His presence is still massively destructive of the very fabric of society. The complicity of a portion of that society with this process does not change its nature.
I think people are more likely to change their minds if the cost of doing so is low. If the price of changing your mind is admitting that you voted for lunatic racism in 2016, then people probably won't.
Which creates a weird and unpleasant paradox, in that the more people (quite rightly) call out Mr Trump's racism, the more his supporters dig in their heels. There must be a word for it, but the best image I can think of is the gangland boss telling his minions: 'You have to stick with me because you're in too deep now.'
Covid-19 though does provide a face-saving excuse to abandon Trump, because you can say to yourself 'Well Trump was clearly the right candidate in 2016 and I stand by my decision, but circumstances have changed.'
But delusions are not always of the "aliens are invading my toilet" variety. I think there are everyday delusions, shared by millions, and Trump (and Brexit) plug into them. The obvious example is national exceptionalism, almost a universal delusion.
I think people are more likely to change their minds if the cost of doing so is low. If the price of changing your mind is admitting that you voted for lunatic racism in 2016, then people probably won't.
Which creates a weird and unpleasant paradox, in that the more people (quite rightly) call out Mr Trump's racism, the more his supporters dig in their heels. There must be a word for it, but the best image I can think of is the gangland boss telling his minions: 'You have to stick with me because you're in too deep now.'
Covid-19 though does provide a face-saving excuse to abandon Trump, because you can say to yourself 'Well Trump was clearly the right candidate in 2016 and I stand by my decision, but circumstances have changed.'
Sunk cost fallacy? I thought Biden would partly rely not on people too far gone, to give up Trump, but waverers, who voted Trump. There are some, surely. I doubt they would be troubled by sunk costs.
But delusions are not always of the "aliens are invading my toilet" variety. I think there are everyday delusions, shared by millions, and Trump (and Brexit) plug into them. The obvious example is national exceptionalism, almost a universal delusion.
Sure, and its relevant that it is almost universal. Underlying racism works too, a common conservative attitude. I'm arguing that if you are labelling Trump supporters as cultists, that's not only wrong, but dangerous othering not conducive to reconciliation.
It occurs to me that in the context of this thread, I may have set up a straw man.
But delusions are not always of the "aliens are invading my toilet" variety. I think there are everyday delusions, shared by millions, and Trump (and Brexit) plug into them. The obvious example is national exceptionalism, almost a universal delusion.
Sure, and its relevant that it is almost universal. Underlying racism works too, a common conservative attitude. I'm arguing that if you are labelling Trump supporters as cultists, that's not only wrong, but dangerous othering not conducive to reconciliation.
It occurs to me that in the context of this thread, I may have set up a straw man.
You could argue that some delusions are required to sustain society. Obvious example, religion. Just joking. But in some tribal societies it may be vital to accept that tree spirits and water spirits control agriculture, and the whole tribe is structured around this. Trump not quite the same!
Isn't American democracy in big big trouble long before trump showed up? Considering the economic policies of Reagan which greatly magnified the rich-poor divide, creating the foundation of trump's constituency. Considering war criminal torture president Bush.
At least a number of national advertisers have dropped their ads on Tucker Carlson--however, they have not dropped their advertisements on the rest of FOX.
When they think that being American prevents their being infected by a virus, which seems to be the assumption of Trumpistas, what the hell else are they? What's the point in being nice to the horribly deluded?
I listened to a TV interview about the Trumpians. The one commentator said, "To hell with them. They are not going to change their minds. But the good news is, there are 1 million of them that are no longer around."
Harm above and beyond the greatly increased risk of death created by the cult of invulnerability? How does that work?
Any time you dehumanize other people (however much they may deserve it), you do damage to your own soul, and potentially to their lives. It's easier to target dehumanized people and feel righteous about it.
When they think that being American prevents their being infected by a virus, which seems to be the assumption of Trumpistas, what the hell else are they? What's the point in being nice to the horribly deluded?
Do you accept that not everyone who supports Trump is a cultist? I'm using that word in place of your Trumpistas formulation.
I accept that not everyone who voted for him in 2016 was a cultist. After three years of experience of his actions, I'm not sure what else could possibly justify supporting him. It requires an imperviousness to the most basic thought that is, to me, inexplicable other than by the sort of unquestioning total identification with the cause which is the hallmark of cults.
Could it still come down to "pro-life" for many? People being told by a (right-wing) authoritative voice from the puplit to disregard secular media on 'lesser' issues, putting him down? It need not be characterised as a cult.
That's an interesting thought @Furtive Gander, but it makes me wonder why "pro life" thinking has taken such a hold in America. It isn't an issue in most Western countries, including many with a strongly Roman Catholic history.
It seems to be a particularly noticeable (and vocal) part of the right-wing conservative evangelical element which appears to be so prominent in America.
I don't suppose it's confined to that element, though - there are no doubt many conservative Roman Catholics in the country, too.
That's an interesting thought @Furtive Gander, but it makes me wonder why "pro life" thinking has taken such a hold in America. It isn't an issue in most Western countries, including many with a strongly Roman Catholic history.
It seems to be a particularly noticeable (and vocal) part of the right-wing conservative evangelical element which appears to be so prominent in America.
I don't suppose it's confined to that element, though - there are no doubt many conservative Roman Catholics in the country, too.
I wonder to what extent this coincides with increased secularisation - did Evangelical identity start to move from Not Roman Catholic to Not Liberal Humanist?
I wonder to what extent this coincides with increased secularisation - did Evangelical identity start to move from Not Roman Catholic to Not Liberal Humanist?
It's been Not Liberal Humanist at least since the Scopes trial. Con Evos do seem to have become less anti-(right-wing)Catholic and less anti-(right-wing)Jewish of late. Perhaps that counts as growth...
I wonder to what extent this coincides with increased secularisation - did Evangelical identity start to move from Not Roman Catholic to Not Liberal Humanist?
It's been Not Liberal Humanist at least since the Scopes trial. Con Evos do seem to have become less anti-(right-wing)Catholic and less anti-(right-wing)Jewish of late. Perhaps that counts as growth...
It's not one thing. Being anti-abortion is not just anti-liberal/humanist. It's also anti-feminist. I read Fred Clark's linked page, and I find nothing that I'd take issue with, but skims the surface, though his Eastasia reference points toward something I was going to say, that abortion provides an Eternal Enemy to rally the troops. It's especially effective in the battle for control of the courts, but there is a whole raft of issues beyond abortion that conservatives and con-evos would like to get their hands on in the courts (Scopes redux), like education (public vs private/charter/home, the content thereof, and who gets to decide the content). It's difficult to get the average con-evo on the street excited about control of the courts, legal doctrine, educational issues, etc., but you can certainly get them out to an anti-abortion demonstration, because unlike the other issues, abortion can be made visceral and simple.
As to being less anti-Jewish, it is in support of Israel, which as we all know is necessary to hasten the End of Days. (So, in a sense, a bit cynical, just as Israeli acceptance of con-evo support is a bit cynical.) That is a newish thing, and wasn't a feature of the con-evos before ca. 1970.
I think for a long time the GOP used abortion as an "eternal enemy" but it's only in recent times (probably the last decade or so) that the people who actually want to follow through have started to get a stranglehold on the party. Red state governments have been making laws to deliberately force a legal challenge in the hope of getting Roe v Wade overturned and they've got both the president and the senate willing to manipulate process and appoint anyone, no matter how unqualified to the bench so long as they're anti-abortion. Basically the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
The white evangelical dimension of the cult is very significant. The few liberal evangelical (or post evangelical) voices have referred to the privatisation of the gospel with a high priority given to personal morality.
That in turn got morphed into the hot button issues re abortion, sexual preference and gender identity. Purely on grounds of personal morality, there are powerful grounds for arguing the centrality of unselfish loving, that love does not insist on its own way, that judgmentalism is dangerous to those who judge. But all of that got lost somewhere.
The white evangelical movement basically started as a racist movement. The oldest organization in it, the Southern Baptist Convention, stated in its original documents it was for the protection of slavery and white supremacy. In the late 50's, as public schools were being desegregated, whites started their own private schools run by white churches. Universities were formed such as Liberty University. Bob Jones University and Oral Roberts University.
They also became very savvy with modern technologies, preaching their bigotry, claiming it was the "Word" of God.
Therefore, it is no wonder the white evangelical movement latched on to a person like DT. He came from a racist mold and he has never changed his spots.
In the late 50's, as public schools were being desegregated, whites started their own private schools run by white churches. Universities were formed such as Liberty University. Bob Jones University and Oral Roberts University.
Bob Jones University was founded in the 1920s, in response to the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy.
Oral Roberts—who started out as a Pentecostal Holiness preacher and later became United Methodist, and who claimed Native American ancestry—was intentional in both his ministry and his university in working toward racial reconciliation. Whatever motivations he may have had in starting a university, avoiding desegregation was not one of them.
I think @ThunderBunk is wrong to lump all Trump supporters together. A much more nuanced response is required if we are to try to understand what's going on. I think the subsequent posts are closer to the mark, pointing out social movements of longstanding that Trump has managed to capture.
The privatisation of education and the charter schools movement is one. Is anyone able to provide a potted history of the movement? My impression is that the vast majority of schools in the USA are publicly run and funded. There are some religious schools and schools for the children of the elite, but that charter schools are something new. Is the movement related to the anti-abortion crowd, for instance?
oops. Just read the last few posts properly. I guess my experience was of California mostly. The East Coast is a foreign country to me . I blame a sleepover shift for the current bout of reading incomprehension.
Looks like some white evangelicals are beginning to lose faith in Trump. CNN report--NB 3:35.
I can say DeVos thought education should aim and spreading the Kingdom. She has no public education experience and has long advocated charter schools and religious schools.
Simon, I lived for three years in Mississippi in the 1980s. It was my experience that nearly all the white families who could afford it, sent their children to all-white private/religious schools. My two kids at the time were under age 5 and we used an on-base (USAF) preschool that was integrated.
Gramps - when you mention the on-base preschool, it strikes me as liberal for Mississippi. Contrary to its reputation among most civilians, the army has been on occasion an engine of progress. I'm thinking of Truman's executive order regarding integration.
We lived in an integrated neighborhood just off base. There was a garden club in the neighborhood. No one thought of it being an all-white club until an officer's wife brought a black friend to one of its meetings. She was told "those people" are not welcome. This forced half the women, including my wife, to resign because of our connections to the Air Force.
Simon, I lived for three years in Mississippi in the 1980s. It was my experience that nearly all the white families who could afford it, sent their children to all-white private/religious schools.
Segregation academies were definitely a thing throughout the American South in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Some of them are still around and going strong, some are still around but struggling, some have converted to charter schools and some have closed.
Where I grew up, the two nearby segregation academies were formed around the time I was in 4th grade. My parents didn’t send me to one; they kept me in public school, for which I am very grateful. By the time I was in 5th grade—the first year I was in an integrated school—quite a few of the kids I’d been in school with since kindergarten were gone.
So charter schools are not segregation by other means? I kind of view gated communities that way.
I hate things like people having a 'staff only' space or 'staff toilets' or 'staff crockery' in supported accommodation. It reeks of prejudice to me. I see gated communities the same way, but I'm coming from outside the culture, so...
So charter schools are not segregation by other means?
With the disclaimer that education is generally a matter of state law and things can vary from state to state . . . .
Charter schools, at least in the state where I live, are not private schools. They are a kind of public school. That is to say, they receive public per-pupil funding and are cost-free to attend (at least as far as tuition goes) but operate outside the local public school system, and are not subject to many of the regulations public schools are subject to. The idea, according to proponents, is to allow charter schools to be places of experimentation and innovation, or to meet specific needs that the public schools may not be able to meet. Oh, and smaller classes.
By law, they cannot discriminate in acceptance of students. Of course, private schools can’t legally discriminate either, but the cost of attending has a gate-keeping function. In most if not all charter schools, admission is by lottery, though siblings of students get preference. Many charter schools have particular focuses, such as arts, while others may be aimed at particular communities, such as low-income communities. Some charter schools around here are excellent and have very good reputations, some not so much.
I’m not saying there isn’t some segregation that happens in some charter schools. Those ones I’m aware of are not as well integrated or as diverse as the public schools in the same places. But I do think it’s fair to say that in general, escaping integration isn’t the reason for their existence.
So charter schools are not segregation by other means? I kind of view gated communities that way.
I hate things like people having a 'staff only' space or 'staff toilets' or 'staff crockery' in supported accommodation. It reeks of prejudice to me. I see gated communities the same way, but I'm coming from outside the culture, so...
Then look at housing. As I understand the US condominium, it's very similar to our old form of company title. "Owners" of other units in such blocks of apartments get to approve sales and can (and do) exclude those of whom they disapprove. Very different to strata title.
Then look at housing. As I understand the US condominium, it's very similar to our old form of company title. "Owners" of other units in such blocks of apartments get to approve sales and can (and do) exclude those of whom they disapprove.
Once again, laws can vary from state to state in the US (and IANA real estate L.) And specifics of the powers of a condominium owners’ association can vary from one condominium complex to another. Condominiums where owners of other units have any say at all in approving or blocking sales of units are not at all common in my experience, at least here. They might be more common in other states, and anywhere they exist, discrimination on the basis of things like race will be prohibited by law.
In my state, owners of condominiums are allowed to make decisions about common areas, but each owner of a unit has the right to determine to whom the owner will sell, but there can be no discrimination according to race, creed, national origin, or sex. If the seller and the buyer agree on a price, the owner's association will say bye to the seller and hello to the buyer.
Thank you both for your comments. A condominium as you both describe it (and bearing in mind the different States you're in) is very different to the company title with which I'm familiar. But not at the stage of strata title either.
I am struck and surprised by the continuing level of racism in parts of the US. I have spent time in South Africa, and I would never have expected racism to have continued to exist in the US to the same level as there.
Other than that, is it not possible that the importance of any Trump cult is overblown? To me, Trump's support appears to be based on good old fashioned triangulation; no different to Tony Blair in the UK (or Johnson on Brexit), except that Trump is egotistical enough to rely on taboo issues and permanently damage American political culture in the process. He (and I suspect his advisors too, actually) have worked out that there are more votes to be gained than alienated by advocating for nationalism, none-to-subtle racism, blue-collar workers (and, paradoxically, plutocrats), misogyny, xenophobia against the Chinese and American isolationism.
To give one example, the religious right have lent him their votes, I assume, due to the abortion issue, and therefore they are prepared to overlook his serial adultery and greed, and I have always assumed that his choice of Mike Pence as vice-president was to assure them that, to adapt a phrase, there was "a Godly adult in the room".
Which means that Biden's job is to carve out just a small part of those votes in the right areas (presumably the blue collar vote) in order to win.
I wonder if the Mormons, to their credit, were something of an exception: he did win Utah but not as much as would be normal for a Republican candidate, and I understand that was due to their dislike of his moral character.
I imagine a lot of people in Utah despise Trump as much as Sen. Romney does. Nonetheless, I would be shocked if Utah did not go Republican.
I agree it's unlikely, but McMullin took more than 20% of the vote in 2016. I wonder, if Romney were to back an independent in Utah this time around, whether it might be a close-run thing.
The fact that over a million people have applied for tickets for the Tulsa rally certainly speaks to me of cult. Many will travel and literally rub shoulders with strangers who have also travelled. All of them will have signed wavers so the organisers can't be sued.
And Trump has a lot of older supporters. Plus folks with underlying health issues. So the event can very easily generate loads of clusters.
I've been wondering if maybe Romney is hoping to be drafted by the Rep. party as a last-minute candidate to oppose T--and/or to be VP for someone. He's been much more visible lately.
The first time he ran, he admitted his wife pushed him into it.
Comments
Which creates a weird and unpleasant paradox, in that the more people (quite rightly) call out Mr Trump's racism, the more his supporters dig in their heels. There must be a word for it, but the best image I can think of is the gangland boss telling his minions: 'You have to stick with me because you're in too deep now.'
Covid-19 though does provide a face-saving excuse to abandon Trump, because you can say to yourself 'Well Trump was clearly the right candidate in 2016 and I stand by my decision, but circumstances have changed.'
Sunk cost fallacy? I thought Biden would partly rely not on people too far gone, to give up Trump, but waverers, who voted Trump. There are some, surely. I doubt they would be troubled by sunk costs.
Sure, and its relevant that it is almost universal. Underlying racism works too, a common conservative attitude. I'm arguing that if you are labelling Trump supporters as cultists, that's not only wrong, but dangerous othering not conducive to reconciliation.
It occurs to me that in the context of this thread, I may have set up a straw man.
You could argue that some delusions are required to sustain society. Obvious example, religion. Just joking. But in some tribal societies it may be vital to accept that tree spirits and water spirits control agriculture, and the whole tribe is structured around this. Trump not quite the same!
Any time you dehumanize other people (however much they may deserve it), you do damage to your own soul, and potentially to their lives. It's easier to target dehumanized people and feel righteous about it.
Do you accept that not everyone who supports Trump is a cultist? I'm using that word in place of your Trumpistas formulation.
I don't suppose it's confined to that element, though - there are no doubt many conservative Roman Catholics in the country, too.
It was deliberate. The conservative evangelicals didn't used to have this pre-occupation with abortion. It's a result of deliberate strategies deployed by Republicans to capture and keep the white evangelical vote. Fred Clark wrote about the suddenness of the switch a few years back:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/
Thx.
It's been Not Liberal Humanist at least since the Scopes trial. Con Evos do seem to have become less anti-(right-wing)Catholic and less anti-(right-wing)Jewish of late. Perhaps that counts as growth...
Well, yes, but has the emphasis changed?
As to being less anti-Jewish, it is in support of Israel, which as we all know is necessary to hasten the End of Days. (So, in a sense, a bit cynical, just as Israeli acceptance of con-evo support is a bit cynical.) That is a newish thing, and wasn't a feature of the con-evos before ca. 1970.
That in turn got morphed into the hot button issues re abortion, sexual preference and gender identity. Purely on grounds of personal morality, there are powerful grounds for arguing the centrality of unselfish loving, that love does not insist on its own way, that judgmentalism is dangerous to those who judge. But all of that got lost somewhere.
They also became very savvy with modern technologies, preaching their bigotry, claiming it was the "Word" of God.
Therefore, it is no wonder the white evangelical movement latched on to a person like DT. He came from a racist mold and he has never changed his spots.
Oral Roberts—who started out as a Pentecostal Holiness preacher and later became United Methodist, and who claimed Native American ancestry—was intentional in both his ministry and his university in working toward racial reconciliation. Whatever motivations he may have had in starting a university, avoiding desegregation was not one of them.
The privatisation of education and the charter schools movement is one. Is anyone able to provide a potted history of the movement? My impression is that the vast majority of schools in the USA are publicly run and funded. There are some religious schools and schools for the children of the elite, but that charter schools are something new. Is the movement related to the anti-abortion crowd, for instance?
Where does Betsy de Vos fit into the history?
I can say DeVos thought education should aim and spreading the Kingdom. She has no public education experience and has long advocated charter schools and religious schools.
Simon, I lived for three years in Mississippi in the 1980s. It was my experience that nearly all the white families who could afford it, sent their children to all-white private/religious schools. My two kids at the time were under age 5 and we used an on-base (USAF) preschool that was integrated.
Where I grew up, the two nearby segregation academies were formed around the time I was in 4th grade. My parents didn’t send me to one; they kept me in public school, for which I am very grateful. By the time I was in 5th grade—the first year I was in an integrated school—quite a few of the kids I’d been in school with since kindergarten were gone.
I hate things like people having a 'staff only' space or 'staff toilets' or 'staff crockery' in supported accommodation. It reeks of prejudice to me. I see gated communities the same way, but I'm coming from outside the culture, so...
Charter schools, at least in the state where I live, are not private schools. They are a kind of public school. That is to say, they receive public per-pupil funding and are cost-free to attend (at least as far as tuition goes) but operate outside the local public school system, and are not subject to many of the regulations public schools are subject to. The idea, according to proponents, is to allow charter schools to be places of experimentation and innovation, or to meet specific needs that the public schools may not be able to meet. Oh, and smaller classes.
By law, they cannot discriminate in acceptance of students. Of course, private schools can’t legally discriminate either, but the cost of attending has a gate-keeping function. In most if not all charter schools, admission is by lottery, though siblings of students get preference. Many charter schools have particular focuses, such as arts, while others may be aimed at particular communities, such as low-income communities. Some charter schools around here are excellent and have very good reputations, some not so much.
I’m not saying there isn’t some segregation that happens in some charter schools. Those ones I’m aware of are not as well integrated or as diverse as the public schools in the same places. But I do think it’s fair to say that in general, escaping integration isn’t the reason for their existence.
Then look at housing. As I understand the US condominium, it's very similar to our old form of company title. "Owners" of other units in such blocks of apartments get to approve sales and can (and do) exclude those of whom they disapprove. Very different to strata title.
Other than that, is it not possible that the importance of any Trump cult is overblown? To me, Trump's support appears to be based on good old fashioned triangulation; no different to Tony Blair in the UK (or Johnson on Brexit), except that Trump is egotistical enough to rely on taboo issues and permanently damage American political culture in the process. He (and I suspect his advisors too, actually) have worked out that there are more votes to be gained than alienated by advocating for nationalism, none-to-subtle racism, blue-collar workers (and, paradoxically, plutocrats), misogyny, xenophobia against the Chinese and American isolationism.
To give one example, the religious right have lent him their votes, I assume, due to the abortion issue, and therefore they are prepared to overlook his serial adultery and greed, and I have always assumed that his choice of Mike Pence as vice-president was to assure them that, to adapt a phrase, there was "a Godly adult in the room".
Which means that Biden's job is to carve out just a small part of those votes in the right areas (presumably the blue collar vote) in order to win.
I wonder if the Mormons, to their credit, were something of an exception: he did win Utah but not as much as would be normal for a Republican candidate, and I understand that was due to their dislike of his moral character.
What effect (bearing in mind what @CamryOfTheApocalypse suggests) might they have contra Trump in November?
I agree it's unlikely, but McMullin took more than 20% of the vote in 2016. I wonder, if Romney were to back an independent in Utah this time around, whether it might be a close-run thing.
And Trump has a lot of older supporters. Plus folks with underlying health issues. So the event can very easily generate loads of clusters.
Where are their brains?
The first time he ran, he admitted his wife pushed him into it.