Does Trump inspire hate from his followers?

[Dill]

(12-12-2019, 11:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think he inspires actual hate in a very small minority. But mainly, I think he is just a figurehead for most. I don't think that most are "following blindly". I think they just don't care what he does. They have other issues that are important to them. For some, it is the impact of certain things on their revenue streams. For others, it is the abortion issue and stacking the courts. And others are interested in immigration issues, police issues, gun rights, small government, etc. Some people have multiple issues that he appeals to.

I don't think it is accurate or fair to size up all people who support Trump in a certain way that you group them as one-dimensional. This is what happens with extreme partisanship and the equal and opposite reaction to it from the other side. It makes it easier to shut them out and dismiss their arguments.

Another thoughtful post.  I agree that Trump's base should not be regarded as monolithic. I've said before that it is somewhat motley, including Evangelicals whose one priority is ending abortion and protecting Israel, 4chan trolls who just like to see liberal heads explode when government is broken, out of work miners/union labor who desperately want to believe their jobs will come back, and establishment Republicans who are embarrassed by Trump, but see party goals met in tax cuts, deregulation of environmental protections, and the record number of judicial appointments, so they exchange temporary shame for what they think will be long-term gain--like Gloria Steinem supporting Bill Clinton.

That said, I still think the majority of his base does respond to white identity issues, along with the others just mentioned, and those Trump voters are the least interested in rational debate, data, political history and legal arguments. I say this in part because Republicans had other choices who would have worked for their goals, but went almost en masse for the candidate with the most racialized rhetoric, the guy who scorned "PC" and the filtered speech of candidates who speak to all Americans.

Just suggesting that white identity is a factor in Trump support, however neutrally, feeds that rage, making dialogue even less likely. But I don't think this is an equal and opposite reaction to the other side's rhetoric.  It is a response very much fed, and at least partly managed, by individuals (within and without the party) and organizations who wish to direct and deploy the rage against political opponents.

That is in part why Trump currently has such power over the GOP Senate--to a degree no Dem president has ever had.

(12-12-2019, 11:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think there is a frustration among people with one partisan view when they try to "reach" supporters of an opposing view with a message and they continually get shut out. And then the first party places blame squarely on the second party for their "inability to consider all of the facts" or "listen to opposing arguments", etc. Could it be that the first party might also share part of the blame in the way they deliver their message and their own attitudes in delivering? Personally, I think it takes two to tango.

I've written the above paragraph using generalities such as "one partisan view" or "supporters of an opposing view" on purpose. This is not a chastisement of one party or ideology. Rather, they all do this. And that is how we get to where we are, IMO.

It is indeed possible that the "first party" might share some of the blame for inept delivery.  Since Trump has been elected, a number of "liberals" have addressed the very issue you raise by asking--"Are WE listening well enough?"--and taking steps to hear the other side, sometimes in serious social scientific fashion involving hundreds of interviews and journeys through "red America."  Examples would be Arlie Hochschild's Strangers in their own Land:Anger and Mourning on the American Right (2016). Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal: Or, Whatever Happened to the Party of the People? (2016), Robert Wuthnow's The Left Behind: Decline and Rage in Small Town America (2018), and more. Not to mention a number of books and articles on political language and Tribalism, which attempt to map where "the other side" is coming from.  There may be positive results from these efforts over the long term. But not yet.

"Both sides" don't seem to be doing this reassessment, however.  As forms, institutions, ideals and norms of public debate break down, it may be mistaken to assume that direct, plain debate--however coupled with "listening"--is the way to address the other side. That seems to invite trolling. One cannot break the "gridlock" until the issue of disinformation is more squarely addressed by a dwindling population of people who still hold to those older ideals and norms. 

One possible option--finally enact some policy or policy which will economically help those who feel Dem-aggrieved. That seems the Warren/Bernie option right now.  But I am not sure that that will work if it is really identity, not economics, which fuels the rage.