There are many aspects of Donald Trump’s supporters that define how he is a symptom of American politics instead of a problem or a solution. Connecting those who favor Mr. Trump with the overlying political ideologies mapped out by Erikson and Tedin will detail how he is a symptom. There are multiple political theories that explain the underlying reasons for Mr. Trump accumulating as many voters as he has over the election season.
It is important to understand the majority voters Trump attracts are not as large as made out to be. “Trump has a chokehold on somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of the Republican vote (Taibbi, 2016). “He is strongest among Republicans who are less affluent, less educated, and less likely to turn out to vote. His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats” (Cohn, 2016). There is a gender and race gap in Trump’s constituency. Anyone who identifies with social change and social rights does not generally adhere to Trump’s preachings (Taub, 2016; Cohn, 2016). While Trump attracts a certain majority particularly well, his supporters can range in age, socioeconomic level, gender, and even race, so what gives? According to Vox (2016),
In this study, MacWilliams makes a clear link between authoritarianism and support for Donald Trump. ‘If you’re a non-authoritarian, there’s about a 20 percent chance you’d support Trump,’ says MacWilliams, who’s focusing his research at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, on the impact of authoritarianism and threat in US politics. ‘And if you skew authoritarian, in your answers to the child-rearing questions, there’s a 50 percent chance you support Trump. Statistically, that difference is huge’ (Taub, 2016).
This is relevant for many reasons, but to understand why Trump attracts the voters observed, overlying political explanations of voting behavior as presented by Erikson and Tedin must be considered.
The voting populous can be categorized into three main groups: informed, uninformed, and misinformed. The four major actors of politics are the media, governmental representatives, the opinions of the populous, and political policies. It is known that the portion of the citizenry identifying as Independent is large and can have a greater impact on elections (Erikson, p. 87). Many swing and floating voters are independents (Erikson, p. 256). According to Erikson and Tedin, independents are mostly issue voters, meaning they identify with the policy declarations of candidates more so than the political party the candidate identifies with. Additionally, high information voters are said to vote mostly in favor of the party they identify with and are usually more polar on the liberal or conservative spectrum than the average voter. Even though low information voters tend to be less ideological, 98% of the population found a way to vote according to their partisan attitudes in the 2008 elections (Erikson, p. 265).
Erikson and Tedin discuss a political phenomenon where those who are less educated and identify strongly with a certain political party tend to disregard new, accurate, information that goes against their preexisting beliefs. People do not give enough attention to new information to alter their mentality accordingly. This hold true in Trump’s case as there is evidence he used to belong to the Democratic Party and supported their beliefs and that he only initially joined the presidential campaign to counter the Republican Party.
Generally, candidates and the elite are more polar than their electorate. As examined in the Down’s Model, candidates shift to the center of the polarization bell graph to appeal to a larger percentage of voters (Erikson, p. 271). Trump has defied this trend entirely, the majority of Trump supporters fall on the far conservative edge of the bell curve or are independents who lean conservative while identifying as democrats (Cohn, 2016). However, candidates generally take a stronger more extreme position during the primary elections to attract specific voters of the political party they represent. This trend tends to alter during general elections as candidates take a more moderate position to appeal to the overall majority population (Erikson, p. 271). The most change in voting pattern is observed in the primaries, during national party convention and the final week of the campaign vote choice become much more stable (Erikson, p. 251). This is important to understand because the current elections are the primaries and while Trump is winning, the voters he is attracting are from a more ideological background than the overall population.
Additionally, according to the theory of rationalization, voters start agreeing with extremist beliefs of candidate, even if their own policy beliefs are much weaker. This is due to voting heuristic connecting party identification with a candidate and their policies, even when their policies do not fully correlate with the political party the candidate identifies with. This means, as the numbers stack up in favor of Trump, those who identify as republican could start voting for him even if they do not agree with his extremist policies, just because he identifies as a Republican.
Per the analysis of political and social trust, the percentage of these traits in decreasing in the majority of the public. Along with experiencing decreased faith in the government, people also are experiencing less political efficacy. Political efficacy is the belief by the public that their vote and political participation will be fruitful. The inherent trust in the government is depleting in the public. Along with this, multiple studies show there is an increase in fear amongst the populous. Fear of instability, fear of losing traditionalist values, fear of suppression, and fear of terrorism. Surprisingly, the paranoid state of the American public is most reflected in the majority of those who support Trump. While Trump has supporters of all ages, socioeconomic levels, education levels, and races, the majority of his voters are white, blue collar, less educated, males.
Other than the theory of low income and political participation, what is the reason behind many Trump supporters not aligning to the predefined notions of political analysis, in terms of his voters ranging across the identifiers of voting behavior such as age, socioeconomic level, and party identification? There is an emerging train of thought that is discussing the authoritarian subgroup in the GOP. This subgroup is composed of less-educated, white, low socioeconomic status citizens. There are multiple reasons for this.
The reason why Trump is a symptom is the existence of a large population in America that is predisposed to fear leading to authoritarian beliefs. The true concern of political analysts is that a majority of the public has enough paranoia and external fears that they fall prey to Trump’s scapegoating of Mexican immigrants, Muslim Americans, and islamophobia. In addition to the fear mongering, the public values a politician who “speaks his mind” (Taub, 2016; Williams, 2016), an issue which will be explored later.
If this trend continues, of authoritarian support, Trump’s numbers will more accurately reflect what the conservative voters truly desire. While many arguments are made about the desire of conservative voters wanting change and accountability in governance, it is observable that these voters support Trump because they agree with many of his more extreme opinions. This is where Trump is identified as a symptom of the American public not a problem or solution.
When Trump claims Muslims should be banned from entering America and a wall should be built between Mexico and America, people truly agree and support him for these extremist declarations. Trump’s history shows he is an actor and celebrity, he knows how to attract public attention and make broad, controversial statements to appeal to the masses. These statements range from sexism to racism and many times ridicule the political system and its capabilities. Instead of hearing “boos,” Trump hear his name chanted across the stadium (Taibbi, 2016), proving a lot of people agree with the horrifying judgements Trump makes. However, the most relevant lesson from this election is why people want radical change, and there are multiple reasons for this.
First, there has been a buildup of fear and out grouping by the Republican Party post 1960s and especially post 9/11 against minorities such as Muslims. Media has the power to set an agenda, shape politics, and create a bias (Erikson, 2015). A large percentage of media outlets are owned by conservative elites, and there is a notion that people generally consume media that agrees with their inherent beliefs. Conservatives have been consuming news outlets that are funded and produced by conservatives, such as Fox News, since the beginning. Even if there was not a certain agenda that news companies followed, there is clear increase in negativity in the news. As a business, news agencies try to attract viewers with scandalous, “gotcha,” controversial, and negative stories (Erikson, p. 232). News agencies set the agenda about what is relevant or of concern in the political arena. Due to all these factors, a lot of the news conservatives consume paints fear in external forces, like terrorism, because it is exciting to talk about and aligns to preexisting racist notions pertaining to a minority. Just covering a non-domestic story with certain words such as “extremist Islamic,” build on the negative perceptions and fear among the populous.
After observing decades of scandals, international conflicts, and economic discrepancies, people have developed a fear of losing their positions. There is a correlation between white males suffering economically and those who support Trump. This shows people who are afraid of losing their position and security to social progress, minorities outnumbering Caucasians, and those who feel physically threatened by terrorism, due to the media playing to predisposed notions of fear, will favor a belligerent leader who will restore their position in the States using force if necessary (Taub, 2016; Erikson, 2015). Combine economic insecurity, with fear-mongering, with low education, and the result is a massive group of people who believe the best way to reform politics is by the leadership and dominance of a single person.
The correlation between racism and Trump supporters is no coincidence for these reasons. Those who feel most threatened by minorities are people who are not currently, and never really have been, minorities themselves. Whites usually identify as Republican and traditionalists, since they benefit most from this position, while minorities generally identify as Democrats, since they reap the most benefits out of alignment (Erikson, p. 197).
There are flaws in policy making and economic policy. However, instead of scapegoating, clinging to tradition, and adhering to a single person to bring about reform, the population must understand the power they have within themselves and their influence on the government not the other way around. This is easier stated that acted upon for various reasons as explained by Erikson and Tedin, 2015.
The political system in America has become a game show. The candidates appeal to the emotions of their voters and makes declarations that plays with their insecurities. The voting heuristic of candidate personality and campaigning is what elects politicians more so than their policies and positions on issues. There is an observed increase in public apathy. Erikson and Tedin present many potential reasons for this apathy towards politics. There is a theory of elite manipulation, mass political incompetence, rational disengagement, and what I call a limbo of policy making that leads to public contentment (Erikson, p. 316). Modern politics are generally controlled by the elite. In his article, “The Elite Question,” Farazmand (1999) provides a discussion about the impacts of various elites in relation to social, political, and economic disciplines. Farazmand discusses how elites are important to study because they are drawn from the upper socioeconomic strata, they share a consensus on certain basic values that they promulgate into society, policy preferences are a reflection of the elite not the masses meaning they are in the interest of the elite, elites influence the masses, and elites not masses govern all societies. The elite are defined as persons who influence national policy making, affect national outcomes regularly and substantially, and rule the masses.
The impact of the elite is important because if they are the policy makers, then they influence the less educated masses more severely than even they might have anticipated. The elite have created a limbo in policy making. Meaning, the modern government is able to give the public enough incentives and leeway to not be in complete pain and misery at a low socioeconomic level, as an eighteenth century coal miner or food industry laborer might have been in. This is accomplished via policies such as welfare and Medicaid. In this limbo stage, where the masses have just enough to get by and are not the happiest but also not the worst off, the public does not know how to influence the government, and is feeling insecure. The only thing a public feeling threatened can control is their fear. Trump supporters are using their fear to bring about a leader that they think will affect radical change in their favor. The same mentality holds true on the liberal side, as people feel insecure in the current political environment they want radical change via Bernie Sanders. Most Sanders supporters are the youth, a minority that has been generally aloof in political participation. The youth feel their future, environmentally and economically, is being threatened by traditionalism. To alter this they want a radical leader that will implement long term solutions to issues like the climate, healthcare, social rights, and college education. Most “millennials” support social change and progress. Therefore, they want a leader that will accelerate policy making to match the modern ideological thought progression surrounding social issues like gay marriage, legalization of certain drugs, and gun regulation laws (Erikson, p. 107). The two extreme sides developing in the current elections reflect how people are insecure and afraid of the current political regime, who controls it, and what the future will hold in American policy making.
Erikson and Tedin discuss the notion that the elite tend to be more extreme in their party belief on the spectrum than the average population. The people who own media sources and report news are themselves, or are influenced by these elite who pass their general beliefs down to the masses via policies, media, political leaders, and other sources (Erikson, p. 165). The elite, however, tend to be more educated and have more power than the general masses they influence. They have strong ideological positions because they understand what that partisanship means and how to use it to their benefit. The elite are able to, “rationalize and develop sophisticated reasoning for their privileged positions” (Erikson, p. 167). The masses, on the other hand, tend to be less politically involved and generally do not understand the political arena well enough to assert power over it. As Erikson and Tedin note, those with the most information tend to be more liberal on social issues but more conservative on economic issues, like taxation and healthcare (Erikson, p. 63). The least informed make decisions on heuristics such as party identification, likeability of a candidate, religious affiliation and more (Erikson, p. 69). Additionally, the least informed do not alter their perceptions based on new information and keep consuming information that matches preexisting notions and beliefs.
For all these reasons, what the masses absorb from the various sources the elite put out is a very general board reflection of the train of thought that lead to a certain position. For example if the elite wish to acquire the economic incentives of certain resources, such as oil, from another nation and that nation is not cooperating, the elite might declare the nation as belligerent and convince the masses initiating a dispute is necessary for safety reasons (Erikson, p. 314). Overtime these excuses accumulated into a terrifying monster for the general public who does not have access to the resources, time, or motivation to understand the inner workings of governance and politics. Thus, the public buys the picture painted by political leaders and the media on a very literal level. In an interview with Vox, 2016, Norm Ornstein said,
But if you forced me to pick one factor explaining what’s happened, I would say this is a self-inflicted wound by Republican leaders. Over many years, they’ve adopted strategies that have trivialized and de legitimized government. They were willing to play to a nativist element. And they tried to use, instead of stand up to, the apocalyptic visions and extremism of some cable television, talk radio, and other media outlets on the right.
While the intent of these elite in spreading fear for certain minorities might have been for the purpose of control and not intended to evolve into extremism that is what occurred. With a rich elite not understanding the fear and economic plight of the poor, fear accumulated. Those who feel insecure are not fools, they do not trust government for a reason. Thus, when a belligerent rich man tells the people he is on their side and points out, sometimes accurately, the many ways the poor are exploited, of course he develops a following.
As social change and progress grows, the people that used to hold power, white males and less educated, feel threatened of their positions. Per the theory of instrumental rationality, the public forms opinions based on what is in their best interest (Erikson, p. 63). America went through a recession, many wars, and political scandals in last few decades. These actions exposed the elite and market control of the government to a wider audience. Those who used to hold a position of power, white males, are not seen as much of an economic commodity anymore. Due to all these factors, Trump has accumulated a following of people who feel threatened by the future of American politics as it is unfolding currently and want a leader to halt the negative personal consequences before it is too late, even if that is through authoritarianism. As Erikson and Tedin put it, “When anti-democratic personalities are common, so the theory goes, minority rights become fragile and the stability of democracy is threatened” (Erikson, p. 156).
Oxfam recently came out with a report that concluded, “The $240 billion net income in 2012 of the richest 100 billionaires would be enough to make extreme poverty history four times over, [the report is] calling on world leaders to curb today’s income extremes and commit to reducing inequality to at least 1990 levels” (Slater, 2013). Multinational corporations have brought in child labor, poor working conditions, unjust wage compensation, negative environmental impacts, and many more quandaries to the morality of international and sometimes even domestic relations (Shah, 2006).
A solution to the problem of a low socioeconomic class developing fear would be to alter business laws and hold large corporations more accountable by creating stricter multilateral policies. Another possible approach would be to use Peter Jay’s theory of public mobilization to increase awareness of how to impact true political change that favors the public as a whole instead of dividing the population against one another.
What the rise of Trump shows is beyond the inherent disposition to authoritarianism, racism, and ignorance in the citizenry. The rise of Trump and Sanders points to the political structure and organization in America and the injustices it creates. When the government is influenced, ran by, and funded by the rich and “elite,” it makes sense the populous looks towards radicalism and extremism as the only source of hope. Any politician that speaks her or his mind and points out the flaws in government will receive greater support by a public who has low level of trust, political efficacy, and voice in the government. To stabilize a democracy, the nation must first be governed as a democracy.
THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE FEARING:
THIS IS THE WHAT WE SHOULD BE FEARING:
I was looking back at this paper after studying populism and the rise of populist parties. Throughout the paper I am connecting Trump to population and at one point even talk about how Bernie Sanders supporters face the same concerns as Trump supporters. I am talking about left-wing populism and even end the essay with an image of tax havens, very anti-establishment or anti-elite/ corporations of me which would connect me to the left-wing populist parties to some extent. Now that I know a little more about populism, both right and left, nativism vs., cosmopolitanism, and the cultural impacts/ perceptions of either side, I feel more and more like finding a middle ground seems impossible. Some articles discuss how right wing populism comes down to racism and very culturally noninclusive (out-grouping) ideology while left-wing is more culturally/ racially/ ethnically/ religiously inclusive. Both extremes in populism are same economically in opposing elites/ corporations while advocating for the working class/ average citizens, or “others like us.” If economically populists are on the same page, it seems the difference is that right wing populism does not wish to include those who look different into the benefits they receive from where they live.
All this means, the only middle ground is economics and addressing racism. There could be a really positive outcome from a shitty situation, in that, addressing cultural and racial differences, stigmas, and intolerance could become a forefront in political, civil, and economic majority discussions which could lead to a cultural revolution of inclusion OR… on the other side, send up segregating people even more. If the issue was addressed purely economically, grouping people by income levels and income inequalities, the extreme right and left could find common ground in terms of policies that would benefit them due to economic position. However, it seems it is becoming urgent to address cultural differences before using economics as a middle ground OR using economics as the middle ground and acting upon the shared concerns of both side via long term policy changes could potentially lead to a cultural revolution of greater inclusion. The other extreme outcome is more segregation, borders, and differences. The potential status quo is that what we have been observing in politics continues as is with slow progressive changes until another tipping point is hit causing an insurgence of differing political/ economic/ cultural thought. If this rise in populist mentality is a tipping point of some sort, as certain scholars have noted, then it might be time action beyond slow and deliberate policy making and governance.
I do not know what is to happen and how accurate my rant or opinions are, however I am concerned, as humanity, we keep separating more and more.
References
Cohn, N. (2015, December 30). Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat. Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.html?_r=0
Erikson, R. S., & Tedin, K. L. (2015). American public opinion (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Farazmand, A. “The Elite Question: Toward a Normative Elite Theory of Organization.” Administration & Society 31, no. 3 (1999): 321-60. http://aas.sagepub.com/content/31/3/321.abstract#cited-by.
Prokop, A. (2016, May 06). The political scientist who saw Trump’s rise coming. Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11598838/donald-trump-predictions-norm-ornstein
Shah, A. (2006, May 28). Corporations and Worker’s Rights. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from http://www.globalissues.org/article/57/corporations-and-workers-rights
Slater, J. (2013, January 19). Annual income of richest 100 people enough to end global poverty four times over. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2013-01-19/annual-income-richest-100-people-enough-end-global-poverty-four
Taibbi, M. (2016, February 24). How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable. Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224#ixzz47pB0awEn
Taub, A. (2016, March 01). The rise of American authoritarianism. Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
Williams, R. (2016, March 18). The Rise of Authoritarianism in America. Retrieved May 06, 2016, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201603/the-rise-authoritarianism-in-america
Overlooked News 