The more I see and think about things, the more I become convinced that people feel a certain way, then pick reasons that intellectually justify those emotions. Poor people are angry. Trump is angry and mean and blames others. That makes them feel better about themselves, so they find reasons to justify supporting him.
It used to be that poor people were angry, and their angry union leaders found their support by harnessing that anger. Anger can be manipulated by either side. Logic doesn't come into it, except in cherrypicked claims that attempt to justify emotion-based decisions. Trump was born a millionaire, and he's helping out his millionaire/billionaire friends - but MAGAts love him, because he's angry, and they're angry.
They cite "his stance on tariffs" or "his stance on illegals" - as if illegals would be here if anyone else wanted to do those jobs. And most of his supporters don't seem to know how tariffs work.
There's a little bit of the identity of "We want freedom", but that again is a feeling. "Freedom" is interpreted as the right to own guns, not the right to be non-binary or marry someone of your same sex or put up a Quran verse next to the the Ten Commandments at a city hall.
So, basically, I think talking to people is useless. Reasoning is useless. You just appeal to their emotions (which the Democrats are certainly capable of doing. They do it in certain arguments - abortion, illegal immigration (to a degree).) None of Trump's supporters care that he's inconsistent. There's more pressure on the Democratic side to be somewhat logical, and somewhat civil, and that's been holding them back since the early days of Rush Limbaugh.
Those angry poor people used to be Democrats who wanted their unions to fight for more rights. Now they're angry MAGAts...and it's just because he's appealing to the anger. The Democrats can get them back, they just need to leave reason aside and play the political strategy that works - appeal to emotion.
Why don't Democrats demonize Republicans for kicking out hard-working illegal immigrants who work for low wages and no benefits and provide us with lower-costing goods? (Not that I think that's good, either - why not just offer enough legal ways to work here that our system can function legally (I know - it costs businesses too much...well...)) The argument that tariffs will bring jobs back to the US is just as legitimate as the argument that tariffs will make everything cost more - the Democrats just have to get angry about it. Demonize rich American industrialists who want to bring jobs back here. Demonize Republicans who deincentivize immigration and international trade. The secret's not in the logic, it's in the emotion.
I think you're emphasizing the subjective feelings of a movement and its leader rather than the deeper economic and political factors which lead to the movement's rise in the first place. This is why understanding the history of fascism is super important to put much of this into context.
Agreed. I didn’t know that the factors that lead to a rise in support for fascism were being discussed. I did see that you mentioned people using psychological defenses to justify their beliefs, and many Trump supporters being unwilling to rethink their perspective, and online debates being nigh pointless with that crowd, and I agree with all of that.
I guess you just say that the left needs to focus its precious limited energy on talking to those willing to accept its message, and I guess 1.) I don’t know if there are enough people who are open to logic to make a difference (though there might be), and 2.) I also think, even if there are, that that’s a slim margin, and I think a more efficient play would be to follow the Republicans’ playbook in general, and Trump in particular, by harnessing emotion to win (then doing whatever one wants once in power).
Just make sure to have spin doctors on hand in case things don’t improve, to explain why your actions should’ve helped out your voting base, and to find someone to blame for its failure to do so.
So... My enemies are bad. You didn't have to use so many words.
Sometimes it is good to elaborate that they are the enemy in the first place because so many narratives try to displace even that premise.
The more I see and think about things, the more I become convinced that people feel a certain way, then pick reasons that intellectually justify those emotions. Poor people are angry. Trump is angry and mean and blames others. That makes them feel better about themselves, so they find reasons to justify supporting him.
It used to be that poor people were angry, and their angry union leaders found their support by harnessing that anger. Anger can be manipulated by either side. Logic doesn't come into it, except in cherrypicked claims that attempt to justify emotion-based decisions. Trump was born a millionaire, and he's helping out his millionaire/billionaire friends - but MAGAts love him, because he's angry, and they're angry.
They cite "his stance on tariffs" or "his stance on illegals" - as if illegals would be here if anyone else wanted to do those jobs. And most of his supporters don't seem to know how tariffs work.
There's a little bit of the identity of "We want freedom", but that again is a feeling. "Freedom" is interpreted as the right to own guns, not the right to be non-binary or marry someone of your same sex or put up a Quran verse next to the the Ten Commandments at a city hall.
So, basically, I think talking to people is useless. Reasoning is useless. You just appeal to their emotions (which the Democrats are certainly capable of doing. They do it in certain arguments - abortion, illegal immigration (to a degree).) None of Trump's supporters care that he's inconsistent. There's more pressure on the Democratic side to be somewhat logical, and somewhat civil, and that's been holding them back since the early days of Rush Limbaugh.
Those angry poor people used to be Democrats who wanted their unions to fight for more rights. Now they're angry MAGAts...and it's just because he's appealing to the anger. The Democrats can get them back, they just need to leave reason aside and play the political strategy that works - appeal to emotion.
Why don't Democrats demonize Republicans for kicking out hard-working illegal immigrants who work for low wages and no benefits and provide us with lower-costing goods? (Not that I think that's good, either - why not just offer enough legal ways to work here that our system can function legally (I know - it costs businesses too much...well...)) The argument that tariffs will bring jobs back to the US is just as legitimate as the argument that tariffs will make everything cost more - the Democrats just have to get angry about it. Demonize rich American industrialists who want to bring jobs back here. Demonize Republicans who deincentivize immigration and international trade. The secret's not in the logic, it's in the emotion.
I think you're emphasizing the subjective feelings of a movement and its leader rather than the deeper economic and political factors which lead to the movement's rise in the first place. This is why understanding the history of fascism is super important to put much of this into context.
Agreed. I didn’t know that the factors that lead to a rise in support for fascism were being discussed. I did see that you mentioned people using psychological defenses to justify their beliefs, and many Trump supporters being unwilling to rethink their perspective, and online debates being nigh pointless with that crowd, and I agree with all of that.
I guess you just say that the left needs to focus its precious limited energy on talking to those willing to accept its message, and I guess 1.) I don’t know if there are enough people who are open to logic to make a difference (though there might be), and 2.) I also think, even if there are, that that’s a slim margin, and I think a more efficient play would be to follow the Republicans’ playbook in general, and Trump in particular, by harnessing emotion to win (then doing whatever one wants once in power).
Just make sure to have spin doctors on hand in case things don’t improve, to explain why your actions should’ve helped out your voting base, and to find someone to blame for its failure to do so.
But, of course, I could be wrong.