Prior to Trump’s first victory mainstream Republicans attacked and criticized. His victory not only silenced almost all his conservative critics most became fawning Trump loyalists. Lindsey Graham provides an excellent example of Trump’s transformative power: he was polymorphed from a savage attacker to Trump’s attack dog. Few dared oppose him during his first term, such as John McCain and Mitt Romney. But the Republicans in congress now act in accord with his will and whims. There are a few surviving conservative critics of Trump, but they have proven politically irrelevant. This does make sense, as Trump is the logical result of decades of GOP strategies and efforts. If the Republican party were a Pokemon, Trump would be the final evolution of the party.
The surrender and assimilation of the Republican leadership was not surprising; the party focused on winning and holding power rather than developing and advancing meaningful policy goals. Whatever ideology once defined the party has become a devotion to power for the sake of power and profit. Under Trump, all talk of a balanced budget, all worries about deficits and have ceased. What is more interesting is the impact Trump has had on his followers.
When Joe Walsh made a futile effort to challenge Trump for the Republican nomination. During his effort, he asked Trump supporters if Trump has every lied. They said that he had not. Walsh brought up Trump’s criticism of Obama playing golf and Trump’s claim that he would be too busy as president to play golf. While most people did not care about, some insisted Trump had never played golf as president. His supporters also believed that hundreds of miles of the wall had been built and paid for by Mexico and that the Democrats in congress are treasonous liars. Walsh closed by noting that he “…realized once and for all that nobody can beat Trump in a Republican primary. Not just because it’s become his party, but because it has become a cult, and he’s a cult leader. He doesn’t have supporters; he has followers. And in their eyes, he can do no wrong.” This raised some interesting philosophical concerns.
Some might respond by saying “what about the Democrats?” and accuse them of being a cult. While one could debate political cults, this “what about” would (as always) be irrelevant. Even if the Democrats were a cult, this would prove or disprove nothing about Republicans. My concern is with looking at the epistemology and thinking of the voters Walsh encountered.
One possible explanation is that Trump voters have normal epistemic abilities and hold to true beliefs but are lying in this case. They believe that Trump lies, that the wall was not paid for by Mexico and so on. People often lie in support of people they like, especially when they think those people are being attacked. This is a matter of ethics: believing that it is right to lie in defense of someone you support especially when speaking their opponent. While subject to moral assessment, this need not be cultish. After all, people will lie to defend their friends.
A second explanation is that these voters’ epistemic abilities and critical thinking skills have always been defective and they are unusually bad at forming true beliefs and critically assessing claims. This could be due to various biases and the usual reasons people fall victim to fallacies and rhetoric. But this need not be cultish since believing false things because of epistemic defects or failures in critical thinking is a common occurrence. On this explanation, Trump supporters are wrong, but they are not wrong because of being cultists. Rather, they are following Trump because they are wrong.
A third explanation is that these voters’ epistemic abilities and critical thinking skills have been corrupted by Trump’s influence. That is, they reject the rational methods of forming beliefs and critical thinking in favor of believing in Trump because Trump tells them to believe in him. They are wrong because they are following Trump. In this case, they might be cultists. They would be accepting a “Trump command theory” in what Trump says is true is true because Trump says so and what Trump says is false because Trump says so. If this explanation is correct, Trump is shaping the perceived reality of his followers. They are not lying to defend him or themselves, they are true believers in Trump’s false description of the world. That is, they are a cult with a charismatic leader.
In the end, it takes weak minded people to follow a cult. Stronger minded people aren’t easy to fool. Stronger minded people ask questions about themselves, others, and their own choices. So if it is true that Trumpy is a cult leader, the people whom he leads are as involved as he is in the forming of that cult.
Other than that, I just liken him as a greedy, materialistic, ignorant person and a vulgar trader rolled into one. He just made it because it so happens that many others are like him, to them the whole world revolves around money, nothing else. Intelligence-wise, he certainly is too mediocre and inadequate to be the President of the United States, this is easily demonstrable in the thing he says: ‘These countries are now kissing my ass!’, etc.
To me, he represents a satire version of Gordon Gekko.
”Stronger minded people ask questions about themselves…”.
That is, intelligent people have more doubts about themselves and their own choices, as Russell said. Or, we could say: ‘They are more reasonable.’. Trump doesn’t strikes one as being reasonable, but to the contrary, foolish, stubborn, and too eager to believe in his infallibility.
A set of people anywhere across the world, under certain circumstances feel lacking in spirit or in material and one emerges as a leader they will follow, logic and reason not withstanding. A wave like feeling outside logic cuts through a human society and a cult appears to them outside the set. Trump and his followers are under the impression that they have a right to live on the exploits of the weak, the vulnerable without limits. Self destruction mode is inevitable, parasitic destruction oblivious to Trump and his followers.
I lean to your second (epistemic) explanation. Trump followers and supporters are such because he tells them what they want to hear, much of it reflective of what they have long believed. In this sense, he does not need to be charismatic. Awhile back and on a different blog, I remarked on the famous Network line: * I’m as mad as hell…*. Within the past week or so, I heard someone parrot the same remark on public radio. Trump people are disgruntled about many things and they believe he will somehow, make America great again. I have not seen that, nor do I believe it was in motion under his first term as president. His second term has not impressed me. His alliances and partnerships are only interested in America insofar as they can make money from her and/or secure prestige and respectability. Making America great is a smokescreen, at best. Making America respected would be a worthy goal. Making America feared is isolationist and imperialistic. This new century should not be about any of that and, by now, we ought to understand we cannot force change(s) on a world which that world does not want. There are no peace makers who can overcome antagonism and ideology. It’s not happening.
My thesis is that all politicians (and voters) are interested in stable incomes to support their status as breadwinners.
Dad assumed it was out of greed. I assume it is out of need.
When push comes to shove, there are more responsible people than not.