the poor themselves don't vote anyway skews the medians of voters up anyway, as they hint at in that article. What a way to dash "established facts."
- morgante 10y ago
  It doesn't do a good job of explaining why someone like Thiel (or my well-off friends) support Trump. They're city people with lots to lose.
ryanSrich 10y ago
It's definitely not a popular position. Just take a look at Twitter and you'll see people from both sides nearly calling for the death of the other. While not super surprising I've seen little discussion around the fact that your chances of being fired for supporting one of the candidates (you can guess who) publicly are pretty good. Especially when you work in the tech field. Which to me is really interesting because it shows a side of politics that I've personally not seen before. This election has permeated all institutions and if you're not on the right side you're going to have a bad time.
- Swizec 10y ago
  > you'll see people from both sides nearly calling for the death of the other Not to sound too tinfoilhatter, but this is exactly what you would want the masses to behave like as a politician. Neither candidate gives two shits about you me or anyone who isn't part of the ruling elite, they're just in it for the power.
  - the_duke 10y ago
    It's exactly how populists want the voters to think and behave. They nurture and encourage distrust, anger, aggression. And use it to fuel enthusiasm and support for themselves. You see this pattern often in history. When holding an elected office, this kind of separation is a big problem, because it necessarily seeps into political entities (parlaments, senates, congress) and makes collaboration hard.
    - Swizec 10y ago
      Isn't it curious how this sort of deep strife only flares up during elections?
      - spdustin 10y ago
        I don't believe that the occurrence of an election is itself causation at work. The reason it seems that way, to me, is the same reason that abused women tend to step out of their shame when they see other women doing it, or when their anger is kindled into a flame that exceeds their fear. People feel empowered when they realize they're not alone (edit: and someone they identify as a peer has given a voice to their own beliefs, experiences or feelings) Sometimes, that feeling of empowerment makes them speak up. Sometimes it makes them lash out. It's an unfortunate coincidence that a presidential candidate is directly responsible for catalyzing both groups of people into responding so passionately today. Realistically, I believe that the electorate has felt disenfranchised (using the more general "deprived of a voice" definition) for many years now, and for various reasons. A republic such as ours can never have an electorate that, in its entirety, feels like their voices are heard. I don't know how to help that; I don't think anyone does. Dividing the electorate further isn't the solution for any leader. Inciting them to illegal or violent behavior isn't the solution either, unless you aim to dismantle a democratic republic. I've always felt "us-vs-them", and I believe everyone has, because my peer group has ideals different from others. So we find other groups that share them, and we try harder to be heard, or to exert the influence that the framework of our republic grants to us (i.e. voting) or that society grants to us (i.e. boycotting). But I do not believe the election itself has caused a divide, it's the candidates (yes, one more than any other, but all have contributed) whose rhetoric has amplified a divide that was there all along.
Waterluvian 10y ago
Precisely. It doesn't mean that their perspective is guaranteed to be rational or free from ugly ideas. But it's a valid perspective.
- kybernetikos 10y ago
  What does validity mean in this context?
  - darksaints 10y ago
    Not gonna put words into someone else's mouth, but here it is from my perspective: We come to the opinions we have based on the experiences we have, and everybody has different experiences. Equally as true is the opinions that don't form due to the experiences we don't have. One example I have from someone I disagree with. It was a rich kid about to fully take over his father's company via inheritance, who agreed vehemently with trickle down economics. From his perspective, he created jobs (I'd at least agree with that much). The way that he created jobs was by investing resources on new profitable projects that required labor. In his perspective, how could he ever create more jobs by constraining his resources? He couldn't, but that is exactly the point (someone else creates the jobs, not him). He couldn't see the alternative of government enabling new jobs because the entire sum of his life experience portrayed government as a barrier to investment, not as an enabler of opportunity. The simple fact that he never had to rely on the government as an enabler of opportunity blinded him to the possibility that it could use his resources more efficiently than he could. I'd consider his opinion falsifiable, but his perspective valid. I would never in a million years be able to tell him his perspective was wrong.
    - kybernetikos 10y ago
      For 'valid' to mean anything interesting there has to be the possibility of something not being valid. If the criteria for 'valid' is merely that 'someone thinks it' then it's starting to sound like it's not a useful distinction to make.
      - 10y ago
mtgx 10y ago
What I don't understand "even more" than that (literally, by the numbers) is how 49% of the country is registered independent and yet keeps voting Democrat and Republican. Worse yet, 76% of the country "wants to see alternatives" in the debates...but still keeps voting Democrat and Republican. Even if people agree to buy into this whole "this election is special" premise, I think people would be well within their rights to riot in 2020, if they hear one more time that that election is special, too, and they must once again vote Democrat ("because who else are they going to vote for?!") Because when elections become "special" all the time, it means they really aren't. And it means the problem is systemic, and it's that systemic issue that needs to be addressed before voting against any particular candidate. Otherwise, these problems are never going to end. "Fix Democracy First" - as Lessig once believed (like until earlier this year) before he also started thinking that people should just shut up and vote for Clinton already.
- duaneb 10y ago
  What third parties? Would you rather have the libertarians or green party? Maybe a party or candidate with even less of a track record? Neither offer a sane way forward.
  - scaryspooky 10y ago
    I keep seeing this argument, and just because you disagree with libertarian principles doesn't make them more "insane." Dismissing in such a negative way well thought out view points because they don't match your world view is counterproductive to having good policy discussions.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      To me, they are insane. I don't know what to say. They don't bring much to the table I take seriously. I like some of the principles, but it's not a coherent platform. Ironically, the same complaints apply to both the libertarian and the Green Party, though I have more beef with Jill Stein than the platform itself.
  - 10y ago
xorgar831 10y ago
This is what demagogues do, they raley and gain power through uniting groups of people over fear. The extreme political tactics by the GOP lead to the scenario we have today, and Trump is building off of what the GOP laid the groundwork for over the past 40-50 years.
- postcarnival 10y ago
  lot of accusations but maybe there are reasons that half the country believes in what he's saying? we've had more terrorist attacks, more foreign policy disasters, and more cultural and racial unrest in the past few years than in modern times yet you shut down the conversation by attributing it to "fear" as if people don't have a right to be fearful... nice
  - spdustin 10y ago
    I don't mean to troll here, but I've never gotten anyone to give evidence of these claims. I'm an open-minded person, and evidence speaks loudly to me to change my mind. I fear that there are many who won't allow evidence to change their mind unless their feelings are acknowledged and compensated for first, and I think that's a difficult circumstance to manage and get past, because often that acknowledgement is seen as an endorsement. I've tried to find evidence supporting these claims on my own, only to discover that there have been fewer terrorist attacks in the last, say, 16 years than in the years before, and better economic standing for minorities in the same period versus before then. I've been able to find a slow but consistent improvement to the overall quality of life of Americans by any objective measure I could discern. It's still subjectively and objectively bad for some groups, but even there, I can only find evidence of a slow but consistent improvement over time. What am I missing? If I and others can understand that, maybe we can make a difference.
    - postcarnival 10y ago
      I too look for evidence and I have to be careful not to put emotions in front of rationale but one thing that strikes me about the rise of isis and the ensuing terrorist attacks from Europe to California is the media coverage. I honestly feel like the same media that is actively trying to destroy Donald Trump also can't get enough of him. Do you remember when all of those journalists were having their heads cut off? Or the many bombings and attacks after? The media created the term "ISIS" and blanketed 24 hour news cycles with it. The same has happened for the police shootings. You may be able to say that based on the numbers things are looking up, but if you turn on the TV the past few years you wouldn't know that. I also think that is why many Trump supporters are sick of the "media". They've been spoon-fed a teaspoon of fear a day and now that they chose their candidate whom they feel will lead them to higher-ground and that same media tells them they're racist/bigot/stupid for supporting him, they no longer trust media outright.
Aloha 10y ago
You made the comment I was going to make. Though I would have included the following too: > The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less. When it comes down to it.. its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper.
- mashmac2 10y ago
  >its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper. The key there is that they _feel_ like they're not getting ahead - a very different thing than not actually getting ahead, and much more dangerous.
  - Tactic 10y ago
    This sounds like the type of thing that is being advocated against. Telling a large section of the country that what they feel is not true. I'm not certain from what vantage that statement could ever accurately be made. I certainly wouldn't try this tact with your significant other.
  - maxsilver 10y ago
    Don't just assume they only feel like they're not getting ahead. A large majority of these folks are in actual fact falling far behind, and that fact is not easily observed in many of the metrics people often use for measurements (like 'household income', and 'unemployment')
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    A lot of them actually aren't, though, by any reasonable metric. Health? Number of close friends? Lifespan? Addiction rate? Income? Unemployment rate? Labor participation rate? By any of those metrics, life in a lot of rural-red communities is getting worse, and has been for years. I'm aware of the "better but it feels worse" pattern - crime rates are the prime example - but it's far too glib to say that covers everything. Inconvenient as it is, sometimes you have to actually improve things to make people feel better. I suspect that most people will not accept any definition of 'ahead' which leaves them sicker, poorer, lonelier, and dying younger. And I don't think there's any reason that they should accept it.
551199 10y ago
SNL writer Chris Kelly 'How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?'[0] Person thinks 40% of people are crazy, racist, hates women etc. Maybe the person who thinks that is the one not understanding the situation. Clinton: Read Wikileaks, study Clinton Foundation (Haiti) Trump: Read news from both sides msm and Breitbart & similar. Scott Adams blog gives you some sense what is going on.[1] [0]http://archive.is/NiRJ4 http://archive.is/NiRJ4 [1]http://blog.dilbert.com http://blog.dilbert.com
- chris11 10y ago
  Thinking there is a possibility someone is crazy, racist, or sexist is definitely reasonable if that person is stating they agree with a crazy, racist, sexist. I'd wonder if someone was racist if they supported David Duke.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Counterpoint: many of the founding fathers were crazy sexist racists, yet we still hold their other opinions in quite high regard.
    - susan_hall 10y ago
      No "we" don't. Not all of us. Many of us hold the Founding Fathers in deep contempt. There is now DNA evidence showing that Thomas Jefferson raped Sally Hemings. That means that all of Thomas Jefferson's writings, including the Declaration Of Independence, needs to be re-evaluated and perhaps put aside.
      - r_smart 10y ago
        I'm intrigued. How could DNA provide evidence of rape?
        xhedley 10y ago
        DNA provides evidence of paternity of Sally Heming's children. Which appears to be that the father was Sally Heming's owner Thomas Jefferson. Sally Heming may have been head over heels in love with Thomas Jefferson. But on the balance of probability I would guess there might have been coercion (hence rape) from a slave owner to a slave. Evidence, not proof.
aaroninsf 10y ago
There are 'wrong political candidates,' and there are fascists. The question is all the more urgent, but the conclusion that there is neither justification nor need to drawn clear bright lines is not. Support for Trump is not something about which reasonable people can disagree. People who do so should be called out, isolated, and challenged. That goes double in environments like the Valley, given to libertarian hubris, over regard for one's own talents and discernment, and undo concentration of wealth married to an unjustified sense that it results from genius...
kapitza 10y ago
> That's not how things are done in this country. Tocqueville, almost 200 years ago, begs to differ: "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.... in America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases; but woe to him if he goes beyond them." [1] What's changed this year isn't that Americans are being purged for having the wrong political ideas. That's been happening not for 200 years, but well over 300. Roger Williams, anyone? [2] What's changed this year is that the major candidate of one of the main two parties holds beliefs that would get any normal American purged. Added to this is the velocity of change: 50 years ago, most normal Americans held these same beliefs. (Heck, not 10 years ago, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were swearing up and down that "marriage is between a man and a woman.") So you're seeing two processes: an increase in the speed at which America's governing class can evolve its beliefs, and a decrease in their ability to drag the rest of America along with them. No surprise that the latter group wants to respond to an existential threat with an existential threat. [1] http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2001/10/alexis-de-tocqueville-on-political-correctness/ http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2001/10/alexis-de-tocqu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  >within these barriers an author may write what he pleases; but woe to him if he goes beyond them. This has been more recently termed as the "Overton Window" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aloha 10y ago
    Yeah, I can see this - and the overton window for various parts to the political spectrum no longer match up.
- labster 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
evo_9 10y ago
I agree it's an impressive summary for sure. However, how does one bring forward the 43% that appears to agree so strongly with Trump there isn't really any common ground to have a reasonable discussion around? How do you go about working with someone that is uneducated, and often proud of this fact, raised to believe all other races are a blight against life as they know it, and often are proud of this, truly believe global warming/climate change is a hoax? Etc etc. I'm not trying to be coy, I just think that fundamentally those that support Trump are different. My father is a huge fox news watching old-school Italian. He is a die-hard Trump supporter. He isn't educated, he isn't interested in learning why Trump is wrong. He isn't ever going to change his mind and when (hopefully) Trump loses, will be part of the 43% calling the election 'stolen'. I love the man, he is my father after-all, but I have noticed that he (a life-long Republican) simply doesn't have empathy for others the way I do. When I ask him would he rather have more homeless or no homeless, his first reply back was 'well how much is it going to cost?'. And this is how 'they' think, there is a distinct difference in how he, and i suspect most 'hardcore conservatives' view human life (unless of course it fits their pro-life agenda, then of course they are suddenly lovers of 'life' above all else). Money is more important to them, it always will be, and the idea of helping others is never going to be acceptable (unless, maybe they find themselves in a situation where they need help). I'm sorry to be so negative about this but I'm quite a bit older than most around here and in my experience it's a losing battle to try to convert anyone to a more reasonable position. The only thing that seems to help is more eduction, more exposure to diverse cultures, and generally not focusing only on one self above all else. But then look at Thiel, and then you have to wonder if it's something more. Empathy and Personality Disorders: http://www.healthyplace.com/personality-disorders/malignant-self-love/empathy-and-personality-disorders/ http://www.healthyplace.com/personality-disorders/malignant-...
- r_smart 10y ago
  >How do you go about working with someone that is uneducated This is a myth. [0] >with someone that is uneducated, and often proud of this fact, raised to believe all other races are a blight against life as they know it, and often are proud of this, >I'm not trying to be coy I can assure you no one is about to accuse you of that :) [1] [0]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-... [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+coy&oq=define+coy&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.1527j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=define+coy&oq=define+coy&aqs...

by lhnz 10y ago

gkoberger 10y ago

Sam tweeted that this was his favorite article about the election: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on... It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters.

Alex3917 10y ago
> It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters. I think what we're seeing are the results of taking 6 trillion dollars that should have been spent building infrastructure for working class Americans and instead wasting it in Iraq.
- ones_and_zeros 10y ago
  Without the war there would not have been 6 trillion dollars to spend... I think Trump supporters are regular simple Americans who are looking around and seeing they haven't benefited from the economic prosperity at a rate equivalent to their output and are facing an all out assault on their labor via neo-liberal policies adopted by both major parties. Neither party is going to point back at themselves and Trump has seized their support by blaming common scapegoats and tapping in to populist racial, gender and religious discrimination. Democrats have and do do this too, ie "super predators", etc.
- twoodfin 10y ago
  Holy moly that number keeps getting bigger. The budgetary cost of the Iraq war was, according to the Congressional Research Service, $815 billion[1]. Even if you would rather model long-term or indirect costs, there was never, ever $6 trillion in the Federal budget over the corresponding period that could have been redirected to "infrastructure for working class Americans". [1] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
- hacker42 10y ago
  I think this is basically the major and effective meme/emotion that Trump plays into: Nostalgia. Thiel also voiced concerns about the state of the infrastructure at a GOP Convention. Nostalgia is a strong emotion and it is often based on false memories or weak comparisons. Sure, large parts of our infrastructure are worse than they were 50 years ago, but on the other hand we had very different problems back then. We used to consume goods that turned out to be toxic. Today almost everyone has access to extremely fast transportation via air travel. Almost everyone has access to the world's knowledge at any time. Medicine has improved a lot. "Make it great again" is the central lie and people are dumb enough not to question it and to believe his financial independence would make him a superior leader, when in fact he only displays characteristics that are opposed to the ones we should expect from a good leader, for example decency and intelligence.
sigil 10y ago
If you found the Cracked article insightful, an even deeper discussion of this "dark matter" phenomenon ("I don't know anyone who supports candidate X, but I can measure their gravity, so they must be out there somewhere") is in this essay from Slate Star Codex. "I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup" http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
enjo 10y ago
I spent my high school years in rural Arkansas (after living a more urban existence for most of my life). This article does a fantastic job of articulating exactly what I've observed.
pnathan 10y ago
For a more formal look at this, I'd suggest looking at Sarah Kenzidor's work over the past year. She's a journalist in St. Louis with a PhD in... sociology? (I think?), specializing in the Uzbekistan country & regime. She's brought that knowledge to bear on the Trump campaign and has spent a lot of time trying to explain to the 'coasts' Why Trump. Her book on this is called the "View from Flyover Country". I haven't read the book, specifically, but I've read most of her articles on the matter since the spring.
michaelbuckbee 10y ago
The article (and phrase) I found really helpful in understanding the split in support is: "The press takes him (Trump)literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-ma...
- monk_e_boy 10y ago
  I'm not from the US, so take this as an outsiders view. Clinton says different things in public than she does to her friends. She also flip flops. This is not trustworthy. Trump is unpleasant, but at least he talks straight. I think this could be the last election of its kind in the USA, a two party system that works to produce these two candidates? Someone (Facebook, google, twitter) will come up with a better way of informing the public how unfair the system is. How is electoral reform view in the US? In the UK it is very popular and there is often talk of STV or something similar. [edit] I am losing valuable imaginary internet points! Oh no! Here, this makes my point better than I can: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/n...
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Electoral reform is a hot topic, but what people usually mean by it is not a change in how the votes are counted. The most popular issue is campaign financing (with the current arrangement being that there's no practical limit a private party can pour into the elections, so long as they do the Super-PAC dance). Another big issue of concern is gerrymandering. For Democrats, the way their primaries function (superdelegates etc) has been in the spotlight. As far as voting system itself is concerned, electoral college is the most common issue that is raised, and switching to national popular vote counting is the most common proposal to fix it. There's an ongoing attempt to do this from bottom up, by signing up enough states that they can basically impose this without changing the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... Things like STV for presidential elections, or MMP for parliamentary, are mostly under the radar - there are certainly people who are aware of them and push for them, but they're a very small minority, and the public is largely unaware. Just to give you some sense of how these stack up, the only electoral issue that has been discussed at length in this political campaign by any of the major candidates (including primaries) is campaign finance reform. I haven't heard a peep about electoral college or proportional representation.
sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
I'm kind of surprised 'Hillbilly Elegy' hasn't come up yet. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-lives-of-poor-white-people http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-lives-... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-original-underclass/492731/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-orig...
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  I feel like this deserves a link to the rebuttal. I'm not embracing it (or Jacobin), but it's a plausible indictment of Elegy. On a related note, it should be noted that the average Trump supporter earns more than the average white American. There's a more subtle grouping here than "rural poor". [1] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/hillbilly-elegy-review-jd-vance-national-review-white-working-class-appalachia/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/hillbilly-elegy-review-jd...
SonicSoul 10y ago
i found this article enlightening as well: http://www.stirjournal.com/2016/04/01/i-know-why-poor-whites-chant-trump-trump-trump/ http://www.stirjournal.com/2016/04/01/i-know-why-poor-whites...
Yhippa 10y ago
That article is rough around the edges but very insightful. I keep this in mind a lot. I think to just go ahead and label all Trump supporters as idiots or degenerates is very unproductive. There is some message that speaks to the people left behind that maybe the Democrats are ignoring.
findjashua 10y ago
The Guardian also published a really good article explaining how blue-collar workers are hurting because of their jobs being off-shored, and how Trump's promise to end free-trade agreements and bring those jobs back to the US is the biggest reason behind his appeal: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald...
whybroke 10y ago
>The vast majority of possible careers involve moving to the city, and around every city is now a hundred-foot wall called "Cost of Living." It's impossible to over emphasize how core to the problem this is. From social mobility to resentment of the "elites" and a dozen others.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
It's a great article, but only describes a very small minority of Trump supporters. The median household income of a Trump supporter is $72,000, well above that of the median voter, or the median Clinton supporter. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-...
- noobermin 10y ago
  That surprises me greatly. I'm assuming that the fact that the poor themselves don't vote anyway skews the medians of voters up anyway, as they hint at in that article. What a way to dash "established facts."
morgante 10y ago
It doesn't do a good job of explaining why someone like Thiel (or my well-off friends) support Trump. They're city people with lots to lose.

ryanSrich 10y ago

It's definitely not a popular position. Just take a look at Twitter and you'll see people from both sides nearly calling for the death of the other. While not super surprising I've seen little discussion around the fact that your chances of being fired for supporting one of the candidates (you can guess who) publicly are pretty good. Especially when you work in the tech field. Which to me is really interesting because it shows a side of politics that I've personally not seen before. This election has permeated all institutions and if you're not on the right side you're going to have a bad time.

Swizec 10y ago
> you'll see people from both sides nearly calling for the death of the other Not to sound too tinfoilhatter, but this is exactly what you would want the masses to behave like as a politician. Neither candidate gives two shits about you me or anyone who isn't part of the ruling elite, they're just in it for the power.
- the_duke 10y ago
  It's exactly how populists want the voters to think and behave. They nurture and encourage distrust, anger, aggression. And use it to fuel enthusiasm and support for themselves. You see this pattern often in history. When holding an elected office, this kind of separation is a big problem, because it necessarily seeps into political entities (parlaments, senates, congress) and makes collaboration hard.
  - Swizec 10y ago
    Isn't it curious how this sort of deep strife only flares up during elections?
    - spdustin 10y ago
      I don't believe that the occurrence of an election is itself causation at work. The reason it seems that way, to me, is the same reason that abused women tend to step out of their shame when they see other women doing it, or when their anger is kindled into a flame that exceeds their fear. People feel empowered when they realize they're not alone (edit: and someone they identify as a peer has given a voice to their own beliefs, experiences or feelings) Sometimes, that feeling of empowerment makes them speak up. Sometimes it makes them lash out. It's an unfortunate coincidence that a presidential candidate is directly responsible for catalyzing both groups of people into responding so passionately today. Realistically, I believe that the electorate has felt disenfranchised (using the more general "deprived of a voice" definition) for many years now, and for various reasons. A republic such as ours can never have an electorate that, in its entirety, feels like their voices are heard. I don't know how to help that; I don't think anyone does. Dividing the electorate further isn't the solution for any leader. Inciting them to illegal or violent behavior isn't the solution either, unless you aim to dismantle a democratic republic. I've always felt "us-vs-them", and I believe everyone has, because my peer group has ideals different from others. So we find other groups that share them, and we try harder to be heard, or to exert the influence that the framework of our republic grants to us (i.e. voting) or that society grants to us (i.e. boycotting). But I do not believe the election itself has caused a divide, it's the candidates (yes, one more than any other, but all have contributed) whose rhetoric has amplified a divide that was there all along.

Waterluvian 10y ago

Precisely. It doesn't mean that their perspective is guaranteed to be rational or free from ugly ideas. But it's a valid perspective.

kybernetikos 10y ago
What does validity mean in this context?
- darksaints 10y ago
  Not gonna put words into someone else's mouth, but here it is from my perspective: We come to the opinions we have based on the experiences we have, and everybody has different experiences. Equally as true is the opinions that don't form due to the experiences we don't have. One example I have from someone I disagree with. It was a rich kid about to fully take over his father's company via inheritance, who agreed vehemently with trickle down economics. From his perspective, he created jobs (I'd at least agree with that much). The way that he created jobs was by investing resources on new profitable projects that required labor. In his perspective, how could he ever create more jobs by constraining his resources? He couldn't, but that is exactly the point (someone else creates the jobs, not him). He couldn't see the alternative of government enabling new jobs because the entire sum of his life experience portrayed government as a barrier to investment, not as an enabler of opportunity. The simple fact that he never had to rely on the government as an enabler of opportunity blinded him to the possibility that it could use his resources more efficiently than he could. I'd consider his opinion falsifiable, but his perspective valid. I would never in a million years be able to tell him his perspective was wrong.
  - kybernetikos 10y ago
    For 'valid' to mean anything interesting there has to be the possibility of something not being valid. If the criteria for 'valid' is merely that 'someone thinks it' then it's starting to sound like it's not a useful distinction to make.
    - 10y ago

mtgx 10y ago

What I don't understand "even more" than that (literally, by the numbers) is how 49% of the country is registered independent and yet keeps voting Democrat and Republican. Worse yet, 76% of the country "wants to see alternatives" in the debates...but still keeps voting Democrat and Republican. Even if people agree to buy into this whole "this election is special" premise, I think people would be well within their rights to riot in 2020, if they hear one more time that that election is special, too, and they must once again vote Democrat ("because who else are they going to vote for?!") Because when elections become "special" all the time, it means they really aren't. And it means the problem is systemic, and it's that systemic issue that needs to be addressed before voting against any particular candidate. Otherwise, these problems are never going to end. "Fix Democracy First" - as Lessig once believed (like until earlier this year) before he also started thinking that people should just shut up and vote for Clinton already.

duaneb 10y ago
What third parties? Would you rather have the libertarians or green party? Maybe a party or candidate with even less of a track record? Neither offer a sane way forward.
- scaryspooky 10y ago
  I keep seeing this argument, and just because you disagree with libertarian principles doesn't make them more "insane." Dismissing in such a negative way well thought out view points because they don't match your world view is counterproductive to having good policy discussions.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    To me, they are insane. I don't know what to say. They don't bring much to the table I take seriously. I like some of the principles, but it's not a coherent platform. Ironically, the same complaints apply to both the libertarian and the Green Party, though I have more beef with Jill Stein than the platform itself.
- 10y ago

xorgar831 10y ago

This is what demagogues do, they raley and gain power through uniting groups of people over fear. The extreme political tactics by the GOP lead to the scenario we have today, and Trump is building off of what the GOP laid the groundwork for over the past 40-50 years.

postcarnival 10y ago
lot of accusations but maybe there are reasons that half the country believes in what he's saying? we've had more terrorist attacks, more foreign policy disasters, and more cultural and racial unrest in the past few years than in modern times yet you shut down the conversation by attributing it to "fear" as if people don't have a right to be fearful... nice
- spdustin 10y ago
  I don't mean to troll here, but I've never gotten anyone to give evidence of these claims. I'm an open-minded person, and evidence speaks loudly to me to change my mind. I fear that there are many who won't allow evidence to change their mind unless their feelings are acknowledged and compensated for first, and I think that's a difficult circumstance to manage and get past, because often that acknowledgement is seen as an endorsement. I've tried to find evidence supporting these claims on my own, only to discover that there have been fewer terrorist attacks in the last, say, 16 years than in the years before, and better economic standing for minorities in the same period versus before then. I've been able to find a slow but consistent improvement to the overall quality of life of Americans by any objective measure I could discern. It's still subjectively and objectively bad for some groups, but even there, I can only find evidence of a slow but consistent improvement over time. What am I missing? If I and others can understand that, maybe we can make a difference.
  - postcarnival 10y ago
    I too look for evidence and I have to be careful not to put emotions in front of rationale but one thing that strikes me about the rise of isis and the ensuing terrorist attacks from Europe to California is the media coverage. I honestly feel like the same media that is actively trying to destroy Donald Trump also can't get enough of him. Do you remember when all of those journalists were having their heads cut off? Or the many bombings and attacks after? The media created the term "ISIS" and blanketed 24 hour news cycles with it. The same has happened for the police shootings. You may be able to say that based on the numbers things are looking up, but if you turn on the TV the past few years you wouldn't know that. I also think that is why many Trump supporters are sick of the "media". They've been spoon-fed a teaspoon of fear a day and now that they chose their candidate whom they feel will lead them to higher-ground and that same media tells them they're racist/bigot/stupid for supporting him, they no longer trust media outright.

Aloha 10y ago

You made the comment I was going to make. Though I would have included the following too: > The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less. When it comes down to it.. its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper.

mashmac2 10y ago
>its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper. The key there is that they _feel_ like they're not getting ahead - a very different thing than not actually getting ahead, and much more dangerous.
- Tactic 10y ago
  This sounds like the type of thing that is being advocated against. Telling a large section of the country that what they feel is not true. I'm not certain from what vantage that statement could ever accurately be made. I certainly wouldn't try this tact with your significant other.
- maxsilver 10y ago
  Don't just assume they only feel like they're not getting ahead. A large majority of these folks are in actual fact falling far behind, and that fact is not easily observed in many of the metrics people often use for measurements (like 'household income', and 'unemployment')
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  A lot of them actually aren't, though, by any reasonable metric. Health? Number of close friends? Lifespan? Addiction rate? Income? Unemployment rate? Labor participation rate? By any of those metrics, life in a lot of rural-red communities is getting worse, and has been for years. I'm aware of the "better but it feels worse" pattern - crime rates are the prime example - but it's far too glib to say that covers everything. Inconvenient as it is, sometimes you have to actually improve things to make people feel better. I suspect that most people will not accept any definition of 'ahead' which leaves them sicker, poorer, lonelier, and dying younger. And I don't think there's any reason that they should accept it.

551199 10y ago

SNL writer Chris Kelly 'How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?'[0] Person thinks 40% of people are crazy, racist, hates women etc. Maybe the person who thinks that is the one not understanding the situation. Clinton: Read Wikileaks, study Clinton Foundation (Haiti) Trump: Read news from both sides msm and Breitbart & similar. Scott Adams blog gives you some sense what is going on.[1] [0]http://archive.is/NiRJ4 http://archive.is/NiRJ4 [1]http://blog.dilbert.com http://blog.dilbert.com

chris11 10y ago
Thinking there is a possibility someone is crazy, racist, or sexist is definitely reasonable if that person is stating they agree with a crazy, racist, sexist. I'd wonder if someone was racist if they supported David Duke.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Counterpoint: many of the founding fathers were crazy sexist racists, yet we still hold their other opinions in quite high regard.
  - susan_hall 10y ago
    No "we" don't. Not all of us. Many of us hold the Founding Fathers in deep contempt. There is now DNA evidence showing that Thomas Jefferson raped Sally Hemings. That means that all of Thomas Jefferson's writings, including the Declaration Of Independence, needs to be re-evaluated and perhaps put aside.
    - r_smart 10y ago
      I'm intrigued. How could DNA provide evidence of rape?
      - xhedley 10y ago
        DNA provides evidence of paternity of Sally Heming's children. Which appears to be that the father was Sally Heming's owner Thomas Jefferson. Sally Heming may have been head over heels in love with Thomas Jefferson. But on the balance of probability I would guess there might have been coercion (hence rape) from a slave owner to a slave. Evidence, not proof.

aaroninsf 10y ago

There are 'wrong political candidates,' and there are fascists. The question is all the more urgent, but the conclusion that there is neither justification nor need to drawn clear bright lines is not. Support for Trump is not something about which reasonable people can disagree. People who do so should be called out, isolated, and challenged. That goes double in environments like the Valley, given to libertarian hubris, over regard for one's own talents and discernment, and undo concentration of wealth married to an unjustified sense that it results from genius...

kapitza 10y ago

> That's not how things are done in this country. Tocqueville, almost 200 years ago, begs to differ: "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.... in America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases; but woe to him if he goes beyond them." [1] What's changed this year isn't that Americans are being purged for having the wrong political ideas. That's been happening not for 200 years, but well over 300. Roger Williams, anyone? [2] What's changed this year is that the major candidate of one of the main two parties holds beliefs that would get any normal American purged. Added to this is the velocity of change: 50 years ago, most normal Americans held these same beliefs. (Heck, not 10 years ago, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were swearing up and down that "marriage is between a man and a woman.") So you're seeing two processes: an increase in the speed at which America's governing class can evolve its beliefs, and a decrease in their ability to drag the rest of America along with them. No surprise that the latter group wants to respond to an existential threat with an existential threat. [1] http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2001/10/alexis-de-tocqueville-on-political-correctness/ http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2001/10/alexis-de-tocqu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams

wu-ikkyu 10y ago
>within these barriers an author may write what he pleases; but woe to him if he goes beyond them. This has been more recently termed as the "Overton Window" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Aloha 10y ago
  Yeah, I can see this - and the overton window for various parts to the political spectrum no longer match up.
labster 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

evo_9 10y ago

I agree it's an impressive summary for sure. However, how does one bring forward the 43% that appears to agree so strongly with Trump there isn't really any common ground to have a reasonable discussion around? How do you go about working with someone that is uneducated, and often proud of this fact, raised to believe all other races are a blight against life as they know it, and often are proud of this, truly believe global warming/climate change is a hoax? Etc etc. I'm not trying to be coy, I just think that fundamentally those that support Trump are different. My father is a huge fox news watching old-school Italian. He is a die-hard Trump supporter. He isn't educated, he isn't interested in learning why Trump is wrong. He isn't ever going to change his mind and when (hopefully) Trump loses, will be part of the 43% calling the election 'stolen'. I love the man, he is my father after-all, but I have noticed that he (a life-long Republican) simply doesn't have empathy for others the way I do. When I ask him would he rather have more homeless or no homeless, his first reply back was 'well how much is it going to cost?'. And this is how 'they' think, there is a distinct difference in how he, and i suspect most 'hardcore conservatives' view human life (unless of course it fits their pro-life agenda, then of course they are suddenly lovers of 'life' above all else). Money is more important to them, it always will be, and the idea of helping others is never going to be acceptable (unless, maybe they find themselves in a situation where they need help). I'm sorry to be so negative about this but I'm quite a bit older than most around here and in my experience it's a losing battle to try to convert anyone to a more reasonable position. The only thing that seems to help is more eduction, more exposure to diverse cultures, and generally not focusing only on one self above all else. But then look at Thiel, and then you have to wonder if it's something more. Empathy and Personality Disorders: http://www.healthyplace.com/personality-disorders/malignant-self-love/empathy-and-personality-disorders/ http://www.healthyplace.com/personality-disorders/malignant-...

r_smart 10y ago
>How do you go about working with someone that is uneducated This is a myth. [0] >with someone that is uneducated, and often proud of this fact, raised to believe all other races are a blight against life as they know it, and often are proud of this, >I'm not trying to be coy I can assure you no one is about to accuse you of that :) [1] [0]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-... [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+coy&oq=define+coy&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.1527j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=define+coy&oq=define+coy&aqs...