Superimposed on the regional divide is an urban-rural divide. Minnesota is dark purple on the map, but the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are liberal enough that I can't remember the last time a Republican was elected to a city office, and the inner suburbs are almost as blue, with red beginning to predominate as you move to the outer suburbs.
The "friendliness" of the Republican areas is a superficial social value. People who move to Minnesota from other regions of the country complain about how hard it is to make friends, because the natives seem to be interested in associating only with the people they went to school with.
Our harsh (at least until recently) winters have created a lovely custom by which anyone will help anyone else whose car is stuck in the snow, and even the homeless people are more polite than the homeless people in other areas, but I don't think this state looks the same to someone who is dark-skinned or otherwise not a conventional white, middle-class Christian. (Most of the Christians here are either Roman Catholic or mainline Protestant, not evangelical, though.)
It's good to see scientific methods (at least more organized, objective observations) used in an effort to understand our political behavior. Hopefully these insights will bring some intelligience and kindness to our chaotic, cartoon-world of DT and this congress. In cartoons when the character falls off a cliff they magically jump up and keep going. We humans won't have that advantage as our water and air is further poisoned, more CO2 released to wreak havoc and our economic inequality exascerbated even more.
6
Here's and example of how weak this sort of analysis is: "he has abandoned use of the word “authoritarian” because it's excessively pejorative and instead uses the phrase “fixed worldview.” Nice of him do that but these two things are not remotely synonyms so it's bizarre to use them as such. Anti Trump coastal liberals often have extremely fixed worldviews and these worldviews are a much more important part of their overall identity than for the midwestern Trump voter. Part of Trump's appeal is he's so unorthodox. He broke every single social and political rule in the book even insulting McCain's wartime experience. Hard to accuses a Trump voter of being traditional or fixed minded.
6
I'm a psychologist and very familiar with this type of language and analysis. But even I think this may be consistent with data but unnecessarily complicated. Trump put together a broad coalition of white voters - 80% of white people voted for him. Of both genders. He managed appeal to sexism and racism, and convince both white women and white men that a black president was bad enough, but a woman president was over-the-top, and that both were an existential threat to white male power. And he wasn't exactly subtle about it.
23
Recently discovered that I have a terminal illness...that really changes everything. All of this "us and them" seems almost silly to me now. I may not understand how all others think, but in the big scheme of things we are all just a species currently living on planet earth. This too shall pass and we humans may not be around to see it. Perspective is everything.
44
They’re not friendly at all; not the ones I know—and they’re my relatives.
34
How can anyone categorize groups of Americans without considering their adherence to religion (as defined by, say, belief in a personal god, the afterlife, and miracles), and openness to conspiracy theories.
11
they ain't gonna get what they want by being angry or not alternating their manic and civil behaviors
if it's a seat at all the table they are looking for, to be recognized ask yourself this question:
would you willingly sit at the same table as someone who alternated screaming at you at the top of their lungs and being friendly?
likely you'd think they're just crazy
unless you are a madochist.
8
So high insularity and low education has a strong correlation with aggressive rejection of those who do not look and think like us.
That phenomenon was transmitted via television from the streets of Little Rock and Birmingham into the living rooms of Americans more than 50 years ago .
How little we have learned.
32
I have lived in the deep south and I have relatives who currently live in the deep south. There were many significant, hard won, progressive changes made since due to the civil rights movement. There was no Fox News or Facebook to set the white table. Now, with national fixed world views, reinforced hourly, the south swats at truth gone blind. Southern, one-party politics are hopelessly corrupt, and all the smiles in the world have not altered that system. Consequently, the political leadership has become incessantly needy, and weak. The winning white coalitions play best in poor and neglected counties. In fact, southern states are financial despair with no way out, that the war among themselves; Moore vs. Strange; Bannon vs. Trump was inevitable. There is no southern strategy left that works except blame and anger. Passive, political aggression hides utter frustration and impending madness with your friends and neighbors. Free of charge. Anger is their shared mask, and last gasp hope. Nothing else has been accomplished in their own back yards for decades. The rural deep south has nothing left to lose.
31
Why does everything need to be made political and at the same time equate one faction of politics as racist?
Do this make the pundits feel good about themselves ?
So let’s cut to the chase and discuss that most issues are more often a result about economics than of political disenfranchisement.
4
It's common sense that the more menial or repetitive your job and your life are, the more circumscribed your thinking can be. You get home from work exhausted and slump in front of the TV. Do you feel better? No.
Then if someone offers you the moon and appears to promote your own feelings of failure and promises to fix those feelings, will they appeal to you? You bet. And why not?
You won't figure out for months, if ever, that the fixer is a liar.
So what can you do? Double down on your customs, your rights, your patriotism.
This is what humans do, sad to say. It's called "saving face."
18
It all comes down to a deeply flawed (crooked) Dem candidate, who felt entitled, who ran a terrible campaign, who was out-worked, and out smarted, and quite frankly, her own party was looking for alternatives. Many on the Dem side preferred crazy Bernie or very strange Jill Stein -- that says a lot!
Witness now, everyone is to blame.. except her. That says it all.
6
Bernie's "crazy ideas" have been doing quite well in Western Europe now for several decades.
7
Polite dont make kind
Bless your heart
16
I will say this again and again, until liberals and progressives can stop thinking about conservatives as "The Other," you are in for a long hard road. To be successful we must think of conservatives as people who have many of the same hopes and dreams as we do. There will be many areas where we can agree, there will be some areas of mild disagreement where compromise will be possible and there will be a few, hopefully just a few, of strong disagreement, where we may have to agree to disagree.
If, as seen in many of the comments, we continue to demonize conservatives, then those who do so are doing themselves and the liberal/progressive movement a disservice. They are demonstrating at 'tolerance' applies only to those who agree with me.
9
I don't see a paradox. They are friendly open and tolerant to their own, hateful and violent to everyone else. They live on federal welfare paid by blue states, swelled with pride about their success. Empty, shallow, fearful and weak.
35
Nice? Friendly? As someone who was born and raised in Wisconsin and moved to NYC in 1980, I find nothing nice or friendly from most of the people in Wisconsin I have met. The many times I've gone back there to visit family I found Wisconsinites suspicious, closed off, naive and derisive of people from out of state. Even when they find out I was born and raised there they question me about why I left the state and their "god forbid!! you moved to NYC!!!??" attitude. The irony is they voted for Donald Trump, a native New Yorker. Go figure.
33
There is no paradox. Trump voters were cultivated for decades under the Southern Strategy established by Richard Nixon who secretly promised to fight against civil rights legislation if Southerners would vote Republican...and they have been doing so ever since. There are three kinds of voters that chose Trump: racists and bigots, the uninformed and low information voters, and the Evangelists for whom defeating Roe v. Wade overcomes every other Christian value. That millions of American's could be conned into believing that Trump and the powerful manipulators behind him would look after their welfare is but a testament to the strength of the entrenched Fox/Breibart propaganda machine, which is the voice of the super-wealthy right wing extremists that have taken over our country. The United States is now just like those so-called Banana Republics that have undergone a right wing coup. Paradox? No, not really.
33
So, if TE's last sentence is correct, what I've worried about since November 8th, is becoming even more likely: Our Democratic Republic is on the brink of collapsing and becoming a one-party authoritarian state, if it doesn't come apart into civil war, or, what J.D. Robb imagined as "The Urban Wars".
8
Sorry, I am not a professional in this field. I struggled through the semantics in this column to understand what was being said. I tried the understand the explanation of contradiction and repudiation as anomaly, not affirmation. I suppose that the article tried to rationalize and normalize white nationalist sentiment of the voter and explain how a president could be elected by a minority of the population in a democracy. I thought it was angry, fearful, hypocritical and virulent white nationalism that elected this president. Every religion identifies what is decent, moral, human behavior. It is even in the Scout law. Are we a decent, moral, human State? I guess we will have to weather 4 more years of this amoral, do-nothing administration before we can get back to dealing with reality, justice and extending a helping hand. And, if there was any identity politics being played out in this election it was by the Republicans.
10
Professor Edsall, is it possible that Republicans are "sympathetic, kind, affectionate, conscientiousness, persevering, thorough and reliable" primarily to members of their in-groups, who will generally consist of individuals possessing traits they consider to be the most valuable to the preservation of a society in a scarce environment?
2
Of course it can happen again. Trump very effectively conveyed to the standard Republican voter the consistent underlying Republican meme of "equality of opportunity" with extremely unconventional messaging and brought those voters home. Trump (Brannon) then turned out out a much smaller set of "Trumpites" who when added to the Republican vote put Trump over the top. Neither of those groups of voters are going to swing to the Democrats. The Democrats next Presidential candidate is going to need to focus on turning out the Democrat vote just like President Obama.
11
Having grown up in Indiana, lived in Los Angeles for many years, and traveled extensively in other countries, I feel qualified to take a stab at answering this. In the middle of the country, there is a widespread belief that honesty and kindness will win out in the end - or in more cynical terms, you could say that the culture and society of this region train people to believe that being nice to others is the way to gain status and secure resources. But in a more culturally diverse and more materialistic society, not everybody agrees on what decent behavior is or on how it should be rewarded. So here you have a bunch of nice guys who've followed all the rules, and they get only disrespect and scorn. To me, this phenomenon of people whose main aspiration in life is to be "good" coupled with a society that has changed so as to no longer reward "good" behavior explains how people with a strong sense of decency, people who would feed a homeless person or aid a stranded motorist without thinking twice, can also be xenophobic a-holes. The president they've elected lashes out on behalf of all the "good guys" who never felt free to take what they wanted without apologizing or slapping on a veneer of kindness. Until this cultural crisis is resolved, it will continue to pose an existential threat to all of us. I'm referring here to the possibility of nuclear devastation or the violent destruction of our culture by other means. That's the price of good behavior.
13
I was with you until the last sentence...so you think the fault is good behavior?
"Politics is the gentle are of obtaining campaign funds from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each from the other." -- Oscar Ameringer, ca. 1935.
23
Obviously the problems these studies point out cannot be solved through political action. The economic, social and cultural changes which have upended the old, white, middle class world in America are the product of modern technology and of our much revered free market capitalism. The changes that have destroyed the old verities are not the result actions by Obama (or Franklin Roosevelt). You might say that McDonald's and KFC had more to do with destroying the old life style than any politician.
7
You're on to it now-- people used to say the novel (fiction) could eat all forms and make them its own. Perhaps so. But an unregulated (or poorly regulated) market truly eats all to feed itself. My son (a child) is now part of a demographic to be owned by the market place for no other reason than profit.
5
Eisenhower and Ford were the last two Republican presidents that didn’t deserve impeachment.
12
I'm not old enough to remember Eisenhower, but there were many who wanted to impeach Ford for having pardoned Nixon.
If the truth were known, there probably has never been a President who hasn't committed an act worthy of impeachment. Bill Clinton has the distinction of being the only elected president ever to have been impeached. [Andrew Johnson, the only other President to have been impeached, assumed the office upon the assassination of Lincoln, and was never elected to the office.]
Fortunately, impeachment is a political rather than legal or criminal process. So not only does a president have to commit an impeachable offense, it has to be bad enough for a majority of the House to be willing to impeach him. For conviction, it takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
Democrats who voted for Hillary are not able to impeach Trump voters, although that appears to be their wish.
3
As the months of the reality that the orange one is POTUS, and the thinking that went with the voter's choice, it is becoming clearer that the ensuing conversations and debates are sorely overdue. As much as possible calm, rational discussion is the preferred format but there are times when some passion and fire are required to underline the essence of the respective positions. As long as that is still conducted in a respectful manner, it's all good.
You may find some views expressed as abhorrent, that is because they are, but far better to deal with the truth rather some false perception. It is far better to know exactly who you are dealing with as society seems to be splitting into those who value everyone's humanity and those who do not. This is becoming the civil engagement over what your country stands for, strives to be, cares for all of it's citizens equally. That was the supposed understanding for some time. Even though it was imperfectly attempted and enacted there was always progress. Since the seventies that understanding has started to erode bringing you to the present.
Your country is at a crossroads. If it can't work for every American equally, it will not survive and work for any American.
3
Trump: Elected because of his supporters' Faustian Bargain. Doesn't say much for this groups' character, integrity, principles, patriotism, or basic humanity. Their earned reward is a trip with the Fake President to the bottom of the barrel. MAGA!
9
Let's also remember that much of the Tea Party morphed into the Trump Party in 2016 because those voters found a new and different obnoxious social front they could latch onto.
The once central idea that Obama voters morphed Trump voters in late 2016 and carried the election in a few states is hogwash. This article explains why.
8
The TEA [taxed enough already] Party has as it's sole organizing principle that the federal government should be smaller and local government should be bigger. It has no social front. It certainly could not support Hillary. Cruz was the most popular among the Republican candidates.
White voters with a high school diploma as their highest level of academic achievement voted for Obama in 2008 and 2016, even after Obama 's comment that they clung to religion and guns. Hillary calling them deplorable was the last straw.
The Democrat losers of the Presidential election are clinging to the belief that somehow, the deplorables from rural areas won the election.
The truth is, the majority of college educated people voted for Trump, along with their parents and grandparents who sent them to college. despite having only a high school diploma.
Rural voters comprise only 10% of the national population. Hillbillies did not elect Trump, although they were welcomed into the fold after having been excluded by the elite Hillary and friends who laughed at them.
3
Numbers I've seen presented on last prez. election do not support your assertion. College ed., especially professional class, over whelmingly voted for HRC. White, non-college voted overwhelmingly for DT. The numbers are clear.
3
Do these Trump voters really want a Dictator Trump strutting around the stage with his Musilini impersonation jutting his chin out a smug grin dividing America attacking brown folks ? Trump like Putin wants to demonize democracy and seems like his partner in that mission to what end I'm not sure perhaps $billions to leave Ivanka with no estate tax he pushes for. Lifting the oil sanctions on Russia and delivering Ukraine to Russia is worth a fortune to Putin and of course Jared and Don the con want their cut. The misinformed base supporting Trump will get very little but the comfort of TRump bashing brown folks for what that is worth.
10
Georgia and the Ukraine were delivered to Putin by Obama.
The Russians interfered with the election, not because they wanted to deny Hillary the election, but because they wanted to make it more difficult for her to govern. They never thought Trump would win.
Hillary was claiming she was going to continue Obama's war on fossil fuels and obstruct Americans from drilling. That would have raised worldwide prices, which would have benefited Russia. Absent high oil prices, Russia lacks the resources to run its own country, much less restore the USSR.
Trump was promising to open the spigots, which would cause world oil prices to decline, impoverishing Russia.
Have you forgotten that Hillary approved the sale of US uranium interests to Russia in exchange for payment to her husband of $1.3 million. Not only was Hillary running on a platform favorable to the interests of Russia, they even knew her price.
Your argument that Hillary is a good guy in comparison to Trump would have some credibility if you could point to a single accomplishment on the part of Hillary that helped women, children, the poor or anyone else. She talks a good story, and has a great resume, but is short on accomplishments. Let's see, she took money from the Saudis but got nothing in return. [It took Trump/Rex to get Saudis to allow women to drive cars, not Obama/Hillary/Kerry.] The money for Haitian relief went to FOB cronies and the Haitians are no better off for the billions.
4
If by "traditional values" you mean tolerance, inclusion, curiosity, critical thinking, and compassion, then I'm with you. If by "traditional values" you mean religious intolerance, racism, sexual bigotry, misogyny, greed, and xenophobia, then you can have them. And take them someplace far, far away, please. What I see happening is that many Republicans loudly proclaim that they believe strongly in the first set of values, and live and embody much more the second set of behaviors. It seems that more and more, starting with their politicians, particularly the creep at the top, Republican's core and strongest value seems to be hypocrisy.
20
When Hillary ran for office in 2008, she was opposed to same sex marriage. Adamantly. She never made a statement in favor of same sex marriage until after SCOTUS ruled. She has always embodied whatever traditional values seem in favor at the moment. Nothing is creepier than Hillary.
That you assert Republicans are not inclusive is evidence of the corruption of the Democrat narrative.
4
His base is comprised of habitually angry people and they elected a chronically angry man. It was clear that he would not do anything to relieve their anger, in fact, only exacerbate it through race-baiting, but it doesn't matter. They are going to be angry no matter what. And many of them have no good reason to be angry in the first place.
15
It is interesting that during the election process, we never saw Trump supporters attempting to disrupt Hillary or Sanders campaign events. We did see those opposed to Trump disrupting his campaign events.
Despite the dislike of Republicans for Obama policies, we never saw McCain or Romney supporters denying the legitimacy of his election, or marching in the streets in protest.
2
Equating the fight against injustice with those fighting to maintain injustice on the basis of the behavior of the respective sides is just deflection.
The forces of reaction and injustice are everywhere in power. Those in opposition are angry, and their only practical venue is the streets.
During the civil rights movement, marchers blocked streets and sat in in buses and lunch counters. Would you condemn them because those protecting segregation did not do the same?
1
Still angry are we. Even when we control all levers of power?
1
As a Canadian I think our most American and most conservative and religious province Of Alberta amplifies the research.
More than 70 years of right wing and far right Christianist governments preceded today's democratic socialist Provincial government. Alberta's government owes its election to two major factors the schism that led to a social conservative party called Wildrose with its theological mixture of Mormons, and Evangelicals and the fiscal conservative Conservatives who invested the bounty of Aberta's resource economy into health and education.
I think it is worth noting that Alberta's democratic socialist government is the center between what was once the Social Credit government of Bible Bill Aberhart who was succeeded by other evangelical preachers and the Romney type leadership of Alberta's moderate conservatives.
I see a lot of call for dialog and moderation and a centrist approach but until we start to listen we may never realize that the real center of the Republican Party is the Bernie Sanders wing.
A visit to the Mormon Temple in far right Cardston Alberta could make one realize that the real center lies in taking the local reality of democratic socialism and taking it to state and federal political philosophy of democratic socialism. It is the real world example of take your greedy government hands off my Social Security.
5
If Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, the Marianas, and District of Columbia had representation in Congress (as they should, since these citizens pay taxes and are at the mercy of the federal government), there would never be another Republican administration again.
We should also eliminate gerrymandering, the Electoral College, and pay-for-play while we're at it. Wouldn't it be nice to be a true democracy?
15
None of the residents of any of the territories you mention pay federal income taxes. The residents of DC do. If the people of Puerto Rico or other territories voted to become states, we would take the notion under consideration.
If you want to eliminate the electoral college, go ahead and start the effort.
Hillary spent three times what Trump spent and lost. If you examine her income tax returns, you would see that she is the queen of pay for play, her husband having received $400 million in speaking and consulting fees while she was in Congress and SOS.
3
It is past time we stopped paying attention trumps theatrics on stage and on twitter and focus on the actual damage he is doing with his behind the scenes agenda to damage our social safety nets, education, the environment and to personally enrich himself. The rest is a distraction, and old conman trick. If his flowers want to be blind sheep led to the slaughter there is nothing that the rest of us can do.
8
These are interesting statements and good points, and I do believe some of them to be true. I am a white southerner, and I have observed that people in my part of the nation are more conservative, myself included. That does not, however, mean that all of us are racist and socially intolerant, as popularly believed by many. Many people in the south are proud of their heritage, which can sometimes come across as racist and in some cases genuinely is, but in order for us as a society to achieve true equality, we must all respect one another's origins, culture, and beliefs. In some places, people can be less tolerant, but the prevailing view here in the south is that we should be more simple. This is not only in the south, as I know people from other states that say the same thing. Southerners revolve around the belief that the working man is a deeply important thing, and he supports his family, abides by the law, and fears God. These are not necessarily bad things, but many of those on the left-wing consider it to be intolerant and unintelligent. To be honest, I wouldn't question the lives of many people (liberals, etc.) if my ways of life weren't questioned to begin with. In order to achieve true equality, all ways of life must be accepted, applying to all cultures. Echoing the common southern virtue that I have been raised with, "Mind your own business." I end my comment by saying that if everyone did in fact mind their own business, maybe the world would be a better place.
9
I can only speak to my own vote in the 2016 presidential election. I started voting at 20, in 1976, and have voted in every state and national election since. I was a registered Democrat until I switched to unaffiliated after the Nov 2012 election. I voted for Obama both times. I am a trial lawyer married to a transaction lawyer--my wife has always been a Democrat and will always be. I come from an educated, middle-class family (my parents and siblings have at least a bachelor's degree); the same with my wife's family (with the sole exception of her brother, a farmer). My wife and I have traveled extensively in the U.S. and overseas for vacations and business. We have friends and business acquaintances from many countries, i.e. Spain, Sweden, India, Ethiopia. We purposefully did not have children. We lean left on social issues involving personal freedom, such as gay marriage, abortion, and protections from mass government spying.
I didn't vote for Trump or HRC. This most recent election was the first time I didn't vote for the Democrat or Republican candidate. I didn't vote "for" the third-party candidate I cast my ballot for, but rather voted "against" Trump and HRC. I wasn't angry, I simply am no longer willing to play the game of voting for the lesser of two "weevils". Few of those I know who voted for Trump are actually "angry" about government--which is not to say they are "happy" about government.
3
The majority of college educated voters voted for Trump.
To take the result of a survey and assert that conscientiousness correlates with homophobia prejudice and authoritarianism is beyond ridiculous.
The most authoritarian President in recent history is Obama, who ignored the legislature and wrote autocratic new regulations absent any democratic input. That readers of the NYT are being subjected to the assertion, sans evidence, that Republicans
Imagine Paul Ryan announcing to Republicans in the House that Trump wants this bill and they have to vote for it to find out what's in it. Right, Republicans follow authority. The Republican establishment wanted JEB Bush to be the Republican nominee--the voters a said no. The establishment wanted Rubio, no again. Followed by Kasich, for whom the voters said Heck no.
Compare with the Democrat nomination process. The establishment anointed Hillary, because she had the most money.
3
ebmem....thanks for all your "facts". Do us a favor...let someone else comment. The number of words you post do not equate to being correct. We"ll see you on the other side of this disaster of a presidency and you can tell us how you see it and I'm sure your analysis will be much shorter. One man one vote..thats all you get...
8
This map makes little sense and doesn't seem to have a real correlation at all to these differences. According to this map Texas and Washington State share the same point on the spectrum in these attributes, but having lived in both for many years that is so not so. Minnesota and Illinois are more traditional than Alabama? I find the rural/urban divide as a means to look at our political divisions far more persuasive. Eastern Washington aligns with Texas while Western Washington does not. Chicago and it's population tilt the political character of Illinois to Blue, but rural Illinois might find much more in common with Arkansas than Chicago. This map paints these states with the same brush, but Al Franken wouldn't find himself elected in Tennessee now would he? I don't think this map and therefore the statewide brush of these psychological profiles provides much insight at all. Look at Arizona, it's nearly the same color as NY.
7
I applaud the continuing attempts of Tom Edsall at psychological profiling of the Trump voter. But he consistently overlooks the economic motivation. I suspect that many if not most of the voters described in his last paragraph voted for Trump not out of party loyalty– which is the liberal narrative–but for reasons of economic despair, not necessarily for themselves, but for their communities. In effect, like the Brexit voters in Britain, they opted out of a liberal, democratic consensus they felt no longer served them, and looked instead for a more authoritarian solution to their problems.
3
Ron, that's the meme. I think it's more complex than that. The working class, as a whole, actually voted for HRC: the white working class voted for DJT. Here's another take that points to a more statistically rigorous argument, although, it's just a start:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-w...
3
Reply to IgnatzAndMehitabel,
What’s your point? Yes, lack of a college education correlates with support for Trump. We all know that. Edsall doesn’t mention it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the voters he describes in his last paragraph fall in that category.
1
The majority of college educated voters voted for Trump, along with their parents who were prosperous enough to send them to college despite having only a high school diploma themselves.
Democrats cling to the notion that they are the party of the educated, because that is what analysis like what you present suggests, and it fits your world view.
Selecting the 50 most educated counties and comparing them with the 50 least educated counties and pretending to extract some meaning is pointless. But it fits the Democrat belief system.
Why didn't they report that the majority of college educated voters voted for Trump? Because it did not fit their narrative.
1
Shorter Edsall: Trump voters are nice to other Trump voters and hateful to everybody else.
48
Perhaps everyone in the purple group thinks that their state is oversimplified, but I don't think Minnesota, Wisconsin or Illinois fit the general traits described. These three states fit the friendly characteristics, but the people in these states are well educated and are known at least regionally for being innovative. All three states have a substantial professional community that provide services to the region. These three states are historically liberal ( despite the recent voting pattern in Wisconsin), and are known at least regionally as being accepting of foreigners. For instance, Minnesota has the nation's highest Hmong and Somali populations.
9
Exactly! Group loyalty drives them. And you know what makes group loyalty even stronger among people with a sense of religiosity/sacredness? Not just amorphous and abstract threats to their way of life, but real live people disrespecting whatever the group claims as its sacred symbol.
Like the flag and the anthem.
You will not succeed in putting out the passions of this faction by telling them that they are stupid, by saying "its not your flag" or by saying that you weren't actually intending to disrespect it. In-group loyalty and a sense of sacredness comes from an older, more primitive part of the human that doesn't answer well to reason.
If liberals want to win elections we must avoid, as much as we can, behaviors that feel like sacredness violations to these people. Choose your culture wars wisely and conduct them away from the tribe's sacred symbols and spaces. Stomping on sacredness only strengthens in-group loyalty.
18
Well said, Anon!
1
The Democrats did not run on the current issues of the flag and the anthem.
However, what you refer to as "culture wars" have been, in fact, civil rights issues.
The Democrats have championed civil rights before and won, because they also championed the working class and its needs — or at least gave lip service to it.
That's what Clinton's message lacked in the Rust Belt. Telling people that everything was OK when they felt differently was stupid. Calling voters names was stupid.
The Democrats need to fight the "culture wars" AND fight for unions, wages, jobs, retirement benefits, and the right of working people to have a voice.
3
So the far right, wants small government, less taxes, and, "tax reform" that won't benefit them in any way at all. They have made a cognizant choice that somehow radicalism will win the day. How many of the far right, to right of center, that believe in small government less taxes, would feel if that meant, no money for their flooded homes, businesses, no subsidized flood insurance, no FEMA. At the turn of the century, if you were wiped out due to the collapse of wheat prices, too bad, if your home was flooded, too bad. If this is the society that these people want to live in, then they should be able to opt out of paying taxes and in return expect nothing from government. I'm sure that those same republicans would want to cherry pick and think that getting free money to help rebuild their home, well thats different from healthcare for all. Healthcare for all, they will reason, isn't the purview of Government, that's overreach, but rebuilding their flooded, hurricane damaged homes, and businesses is, that all the taxpayers are on the hook. Maybe the billions going to hurricane victims should to go instead to healthcare, education, roads, child care etc, let those that live in a hurricane zone suffer, like they are willing to let so many others suffer. In my opinion, if one sector of the population isn't worthy of healthcare, or an education, hurricane victims aren't worthy of government money. Republicans, should remember it's a two edged sword, it cuts both ways.
20
Originally a small town (3000) Iowan, my view is that the big divide is between people who are inherently open to change and those that fear it. Those of us who wanted to "see the world" left, those who were satisfied with life there, stayed. Simple to say, but somehow the difference between those who "searched" and those who were happy with "home" were fundamentally different personalities. The former eventually moved to the "coasts". The latter are still there. It's not just adherence to "authority", but whether you can see an alternative to what you knew yesterday. Do you question, or do you believe?
24
"...once the general election came around, most of them voted for the Republican candidate, which is what partisans do in our two party system with very little party switching ... sympathetic, kind, affectionate, conscientiousness, persevering, thorough and reliable — (these Republicans) made a pact with the devil and chose party loyalty over conscience. Who’s to say it won’t work again?"
It seems that this remains the main explanation. As such, this habit of blindly sticking to one's party affiliation, irrespective of the ideas and personal qualities (or lack thereof) of the specific candidate(s) of this party, is a major flaw of the US general electorate, a flaw which points to a lack of openness and education.
8
"Fixed view people" don't seem to notice or care about those 'others' who are being used for a doormat. As long as they've got theirs, everything is copacetic. Ho hum . . .
13
I have a much simpler and better study design to answer the author's question. Just watch toddlers in a sand box.
3
Doesn't anyone commenting here think it strange how we all want and need to understand the other side with something like compassion and genuine interest while the fixed world view side seems to have zero need to understand anything outside of that view? They wear ignorance as if it's a uniform, it must take more than just a wash of faux news and going to the right church to pull it off. The level of effort to maintain that veneer is crazy big. How much easier and less stressful it would be to take the uniform off? You have to wonder at the dedication to be totally ignorant all the time, the alt-right must have an app for that I guess.
13
They won. It would probably behoove Democrats to put some effort into understanding Trump voters so they can present a more convincing candidate in the next election cycle. Hillary Clinton was not that candidate. I voted for her but she was widely distrusted and reviled in the areas that voted for Trump.
2
Doesn't "deplorable" sum up Trump voters?
16
The Trump voter defies understanding by others because they don't understand themselves. They know what they believe, they just don't know why, and that doesn't bother them one bit. Logical consistency, factual accuracy, and coherence of argument don't matter much to them, no, for in their world the visceral response is the whole point. They are viciously punitive without the nuisances of facts and circumstances, and above all else, nothing has anything to do with THEM. Remind you of anyone?
Other than that, though, they're really nice Christian folks.
13
He *barely* won in 2016 despite Russian interference, the Comey/email fiasco, the extra challenges faced by a female presidential candidate, and the large number of Bernie supporters in the key swing states who were certain Hillary would win and therefore either didn't vote at all, or threw their votes away by voting for Stein or Johnson. Trump's supporters love him more than ever, but as long as the Democrats can nominate someone halfway decent, and the Bernie supporters who were key to Trump's victory in 2016 don't repeat their mistake, Trump has no chance in 2020.
14
As long as the Democrats can nominate someone halfway decent, and the HILLARY supporters who were key to Trump's victory in 2016 don't repeat their mistake, Trump has no chance in 2020.
1
The Japanese are possibly the politest people in the world, but that did not in the least inhibit their enthusiasm for atrocities everywhere they went in WW II. Pre-war Japan had an honor culture, like fundamentalist Islamic societies, feudal Europe, and the American South. Honor cultures demand politeness, both as a ritual that connotes the social order, and as a means of moderating their intrinsic violence. No big surprise that Trumpkins are polite. And the "foreign" feeling that visitors from elsewhere to Trumpian places arises not from the externals (grits versus bagels, chatty versus reserved), but from the perception of what underlies these externals.
12
Very interesting observation about the Japanese, Realist from Ohio. The Japanese are not keen on allowing refugees and immigrants into Japan to try to maintain a strict mono-culture. On the other hand, even in "flyover" country one finds many people born in other countries, i.e., India, Syria, Jordan, Sri Lanka, China, Mexico, Brazil, etc.
In reading the comments on Mr. Edsall's piece, it is obvious that the majority of those who live in the larger cities of the U.S. do not disguise that they think themselves superior to our country's less urban citizens. I can assure you that this is at the core of why many who live in the less urban areas voted for Trump. Obama didn't come across as expressing a superior mind set simply because he had lived in Boston and Chicago. His mother and maternal grandparents were from a small town in Kansas. I suspect that is why some of the states which voted for Obama--both times--didn't turn out for HRC this last time.
3
Duane:
I generally agree with your formulation as to why so many who had supported Obama went on to vote for Trump. Living as a quondam farmboy turned academic physician, I've heard it all. It can be gratifying to play those haughty folks a bit, but doing something as self-destructive as voting for Trump is beyond excessive. Even in opposition to someone as dismally unsuited for electoral politics as Hilary.
I do not for a moment believe that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist xenophobe. To do so is snobbery that will only exacerbate our problems. But, based on living with them for my entire life, and considering data on the prevalence of racism and the like, I would guess that that about half of them are.
2
Trump ran in large part on racism. He ran on an emotional reaction he inflamed in his voters. Fear of other. In the United States the great melting pot slogan has been a lie for a long time in most places. Thirty years ago white people started buying their way out of the melting pot, taking flight to white suburbs where a child could be born and graduate high school without ever truly interacting with a person of another race. Some of my family live in a small city where the same is true without the self segregation. The same is true for the rich other, the immigrant other, white Protestant others, all others that Trump ran on both for and against. The unknown is scary. The fact that the unknown in these cases is a fellow human being should be more important than the fear. Emotional manipulator versus logical thought and humanitarian instinct. So many have no real contact with or knowledge of the other. This is the America Trump was able to exploit. Republicans for Trump were exploited by fear mongering and Democrats were self exploited by their own fantasies of an America that did not contain nearly as many problems involving the others as it does. We all may have participated in the breaking of America.
8
Not the first time in history people without a conscience have made waves, but clearly there are long-term consequences to societies and the stability of the world when we forget or ignore that we share dreams and space.
4
Not hard to understand at all. The South has always been proud of its characteristics of politeness, etiquette, hospitality, and friendliness--and also of lynchings and screaming at children trying to integrate a school. It all depends on who "we" are.
25
I think John Kenneth Galbraith said it best. "The dilemma for modern conservatism is trying to find a morally acceptable reason for being selfish".
37
Mr. Edsall's argument is too complex. This is a simple question of Kant's definition of enlightenment. Kant says "Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage s man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!"- that is the motto of enlightenment." Conventionalism is the inability of man/woman to release themselves from "self-incurred tutelage". Simply put...they don't think for themselves. They remain in a constant state of childish ignorance, deferring to their "betters" and following rules blindly without question.
Republicans vote for Republicans, that is a fundamental truth to Republicans. While Democrats have a hard time even admitting that they are Democrats. Democrats live by the rules of the moment, the rule of their intellect; while Republicans live by ingrained rules that are constant and usually externally provided by "leaders".
Proving my liberal nature, I will waffle on this slightly. It is a continuum and nobody fits either of these descriptions completely, but they are valid generalizations that have defined our political landscape since the birth of democracy.
7
This column conveys scientifically gathered and reported information about personality measures by state. I believe it is crucial for the academic community continue gathering, distilling and publishing information about the electorate and about US society in general, including both urban and rural areas. The best use of our time at this point. I suggest, is to understand the Trump electorate and find ways to reach them with accurate information (instead of the lies and misleading pseudo-ideas from the white right wing).
1
An entitled and willing slavery to authoritative leaders is the course of natural progression when a group's institutional foundations reward active unthinking, the expected outcome of stunted public education. The GOP is a hive of drones produced in states that warp access to knowledge, disrupt critical thinking, and reward blind obedience. A dogmatic autocrat's dream population.
The Alabama law school that awarded a degree to Moore should lose its accreditation.
7
This type of research is always interesting, but I question the conclusions.
Trying to assign the "Big Five" personality traits to broad geographic regions seems really questionable. If this was done along racial or ethnic lines it would probably be rejected, so how can it make sense in geographic areas?
Also, many Europeans seem to hold strong opinions regarding rural America, so research about American culture done by Europeans may be somewhat biased and subjective.
By the way I found that the researcher Mr. Rentfrow is a "reader" at Cambridge in the U.K., which is a position above lecturer but below professor.
5
Professor in England is roughly equivalent to Dept Chair in US.
Reader is roughly the same as full Professor here.
Lecturer is assistant or associate professor.
In a non-tenure system it's not going to be apples-to-apples, but a reader is a prestigious position comparable to professor here in the States.
Just some clarification from my personal transatlantic experience - not reflecting on the rest of the comment one way or the other.
1
If this is true then the Nicholas Kristof approach of maintaining principles while avoiding gratuitous hostility and one upmanship is probably the best way to get the country back on track.
3
Americans seem unable to admit that they have a multi-party system just like all the other parliamentary democracies in the free world. How long will Americans stubbornly insist on shoe-horning themselves into the Republican and Democratic Parties? Being blind to political realities unfortunately results in leaving power in the hands of a sinister autocrat supported by Deplorables.
3
Sorry, but multiple parties beyond brief, evanescent entities do not survive in our system of checks and balances. In order to have them, we would have to switch to a parliamentary system, which is extremely unlikely! Our system was designed, for better or for worse, to work slowly in a limited fashion, and to force compromise. If people "shoehorn" themselves into one party or another it is because otherwise their votes are even less consequential.
3
Recent articles in the NYT have been trying to understand this election. One compared Trump to Abbie Hoffmans. He described how "members of the outraged working class elected their own Abbie Hoffman as president." And that Trump is someone who "is wickedly good at sticking his thumb in the eye of the educated elites" He also explained that before Trump the establishment created "an economy that benefits itself and leaves everybody else out. It led America into war in Iraq and sent the working class off to fight it. It has developed its own brand of cultural snobbery. Its media, film and music industries make members of the working class feel invisible and disrespected." None of this has anything to do with being polite. It would take professors at the colleges for the establishment to come up with that. Trump is anything but polite. He is a bombastic, self promoting reality show host who knocked off one at a time all sixteen of the republican candidates and then the anointed Democratic candidate who had spent eight years in the White House with Bill, served as a NY senator, and after that, the Secretary of State. It isn't about "psychological regions" or "clusters." It is about a rejection of the elites and establishment by people who feel like the French felt towards their government. They are "political elites who like soilless plants, are far removed from the concerns of the common citizens, as well as helpless in the face of unemployment and job insecurity."
5
Sadly, as a life long Democrat, I agree with Ron. We have lost touch with our roots, which I view as concern for and understanding of the common people, not the "elites" who are the more educated, better paid people running the show. We can embrace diversity, value education and accomplishment, and still respect the people at the bottom as equal to those at the top.
Thanks. The article I mentioned is terrific in helping us understand how we got here. At the very least, it
is a start.
"Who’s to say it won’t work again?"
It probably *will* work again.
3
The bigger question is why Trump voters stand behind Trump, when his party has overwhelmingly supported the TPP, the Wall Streeters & the wholesale offering of our natural resources to the industrial world, emerging & otherwise.
Agreed, the racists & xenophobes have their "reasons", but what about the Rust Belt switchers, going from Obama to Trump?
There has been a monumental Democratic failure to address globalism & the effect on our economy, from the ghettos to the abandoned factory towns.
Yet, we still have the technocrats urging us to get 'educated" & take our places in a brave new world staffed by the STEM set. The stats show how the tech economy employs very few people as a whole, leaving the rest to the largely under payed service sector.
The NYT has offered articles on the robots as the harbingers of ease & plenty for humanity on the one hand & warned of the frightful prospect of AI gone mad on the other. Again, lets not get ahead of ourselves.
8
Thomas Edsall generally writes insightful articles for the NY Times. This one wanders into sociology, which with its vague terminology is more useful to buttress advocacy than in advancing the dispassionate search for truth.
What Edsall shrinks from acknowledging is that the conservative position makes perfect sense to uneducated whites; they may be unaware but given the state of their knowledge their opinions are defensible.
And the intellectual elites, the college professors who provide "studies" showing that they have personality defects, have no credence with the poor whites.
The most glaring example of this is illegal immigration. I have seen numerous "studies" in the NY Times and elsewhere showing that illegal immigration provides economic benefits.
The poor whites on the other hand, see Democrats proposing a complicated health plan which leaves some out. Many of the poor whites die early deaths because they cannot afford to treat chronic conditions.
Then when the condition becomes terminal, they must wait in line behind a stream of illegal immigrants in the ER, who get their medical care "off budget."
This makes it clear to the very poor, that liberalism is a lie. That it pretends that resources are unlimited when in fact resources are very limited.
And the social policies of Democrats which encourage welfare mother to have 4 children with 4 different fathers and teach that it is racist to criticize immigration make make health care shortages inevitable.
5
You seem to be assuming that the "welfare mother" is an immigrant or non-white. That is not true. I know of many white rural folks who fit the stereotype. Rural culture is self delusional.
6
Rural white farming families receive federal dollars from the Farm Security Administration. This was one of the New Deal programs started after the great Depression. The Democrats supported it and FDR signed it into law in order to combat poverty. Let's not forget what Democrats have done for rural America even as rural voters (in both blue and red State) vote for Republicans.
2
The most important, in my opinion, part of this study is the finding that those of "fixed world view" are very selective in who they view as being a legitimate part of their community. Put another way, this study highlights the importance of definitions and who is writing them. Promoting "family values" sounds great, but it hinges entirely on how those in power define "family." Presently, there is a lot of resistance to the LGBT community on this basis alone (see Roy Moores myriad attacks on their fitness for parenting and existence in general). Before that, interracial relationships, cohabitation, children born out of wedlock were all considered "illegitimate" by those of a "fixed world view."
Similarly, the personal values espoused by many in this country would be met with less suspicion if it was not clear that the definitions were crafted as a matter of convenience instead of principle. Evangelical Christians too often answer their God's command to "love thy neighbor," with the same wink and nod question found in the Bible: "And who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29). Despite the parable of the good Samaritan demonstrating that neighbor goes well beyond national or cultural boundaries, the lesson never took. They still too often define "neighbor" as a documented citizen who will be a good "cultural fit."
4
Thanks for your continuing willingness to explore these difficult issues.
A missing part of the puzzle is, I think, supplied by a recent book by Robert Sapolsky (Behave: The Biology of Humans at our Best and Worst), in which he explores the brain science behind moral values. Oxytosin, for instance, which generates warm and fuzzy feelings when you look at your new baby, at the same time generates hostility toward outsiders who could be perceived as a threat. (Watch out for Mama Bear!)
A young man who wrote of experiences in 1950's Mississipi reported that the white people he met were the warmest and friendliest he had ever experienced. (He may not have had many connections with Black people !) Trump rallies generate strong "us-ness" among the participants and concomitantly create hatred to be projected on outsiders. It's built into our brains.
Real morality has to depend on a more generous and universal human sympathy. Our love and closeness with friends, associates, and family forms a basis for that, but it is very far from being the whole.
2
More than a grain. Why do you think Mitch McConnell vowed to make Obama a one term president?
6
These articles keep appearing in our liberal newspapers and magazines — articles that express bewilderment over how our nice Republican friends and relatives can support Trump. Clearly, this is something that we have not been able to fathom — partly because we fear damaging our relationships with these people by asking them to explain what they are thinking. The fact that no one can satisfactorily explain what has happened probably means that there is no rational explanation for what our conservative friends and relatives have decided to do. They have been swept up in a movement that eschews reason, denies facts, and embraces the ugliest emotions. This sort of thing has happened before at other times in other places. Consider fascism in Europe and the McCarthy era in our own country.
6
Trump voiced the innermost fears and feelings of so many people and essentially told them it was OK to publicly say those very private opinions. His voters did not like a smart black man as president because he was black and represented changes in the world. What does a black man know about running the country? And they sure as heck had no interest in a smart white woman as president. How could a woman possibly be qualified to run the country?
5
The irony is that Obama was as much white as he was black.
3
I live in Trump country. Even the first generation hispanics have a strong sense of Other when looking at the illegals. And Christians, in the rare event of meeting a Muslim who is open enough to announce their belief, are likely to say "I'm sorry."
The recent issue of "Teaching Tolerance" argues that reading stories about and by "Others" is one of the best ways to open minds and in that regard I wholeheartedly recommend Iranian born Muslim Emily Estfahani Smith's The Power of Meaning.
1
Not very useful or helpful.
Almost everyone I know is conscientious and friendly, and none of them voted for Trump.
Anyway, personality tests are not particularly reliable and are not very accurate predictors of behavior from one situation to the next. For example, there were plenty of Obama voters in 2012 or 2008 (in the "Conscientious and Friendly" region of the country) that voted for Trump in 2016. So what does that tell us?
We spend way too much time as a nation categorizing and stereotyping people into clumps, and then overgeneralizing the findings. Unfortunately, that overgeneralized information can lead to dehumanizing "the other." And you certainly can't apply findings at the group level to individuals.
An interesting group to study are hardcore Trump supporters who suffer from the confirmation bias and refuse to consider what a terrible job Trump is doing as president. They simply deny all negative information and stand by their man no matter how incompetent, rude, and destructive he is. Watch the man on TV putting on a show if you want, but he is really a a terrible President of the United States.
Maybe we and the media spend so much time putting people and groups into boxes we can label that we are really missing opportunities to discover and get to know some great individuals.
3
One thing that has changed in America, and only relatively recently, is that multiculturalism has gone from meaning accepting differences to embracing differences, from tolerance/open-mindedness to approval/endorsement, at which point people feel they are being asked to sacrifice their own beliefs and cultures for others.
10
I sort of wonder how we explain the anger and hate of progressives towards anyone who disagrees with them? is there a convenient graph somewhere that makes sense of the progressive view of a conditional first amendment for those they deem to engage in hate speech?
6
If click on the link in the article to look at the whole study, you can see a map that identifies the northeast (where the anger and hate is coming from) as neurotic and low in conscientiousness. Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than average to be moody and to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness.
I think that explains a lot of their attitude.
We are going through a period of tremendous change due to globalization, climate change, demographic change, and overwhelming technological change. Some of us are thriving, some adapting, and some being left behind. Those that are left behind feel threatened and latch onto conservative and reactionary visions of past idealized eras - backlash: make America great again, get rid of immigrants, etc. We need effective leadership, which we don't have now, to lead the country through these changes. Education is key. While I don't disagree with the editorial, calling people names only increases polarization, which we have all too much of.
4
And this is the reason when I find out that anyone is a Trump supporter or even a Republican, I run away -- especially when it comes to dating. The political affiliation is for me a convenient shorthand into that person's psyche. Without asking many questions, I "assume" they are traditionally religious, not deep thinkers, closet racists, not open to differences or change, etc. Therefore, they are usually too religious for me, not open or accepting to difference or change, not abstract thinkers and quick to anger. In short, too traditional and boring and patriarchial. They also go to tummy fat pretty quickly on their traditional meat and potatoes and American junk food diet.
So who needs a dating quesitonnaire -- I just ask their party affiiliation.
4
Any study that groups people from Minnesota and people from Mississippi in the same psychological group is highly questionable.
12
They can be both friendly and angry because it is a righteous anger at real abuses.
Once angry, anger spreads around dangerously. It is not a state of mind in which to be fair considering the position of others.
Who abuses those voters? It is an elite that exploits them, that exploits even their anger. But it is still abuse.
Who suffers from their anger? Often the wrong targets. Remember the story of anger going down hill -- the top boss abuses the next lower, until the lowest worker goes home and hits his wife or kids or kicks his dog.
The solution is not more division between the people being abused. The solution is outreach among the abused to unite together against the abusers.
But Heaven forbid "class war." Just suck it up and go home to kick the dog.
4
Our "progressives" like the aging Mr. Edsall have a rather strange view of authoritarianism. Not confiscating as much from taxpayers, not forcing folk into health insurance that they neither need nor want, distributing power to the States, those seem to be the opposite of authoritarianism.
I guess it is a newspeak kind of thing.
5
People who neither need nor want health insurance, huh? Are these people adults, teens ... or toddlers?
4
If you don't want to confiscate much from anyone, or force anyone to buy health insurance, or distribute power to States so they won't do much with it, you're a libertarian. If you're OK with confiscation from others who aren't like you (or think your taxes fund Those People), if you're OK with your health insurance for yourself and your kind but not for others, if you want to distribute power to States so that they can hand out services and keep taxes low for your kind and keep Those People as second-class citizens (or less), you're an authoritarian. Or these days, basically a Republican.
6
I first learned of the Trump voter paradox when I moved from Connecticut to the small Florida town of Brooksville – named in the 1840s after pro-slavery Sen. Preston Brooks. He is best remembered for beating with his cane, nearly to death, abolitionist Sen. Charles Sumner on the Senate floor.
As a Connecticut Yankee I was surprised at how polite the people were in Brooksville. When I moved to Texas four years later, I mentioned this politeness to a black co-worker. She replied to me, “You should see them from this side.”
10
Trump voters – folks who do not want the government regulate their lives, but do want the government to regulate the lives of “others”.
15
America is at a crossroads. The 60's cultural revolution seems to be coming to an end and an alternate counterculture is clamoring to take over with big "dark' money supporting the shift. It is very hard to bear witness to this as the shift doesn't seem balanced; its out of whack.
I have no doubt Trump will be in for his full two terms barring anything catastrophic from Mueller but even then Trump is the Teflon man and manure does not stick to him. His authoritarian strongman politically incorrect
anti-intellectual style plays well to white Americans who are feeling fragile in their identity and are steeped in fear and carry great worry of 'others'.
It is a slow train wreck on the cusp of happening. Sad.
I need to examine the methodology. How can Kentucky and West Virginia be so far apart?
1
What I wonder is what would the people with a "fixed worldview" actually do if they had their way?
While liberals, Democrats (whatever label one chooses) are not a perfect lot by any means, their politics are, or at least attempt to be, inclusive. Recognizing our commonality more so than our differences. Some may find such views naive and idealistic, but at least they are trying to work WITH people as opposed to against them.
With their "fixed worldview" what exactly do they propose? Some sort of "cleansing" of the world better to their liking or "re-boot" to some imagined past (that in reality was no where near as ideal as their faulty misinform imaginations believe)?
What is their end game and to what means will they use to achieve it?
That's the scary part to me.
6
"Trump voters," as you call them, are "ENGAGED voters," not "ENRAGED" ones.
When people seriously feel that they have a voice at all, they are in fact quite passionate about using that voice. As well as their minds and ears.
4
As an anthropologist, I don't see how these regions can be differentiated on the basis of personbality instead of culture. Moreover, I am doing research that initially is leading me in the direction of the existence of phobias or adverse emotions built by, that is to say, fomented artificially, by organizations connected to the Koch brothers' network. I can't go into this further but what I am seeing is that detestation of Hillary Clinton was artifully and expensively promoted and funded by a specific group over a long period of time. The same goes for another artificially concocted "witch," such as Nancy Pelosi.
In brief, I think that these studies on the basis of personality traits is not worth much.
4
I wonder if Mr. Edsall or any of these NY Times commenters has every met a Trump voter? Instead, they seem to resort to either stereotypes (of their own making) or abstract studies to imagine what this strange animal is like.
Here is a little secret: You are meeting a lot of them. They are your friends, your colleagues, your co-workers - people you actually like and consider devoid of prejudice or malice. How do I know? I am a member of that strange breed (the Trump voter) but, living in NYC and associating with liberal New Yorkers, I can't possibly let my voting practices be known, lest I be branded the worst kind of reprobate (and perhaps even lose my job). But most of my views and values are indistinguishable from yours: I am kind, charitable, egalitarian, nonracist - indeed, I frown upon ethnic pride and solidarity generally, including pride or solidarity of my own race/ethnicity. I just happen to believe that individual freedom is the greater value than government control, and that American solidarity is the greater value than ethnic solidarity (as advocated in the political Left's “identity politics.”) So I make no "deal with the devil," as you condescendingly describe it, Mr. Edsall, when I vote for Trump or anyone who espouses these principles. I am cheerfully voting my conscience and what I consider best for America.
6
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I am not a Trump voter, but I am interested to hear how you you see the issues. The thing is, I think many progressives would agree you on the values you mention, but interpret them differently. I think that's the source of much misunderstanding. For example, you said that you feel that "Individual freedom is a greater value than government control." But we would interpret that very differently. I see individual freedom as being about being able to marry the one I love whatever their gender, control my own fertility, not be frightened of the police, and of course, the pursuit of happiness. But those things doesn't seem to be the individual freedom you speak of, or at least they don't translate into getting your vote. Can you share more of what you think of when you think about individual freedoms? And as for American solidarity, many progressives see Trump as divisive and being about personal gain, not about e pluribus unum. How do you see Trump as being about American solidarity?
3
Sorry you are not making sense. Trump is the epitomy of white identity politics and so apparently are you.
1
the 5 traits seem lacking in their usefulness as ascribed to voting mentality. That these traits color perception i agree, yet they do not explain how so many people voted for "45" against their own welfare. His lies were transparent and it is said that his followers know that and don't care. Do they see and not care that this administration is creating a deeper more polluted swamp than ever? The list is long: corrupt use of government funds (emoluments, cabinet member travel, charity money for personal use, trashing the environment, undermining existing health care, tax cuts mainly for the rich and corporations, dysfunctional government (esp disaster relief and state department), ending trade agreements that were beneficial to many businesses, stomping all over the rule of law, threatening world peace............
2
Cluster 1: “simultaneously ‘friendly’ and ‘less socially tolerant.”
I’ll tell you how this plays out, based on my 30 years experience here, after nearly 42 years among the “more open” and “less authoritarian” folk in the northeast: Back-stabbing!
Yes, people are very friendly in the Midwest, very Protestant, very obedient but they can due to being extremely desirous that everyone hew to the same social standards they do, they are sometimes ready to stab people in the back.
I view it this way: New Yorkers are comfortable asserting themselves, expressing negativity. If they have a beef, they will tell you. Straight out.
But Midwesterners, since they have to appear “nice” will rarely tell you to your face that they are bothered by something. No, they will secretly lodge a complaint at City Hall, that your backyard does not meet their standard. Or they will stab you in the back some other say.
So the aggression is still there in the Midwest. But they have to conceal it. And I can tell you it can make you a bit paranoid, since you don’t know who “reported” you land you can’t resolve psroblems with the “nice” people, who have a secret gripe with you.
I’ve seen this over and over here.
But never in the northeast, which I consider my True Love as far as where to live. For the record, I sorely miss the rolling hills upstate NY. And the intellectual stimulation you tend to find in the northeast.
6
I believe there are significant regional/cultural differences in this country that can be analyzed through any number of lenses. For me, the most significant divide is between an ideology which appears to be based upon highlighting differences for the purposes of creating fear and distrust and an ideology which based upon recognizing differences and understanding the need to bridge the gaps between those differences to move forward. The current Republican Party exploits the differences of our citizens to create a sense of fear, panic and impending 'loss'. It is surely easier to evoke fear than promote togetherness, however, it has led us to a level of dysfunction which now threatens us domestically and globally.
3
Lazy, shallow thinkers. Uneducated in the history of this country and the world. Untraveled. Gullible. Fearful of anyone different from their own self. Yep, those are the people who voted for Trump.
12
I see a sea of white. White as far as the eye can see.
As a middle aged, white, middle class woman who is in a large minority of other women of my ilk who also voted for Clinton, I can tell you that the image of that rally is nauseating.
We are a substantial voting block in our own right, but we cannot carry an election by ourselves. If this country is going to crawl it's way out of the cesspool that we have climbed into, everyone that you don't see at that Arian rally is going to have to vote.
These people, these traitors to everything honorable and sane, won because the other side, my side, sat out the vote for whatever myriad of reasons. Now, because of our laziness and most of all unimaginative shortsightedness we have an abomination destroying everything good and decent that he possibly can.
There will always be haters, they're not going away, but my country's future rides on the decent among us to get off our lazy backsides and vote. Otherwise, we need to shut up and take what's coming, because we'll deserve it.
26
Totally agree. The same applies to African Americans who sat out the vote because they did not think beyond personal tastes.
6
It is no contradiction that people who believe awful things can be outwardly friendly in the right circumstance. Too often, people assume that rotten people are like comic book villains, carefully plotting how they can promote evil plans for evil's sake alone. But that dynamic is rarely the case in the real world.
The bigots of the South have always cloaked their white supremacy in a moralistic veneer. It started during the days of slavery, when the Southern Baptist convention broke from the Anglican church over slavery. Too them, slavery was justified because they were brining Christianity to savages and fulfilling God's will, which they interpreted as being aligned with white supremacy. Bigotry, for them, was a virtue.
Not much has changed. Southern Whites still see themselves as saviors to the savages, although now they are focused on homosexuality and liberalism in addition to race. When you see bigotry as a misappropriation of morality, it explains how these people can be outwardly friendly.
Personally, I'll take coastal brusqueness over Southern friendliness any day.
10
Pseudo-psychology to explain away the fact that people are not happy with the Leftist take on how America needs to move forward.
2
Who are these "leftists"? Conservatives seem to see anyone who isn't a fellow conservative as being left wing, when that is certainly not true. You might want to spend some time researching "political spectrum". Politics is not right vs left.
5
With Putin's aid, Bannon has unleashed an authoritarian monster/white supremacist god for disaffected voters who are unwilling to look in the mirror but are happy to blame the rest of us. Neither Bannon nor Trump can control them. Trump/Pence did not lawfully win the election and we are going to suffer until they are removed from office AND the lies and deceit circulated as truth on the Internet are debunked. Yes, Breitbart, retribution is coming to you.
5
After reading this piece and looking at the map, I've never been prouder to hail from New Jersey!
3
A Thomas B. Edsall "opinion" piece is worth its weight in gold (yes I know that "1's" and "0's" weigh nothing but the saying is apt anyhow). I always learn something from his synthesis of social science research into digestible pieces of penetrating analysis. "Opinion" is not what he is doing. I would call it educating!
2
"Typical Trump voter is not a raging, screaming white nationalist (...) They are just ordinary Republicans."
My problem here is that you don't need to be screaming and raging to be a white nationalist and extremely harmful to minority rights. I don't see Sessions "screaming and raging", yet he is one of the most intolerant and racist Republicans that I can think of. To me, this is even more harmful because he quietly seeds his racist agenda and normalizes his prejudiced tendencies.
9
A powerful coalition emerges from:
The racism, xenophobia and fear (explicit and implicit) that Trump nakedly courted. whipped up, and continues to nurture.
Evangelicals so mired in hypocrisy that they might sacrifice one of their own children for control of the Supreme Court.
The media audience of FOX News, Limbaugh and their ilk, that can only feel victorious in proportion to the failure and repudiation of their imagined "enemies" - in this case their own countrymen.
Probably not a plurality but certainly enough to do historic damage to our Republic.
4
Approximately 4,000 African Americans were lynched in America. The actual number might be much higher because of people simply "disappearing." Most, though not all occurred in the South. Many of these lynching were done as public spectacles. Calls for lynching went out in local newspapers. Crowds numbering in the thousands sometimes gathered to be part of the ritual.
The actual act of lynching was sometimes preceded by beatings, shootings and often castration. Sometimes the victim was burned at the stake while still alive. These level of vicious brutality was almost hard to imagine in a region known as the Bible belt and otherwise characterized by manners, conventionality and polite customs. It was almost as if some Southerners were like the German camp commanders who murdered a thousand people and then came home and played with his children.
But this is what authoritarian tendencies look like. They produce seemingly irreconcilable contradictions. This is not to suggest that Trump voters are uniformly racist. Nor to imply that they have a lynch mentality.
But authoritarian personalities are unpredictable and as the studies point out can and do act violently when they perceive a threat. The danger of a Trump is that he frequently reinforces this perception, unfounded though it might be, that white people are under siege. That they need to take back their country.
Whether intended or not, this drumbeat of constant threat may light a fuse with unintended consequences.
8
I take issue with the last sentence in this otherwise interesting article. If you choose loyalty over conscience, you never had a conscience.
3
If Republicans are such nice people, why would I, a white middle-class older woman, feel like I was putting my life at risk if I drove through the South with a bumper-sticker saying "Obama"?
10
At this point you cannot distance yourself from white nationalism while supporting Trump. If you support Trump, you are furthering the white nationalist agenda. Period.
5
I tend to agree with this op-ed. What is said about Southerners is generally true and for the most part is nothing for which to be ashamed. As far as I am concerned Southerners are the best examples of what America has to offer, our values are more inline with those of traditional America, what America was founded upon, and what it is supposed to be. Those values are honesty, loyalty, patriotism, and faith, the last of which is most important because America was founded on faith. It is a shame America has turned away from faith, but hopefully it return. It must return, or it be doomed. I am proud to be a Southerner, and a proud Southern supporter of the President. I support Trump!
2
FYI Trump is not a Southerner and he is dishonest. Google Trump University.
2
Something that struck me when I ventured to the Northeast as a young man was the unexpected friendliness of the people. Coming up from the Times Square station of the IRT,. I inadvertently spilled a handful of pocket change on the stair. The people around me stopped their headlong New York rush to help me pick up the coins. This was so unexpected and so contrary to what I had been taught to expect from "Yankees".
I was also impressed that, when you met someone pleasant, they would often invite you to a future meeting at a definite time. For example. " We are having friends for dinner next Tuesday. If you are free, please come." Back home, every conversation was concluded with some variation of "y'all have to come and see us real soon, ya'hear". If you were foolish enough to actually call or show up, they would be at a loss. Their invitation as well as their affection was just that - affection. Nothing more than social convention.
7
I find it hard to believe that Minnesota is more "traditional" (ie conservative) than Mississippi. Admittedly we are not as Democratic as we once were, but we are hardly a "red state". Also, extroversion is not valued by the children of Scandinavian immigrants who make up a large number of our population. Our Governor, Senators and most of our Representatives are Democrats.
2
There's no need to treat this as a mystery in seven dimensions. These people are smallminded.
7
Dirty little secret: the liberal area of the political spectrum is nice on the surface and not so nice when disagreed with, as well.
I was attacked and patronized for being a Bernie Sanders supporter by a group of friends who adamantly and blindly supported Clinton.
And, as we recognized in the 60's, there really are "knee-jerk" liberals, those who are liberal as long as they have no skin in the game, nothing to lose.
Do a study of that, please.
3
They are not nice. They are simply cowards, afraid to show how they really feel. Trump was their outlet. He is the emboldened version of what they are.
133
Mr. B. - You have once again "hit the nail on the head" in very few words: "many Republican voters have a strong sense of white identity". I could only change one word: "many" to "most". And, having lived in many of those 'shades of purple' states, I have observed the conduct and beliefs of the residents there. It is not a happy area, nor a satisfied one. Those 'purples' would be the easiest places to start a new KKK group, sad to say. As proven by the lady's observation in another comment below that "slavery used to be normal."
4
I suppose it depends on how you define friendly... to me, racists aren't friendly at all, regardless of how outwardly cheery they might be.
7
How about this: they don't hate people, but they don't like (a) liberal ideology and (b) being told they are racist and/or all the time, so they get prickly about group identity. E.g they don't like the black/urban crime they see on the news (even if it is over reported), but would be polite to a black man who came to the grocery store and said hello.
Summed up here in Charles Krauthammer's Law:
"Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil"
3
People like Edsall, and the birds of the same feather that flock around him and his way of thinking, believe that they are so grand in their supreme excellence of everything, STILL. DO. NOT. GET. why Hillary was clobbered and why Democrats / Progressives / Liberals have been getting 'shellacked' in a whole bunch of election cycles now.
2
Hillary wasn't clobbered, she won the popular vote by almost 3 million. And, I guess you're not going to tell us just what it is that we don't get.
7
Not only that, Finleyhere, Democrats have won the majority vote in every Presidential election but one in the past twenty-five years. If it weren't for our inequitable system, we would be solidly in control of every branch of government.
The taxation without adequate, equitable representation has to stop.
6
This isn't science. "Conscientiousness," for instance, isn't a thing. The data describe answers to particular questions, and these generalizations and the names given to the results are extrapolations beyond the data.
Here's what I conclude from the same data: Many people are personally kind but hold political views that hurt others. Many people are personally hard to get along with but engage in activities that help others. And many people are fed up with the status quo, and vote for people who challenge that status quo; sometimes these voters are wrong about what the challengers will do once in office, but voters have to choose among the alternatives on the ballot.
1
Over-analyzed; if it quacks, has feathers and webbed feet - its a duck. Trump's base is made up of selfish, rascist, ignoramuses who revere someone just like them and who got to be in charge. God help us.
5
Ok. How many different names can you find for the racism that drives white trump voters? Calling a cow a goat makes it-- a cow.
4
The Trump voters were positively reckless.
Whether it was fear or anger or misogyny or racism or spite at "elites" or just plain stupidity, they put an unqualified and unhinged malignant narcissist in power. That is what they did.
Whether they are polite or have daddy issues or whatever, they were bad citizens and a danger to democracy by voting for Trump. That's the bottom line.
18
A five star summary. Well said!
justifiably angry, but woefully ignorant.
2
I was raised Assemblies of God. The dichotomy of heaven versus hell is NOT a doctrine of compassion. When someone believes that you are facing eternal damnation in a lake of fire -- because that's where God thinks you belong. They may be pleasant to your face or say, "God bless you," but they are not going to do anything that might "risk their own salvation." There is no compassion in radical, fundamentalist Christianity.
6
How about a hint: Maybe those people who want to take health care away from 30 million vulnerable citizens aren't good people? Maybe people who make excuses for a racist jerk in the White House are, deep-down, not nice but instead patently self-interested.
Affable? Yes. Still judging you behind closed doors? You bet.
18
You're a joke. Call a spade a spade: "In the opposite corner from Jost, Marc Hetherington, a political scientist at Vanderbilt and a co-author of the 2009 book “Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics,” said he has abandoned use of the word “authoritarian” because he views it as excessively pejorative. In place of authoritarian, Hetherington said he will now use the phrase “fixed worldview.”
1
>"This strategy won [Trump] the presidency in 2016 when millions of non-authoritarian white Republicans — sympathetic, kind, affectionate, conscientiousness, persevering, thorough and reliable — made a pact with the devil and chose party loyalty over conscience."
That pact with the devil and the act of choosing party loyalty over conscience makes one rethink whether those people are actually sympathetic, kind, affectionate, and conscientious, no?
6
Two words: Media manipulation.
we call it patronizing!
I haven't found Trump voters to be very friendly. In fact, some of the ones I know are truly nuts.
7
maybe we're overthinking this: the people of Alabama had to choose between a corrupt AG who took a bribe from a governor he was investigating, and a bigoted fringe crackpot scofflaw judge.
the problem with Alabama -- just like the Republicans in Congress -- is they have no idea how to govern.
1
Lets review:
The German Nation was the most cultured on earth. Music, Science, Religion, Literature, Technology, Education. All great. They organized and murdered millions over the mistreatment they received after World War I and over their ability to divide between the German Volk and the "others."
One hundred and fifty years ago, the Southern States fought the bloodiest war in US history to defend the idea that white men had the right to own black people and deal with their so-called property as they wished. Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence and freed those slaves who were his biological children. He knew that black people were people - he made sure that his mixed-race kids were well-trained and had a grubstake for their free lives after he was gone. His estate sold the remainder so that his white kids would have money. This lie behind the Declaration and the Constitution festers today in blatant racism that draws clear lines between the white "us" and the non-white "them."
In South East Asia millions died (not just 60,000) because the Americans knew clearly that the "them" were not humans while the "us" were worth 100 of them.
The Paradox of being nice to "us" and killing "them" will reach its next plateau in climate. Americans know climate is changing and humans are doing it. They don't think it will impact "us". Just "them." Hundreds of millions of "them." As Trump showed, the rich will find the golf course that did not flood. All else are "them".
7
Buried in this useful piece is this observation, "the typical Trump voter is not much different from the typical Romney, McCain, or Bush voter. They are just ordinary Republicans." And this is basically what Trump said in his defense of some of the people at Charlottesville, a comment that was hysterically and roundly condemned by the mainstream media, in true pearl-clutching,and fainting-couch mode. I'm certainly not defending Trump, but I feel this needs to be said in all fairness.
1
They smile as they sneer. It is subtle but always there and meant to be noticed so you mind your place.
They don't need to visibly angry to get their point across. They do it without breaking stride
2
Where's the part about Trump supporters happily believing lie after lie, and mindlessly following along against their families own personal best interests?
What type of personality trait does that behavior represent? Lack of self awareness, lack of intellectual curiosity, herd mentality?
Is sad to see how many people in this country has become weak minded and gullible.
7
Mr. Edsall offers a very simple-minded analysis.
Take a knee.
You're completely out of touch with whats happening in the 21st Century.
3
What the Trump election has shown me..is how many people are hypocrites. People who are nice to your face..and purport to be Christians but who are seemingly unaware or incapable of living those Christian values...except if it is for their family/friends/church members/like minded people. For anyone else..they turn into some really, really angry and closed minded individuals.
5
Very interesting. White Privilege is still White Privilege.
2
Slavery, the Civil War, foundational events in our country's history, still sear in everyone's mind. History is the nightmare that I try to escape from - James Joyce. We have not escaped. Southern whites are still seething over their loss in the Civil War. They still seethe over any benefit given to black people. They show up today as Trump supporters.
Black folks ,whose slave labor helped make the country an economic power, still want a piece of the pie and not to be killed by the police. They take a knee.
Trump vs Kaepernick. Indeed a nightmare.
3
Two summers ago I drove my kid's old Mercedes from NY to Texas (passing through West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas ) and was a little anxious about what reactions my NY plates and northeastern college sticker might illicit. In the end I decided I was over-thinking the issue and was worrying about nothing. But I did decide to remove the "Obama/Biden 2012" bumper sticker.
Did I need to take that precaution? I'll never know for sure, but after getting pulled over by a Nashville policeman for accidentally running a red light at 1:30am and getting off with only a warning, I'll never stop speculating as to how things might have resolved much differently had I not taken that step.
5
"For those privileged by birth and long tradition, the idea of sharing can only mean giving up". - Gore Vidal
As human beings are fundamentally shaped by culture, the debased and tribal "culture" of these conservative regions in turn shapes the beliefs and actions of those who are raised there- leaving them ignorant, resentful, xenophobic, troglodytic.
It's 2017 and the southern town I live near (Charlotte, NC) STILL won't take down it's local Confederate Worship Statue, has fired it's progressive woman mayor (because she was open to LGBT equality) and has 'raised' their children to scream racial epithets at black players in a recent high school football game at Ardrey Kell High School (in a conservative, 'tradtional' Charlotte neighborhood as most of them are).
Turn such creatures loose in the ostensible privacy of the voting booth and you get... the average Trump voter who, again, in Vidal's words, "will always prefer a fiery death, howling tribal slogans".
So be it.
3
I look forward to the day when dozens of NYT columns are devoted to liberal activists who want to live in an open , tolerant, compassionate USA .
Instead we get ANOTHER column devoted to the racists and bigots who swallowed the Russian propaganda and are trying to turn this country back a hundred years. ( we still don't know for sure if actual voting interference may have helped them along )
2
As a Republican who voted for Gary Johnson I find this interesting but also humorous. Of course the author does not see fit to report an analysis of the hard left voters, perhaps because the smugness & condescension they regularly exhibit might put off a few of his loyal readers.
2
The few people I know in this too conservative county who lean left on social issues are not smug or condescending. They are scared, like me, of guys in pickup trucks with confederate flags streaming out the back and a gun rack behind the cab.
4
The Times, media, and Democrats in general have to stop over analyzing and pyscho-analyzing the right wing base. 40-45% of the country is going to vote GOP no matter what, no matter who the GOP puts forth. Forget them. They're a lost cause.
Can we please prioritize and work on communicating to leaners and moderates a pro middle/working class policy platform? The truth is, many leaners and moderates aren't happy with the GOP, but they look to Democrats and simply are not clear about what the Democrats offer as an alternative. For instance, far too many aren't clear on what the Democrats policy alternative is on tax reform, and what's in it for them.
3
The Trump voter paradox is that people who voted for a man who ran an overtly racist campaign can claim that they are not racist.
7
My father died at 93, he was known for starting an argument if you said good morning. I love nothing better than a good argument and a good argument has only winners and no losers. Life is about learning and losing an argument means you have discovered new facts to supplant old beliefs.
I am enjoying commenting less and less because rather than listen more and more Americans are digging in their heels and denying reality, denying facts and resorting to lying and sophistry rather than acknowledge that things are not turning out as they should.
It has been only 37 years since Reagan and I personally don't see America surviving his legacy,
Trickle down doesn't work, neoliberalism doesn't work and insisting what we are seeing happening is a tribute to our beliefs seems utterly insane.
Trump voters want black and white but so do Clinton voters but until both sides are willing to stop lying to themselves and their perceived adversaries America will continue to decline and only the Roy Moores will win.
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty-that is all
Ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know."
John Keats Ode on a Grecian Urn
8
Great bunch of folks; as long as you know your place. First place, white men, second place, white women, third place, oops, no place for third place.
3
Giving diverse groups of people 1960s "personality" tests, lab-rat style? This study uses junk science to justify existing stereotypes, and is a prime example of the smug, insular attitude that makes people in "flyover states" hate coastal elites. Politics and journalism are both about talking to people. Try it for a change.
1
Very well said.
Typical Trump voters are just ordinary Republicans.
The Republican Party supported a war hero and veteran legislator for President in 2008. It backed a legitimate businessman and successful governor in 2012. Last year, it fell in behind Trump. About as many Republicans voted for Trump as for Romney four years earlier. The great majority of these were not distressed working-class voters. They weren’t threatened by minorities or by globalization. They were—are— people who have lived easy lives, never wanting for anything save the most garish accoutrements of great wealth.
They knew Donald Trump was ignorant and dishonest, and it didn’t matter to them. They knew he was a sex predator who fathered children by various women, and it didn’t matter. Cheating on his taxes, cheating on his wives, consumer fraud, the bogus charity, the sponsorship of the Russian intelligence services, the anti-Semitic associates, cheating contractors who had done work for him, the picking on individuals before massive rallies, the insufferable racism, the continual running down of America—none of that mattered.
No, the only thing that mattered to Republicans of means once Trump was nominated by the Republican Party was that he had been nominated by the Republican Party. Loyalty to party took precedence over loyalty to American democracy, its mission, and traditions. What counted—all that counted—was that Trump had been chosen to lead Our Team.
What a pathetic thing is decadence.
10
It honestly is that simple- he's the Republican nominee and that's who I'm voting for. Also an intense hatred for Hillary, which many of them wouldn't be able to articulate for you, they just know they hate her.
2
Our lake house is located in Trump Country. Friendly, evangelical, less educated and addicted to Fox, and many do not believe in evolution. Change has happened too fast to this insular community. We had a Black president for eight years. Then their world is turned upside down by gay marriage, just as they were coping, none too well, with the two guys down the street. Bruce/Kaitlyn made their head explode. They could not stand Bill having White House access and fixated on his past behavior but did not hold Trump to the same standards. Hillary was clearly more competent but she was a Clinton and a woman. Nicest people in the world but diversity threatens them. As long as their world revolves around Fox and the local paper, nothing will change.
13
The irony is that when Trump's true believers finally realize they made a big mistake, they and their families will soon be dead.
But president Trump and HIS family will be just fine.
2
Trump's "true believers" (his rabid base of hard-core supporters) will *never* admit they made a big mistake. Never underestimate the power of denial.
1
What continues to mystify me is that Trump and his entourage do not exhibit any of the morality, conservatism, traditional values etc. that are portrayed as characteristics of the cohort that elected him, in one tedious analysis after another. Trump and his gangster friends exhibit traits more associated with criminals, pornographers, fraudsters, and charlatans. The underlying desire to follow loud mouth authoritarians must trump (pun intended) all internal commitment to moral and ethical considerations. That is the real quandary--how did millions of Americans turn out to be such total hypocrites? Voicing American values of decency and morality on the one hand, but secretly harboring instincts of the basest variety? I blame the celebrity worship/culture that we evolved into.
2
Edsall says, "Republican voters have a strong sense of white identity and harbor high levels of racial resentment."
Look, I have no love for the Republican Party, but this view crazy. It's disconnected from reality on only makes sense inside the liberal blogosphere we all inhabit.
Is there a racist fringe to the GOP? Of course. But do most Republicans vote their white identity? Of course not! Do you actually know any Republicans, Mr. Edsall? It's not a racist party. It's angry, aggrieved, sure, feeling that liberal elites condescend to them. But not racist--that's just something liberals tell each other to feel better.
1
Tom; This is what you ask. "How can people be so friendly and so angry at the same time?"
How could people don their Sunday Best- pack picnic baskets after church; spread their nice blankets on the lawn of the Court House Square and watch the day's Lynchings? Those people were friendly too Tom.
4
That grain of truth is an SUV sized boulder, in many cases. Evangelical plus Racism plus Authoritarian EQUALS a Trump Voter. Every time. THEY have been indoctrinated since birth into following orders AND excluding " the other". Blind obedience to the white male, willful ignorance required.
It's that simple. The BEST that can be expected, is some wake up and crawl back into their caves. Seriously, there is no cure.
2
What a horrid thought , that Trump supporters will remain unchanged in their opinion of him despite his horrible performance in the presidency to date . If nothing more , let them view the true nature of each of the attempted Republican plans to repeal Obamacare and replace it with "something better " ,
as Trump had promised on the campaign trail . The majority of these supporters would have suffered greatly under each of these plans . Was he really trying to help the "forgotten" ones ? Was he really trying to help the
"little guy" ? Forget all of his racial bigotry and crudeness towards "them - the outsiders" , since apparently the majority of his supporters , those authoritarian/friendly types surely approve of him on that dimension . They are not open , nor creative , but surely loyal . This sociological study is edifying , but somewhat alarming . The challenge will be to see if Trumps's behaviors , to date nonsensical and divisive , will eventually reach the point at which these
loyalists will see the light and blow the whistle on this grafting , megalomaniac .
It's time for our country to have an intelligent , well-educated , well-read , diplomatic , reasonable , thoughtful and caring person as president , not a moron bent on revenge and addicted to Fox News and Twitter .
When and wherever there is an 'us' and 'them' any other comity goes down the the tubes.
1
In "Life, the Universe and Everything" Douglas Adams describes a civilization whose sacred values are "peace, justice, morality, culture, sport, family life and the obliteration of all other life forms."
That quote came often to my mind during the year I spent at a tiny rural Southern town in the Bible Belt.
1
I know these people. I am related to these people. They are good people for the most part, but simply have extreme difficulty in putting themselves in someone else's shoes.
I find the best way to talk to them is to bring the experience of whatever they are complaining about to something they can relate to. For example, there is a very widespread notion that all black men (in particular) need to do is to follow the rules and they would not be shot by cops. They view the problem of Black Lives Matter as being completely solvable by the black community. Just simply obey the police officer if he/she asks you to do something.
The trick is getting them to see the many instances where people DID obey, completely calm and legal, and still got shot. Eric Garner, Walter Scott, Philando Castile - on video tape doing nothing more than a broken tailight, etc., killed. Get them to talk about the time they were pulled over for something totally minor and it escalated.
My brother was adamant the Eric Garner should have just shut up and obeyed. I got him to (finally, after a lot of back and forth) relate the cop who harassed him, culminating with citing for failure to wear his seat belt while he was outside his truck gassing it up! Oh! Light goes off.
Travel helps. Not just to Orlando or Vegas. Go someplace where you get to see that in fact people are people. Put characters on TV and in movies who are not stereotypes but are in fact just people.
I refuse to give up. Yet.
1
Is it really the case that "non-authoritarian white Republicans — sympathetic, kind, affectionate, conscientiousness, persevering, thorough and reliable — made a pact with the devil," or is it that these adjectives refer to what was only a thin veneer covering some badly flawed thinking and misinformed people?
To be sure, there are differences of legitimate judgment that can be found among informed and clear-thinking folks on many sides of an issue. But much of the Republican constituents are either just thinking selfishly (tax breaks for themselves regardless of consequences, for example) or are satisfied with very limited understanding and knowledge (denying the scientific understanding about human impact on global warming since the industrial revolution, sociological knowledge about the role of immigrants in our society, etc.)?
I'm afraid we are not having a national discussion among well-meaning citizens about serious and difficult issues, but are having a battle of pre-formed views of people finding whatever tactics that work to promote these views -- even using religious posturing and false sentimentality as a means.
This psychological study discussed by
Edsall is missing the point, or at least overemphasizing one minor factor, among a set of more important factors, about what is motivating Americans today. And let's not confuse superficial friendliness with real friendliness. "Friendly" and "conventional" are sometimes simply being duplicitous and bigoted.
3
Trump won "...the presidency in 2016 when millions of non-authoritarian white Republicans — sympathetic, kind, affectionate, conscientiousness, persevering, thorough and reliable — made a pact with the devil and chose party loyalty over conscience. Who’s to say it won’t work again?"
Mr. Edsall is one of our most incisive commentators on matters political and demographic. In this case, it seems that the portrait he paints of Trump voters could be titled with exactly these words: choosing loyalty over conscience. But it's deeper than a considered choice. Conscience simply doesn't apply to the "others". If the media these voters hear manage to demonize the next Democratic candidate as completely as they did Hillary, there is no way these voters will go for that "other", and, yes, Trump will be re-elected. These voters see it not as a pact with the devil, but as a last-ditch defense against him.
Observations from an urban transplant to deepest Trumpland:
No paradox. These people are very friendly to people of their own tribe. And most of them have little contact with anyone else. Trump tells them they're wonderful, beautiful people. And he stirs up their resentment of those other people — black, gay, trans, educated, liberals, foreign, etc., etc. Unless their personal circumstances bring about a change of heart, they find in Trump fulfillment of their certainty that they are the best, only true Americans.
The culture values respect for authority — they go to church, many are or were in the military — and playing by the rules. Therein lies the potential for exploitation. The "welfare queens" who allegedly buy filet mignon with food stamps are a tangible possibility for them, even if they have never seen it. They shop at grocery stores and stand in line at the checkout. The big-league frauds and cheats, the megarich beneficiaries of corporate welfare who can buy elected officials, are invisible to them, hidden behind wooded acreage and gates. By holding these people up as paragons of unfairness, liberals miss the mark as far as these middle Americans are concerned.
These are not necessarily all bad people, but they are very much steeped in another culture. Flag, mom, apple pie are more important than education, worldliness, etc. A think tank in 2004 coined for this divide the blurb Metro vs. Retro. The two cultures are talking past each other.
158
If you read through the anecdotes of relationships that have been severed since the election because of differences in political opinions, they almost always involve Hillary supporters who reject people who admit to voting for Trump. It is the leftists who reject those outside of their tribe, not the Trump supporters.
If you were paying attention during the election, Trump famously said he liked the uneducated and he liked the educated.
Hillary famously said that 47% of the people who were not voting for her were deplorable [racist, misogynist, Islamophobe, etc.] and the rest were people who had missed the boat on the economy and were losers. She and her wealthy donors had a nice supercilious laugh at the people who were going to lose the election.
Strange, isn't it, that the majority of the college educated voted for Trump, along with their prosperous parents who sent them to college despite having only a high school diploma themselves.
Hillary took a majority of the PhDs and a big majority of those who did not have even a high school diploma.
The Hillary supporters are still sitting around thinking that they cannot believe they lost and criticizing people who voted for Trump.
As Kipling said,
" If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch..."
Poor Hillary. Strange that Trump, a lifelong NYer gets that people from different walks have value and Hillary doesn't despite having lived in Arkansas.
An important angle to consider, which is the note the author seems to end on, is that moderates, centrists, and your "sweet granny" knitting sweaters all get sucked into the hate vortex. They even become tolerant of violent white supremacists as part of their ranks - that's not a dealbreaker by any stretch of the imagination, and denouncing them is akin to surrendering political capital, which simply cannot happen. This mentality is achieved through constant propaganda demonizing the left that is stuck into them at all times like a virtual feeding tube.
Arlie Russell Hochschild in Stangers in Their Own Land points out the ubiquity of this social reinforcement. It's everywhere they go. People wake up, read newspapers, log onto websites, read chain emails, listen to the radio, and watch TV, all of which are apparatuses for the angry message that the left is the godless scum of the earth, destroying this great nation. Combine that with social isolation from people who think/feel differently, and the pressure to conform, and you've got your sweet old granny making excuses for Nazis and the confederacy, and taking unconstitutional stances on things like the rights of protected classes, due process of law, and the First Amendment. No matter how nice people seem on the surface, and no matter what their psychological profile is even, deep down the hostility percolates, and percolates, and inevitably leads people into a state of tribal animosity.
2
"This strategy won him the presidency in 2016 when millions of non-authoritarian white Republicans — sympathetic, kind, affectionate, conscientiousness, persevering, thorough and reliable — made a pact with the devil and chose party loyalty over conscience."
Anyone willing to make a pact with the devil to remain loyal to the GOP - a party with no conscience or leadership - hell-bent on rolling back basic access to healthcare for millions of vulnerable Americans and women in neither sympathetic, kind or affectionate.
Trump's base has no conscience either. Their values are antithetical to what this country stands for. I resent this living nightmare of tyranny of the minority because our mentally ill president can manipulate his base so easily all because they are so threatened by non-whites. And on that basis alone will support a regime that tramples on the majority's interests while watching idly and silently as the Trump regime of billionaires enrich the 1%, destroy the environment through deregulation, gut public education and science spending, deny climate change, and trash our standing in the world.
Trump will continue to spew lies and promises to his base while the rest of us suffer as late capitalism, neoliberalism, and the rise authoritarian leaders push us closer to the brink of social, economic, and environmental collapse.
2
There is no doubt that the weakness of the conservatives outlined here. are true. But the hard left, the liberals among us, also have many weak points. They totally have forgot Bill Clinton's statement that "I did not have sex with that woman" and how he said it over and over. This behavior is accepted among liberals and hated by conservatives. Another of Clinton's "accomplishments" is to put half a million Americans behind bars. Who do you think the extended families of these people voted for?
My point is to stop pointing out all the negatives of the other side and look hard at your own side. There is much that needs to be done.
Hillary was the worst possible candidate that the Democrats could run and they did it with their heads in the sand. They put Trump in office.
5
The hard left? You might wish to look at the numbers of these people before you suggest that they are as significant as you seem to claim. And, those who self-identify as "liberal" are certainly not "hard left".
Conservatives just cannot get over Bill or Hilary Clinton. I'm surprised that you were able to resit bringing Obama into this discussion.
HRC certainly did not put Trump in office -- the Electoral College did. Did you not know that Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million? That should tell you that Americans wanted her, despite her real and imagined flaws.
2
Numbers matter, too. Southern hospitality. or at least tolerance, might often be extended to the_ individual_ who was an Other. That's why people in a small town might put up with the obviously gay (but closeted) man who played organ at church, or the Jewish fellow who owned the dry goods store. But African-Americans, and now Latinos, are a different story. Any group large enough to bring about cultural change represents a threat, and will be met with hostility.
6
Rich Republicans have succeeded by pitting poorer republican voters against the "others" who are taking away that which is rightfully theirs. It's the first page in a very old and very gross playbook.
5
Dont forget that the right wing media and "entertainers" like Rush Limbaugh got rich telling these republicans that their enemy is their own countrymen and their own government. They have demonized for decades.
"Nice folks" like that are nice to each other and they bond over hating people who are labeled by their group as "outsiders".
In that scenario a guy like Trump who lied to get out of military service can demonize a guy like John McCain and even mock his POW status to actual vets and totally get away with it. It is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
3
The deal with "making a pact with the devil" is that it is a transaction that is back-loaded. So by ignoring Trump's lack of ethics, his blatant dishonesty and his bullying narcissistic behavior, those Trump voters will need to pay a price and the devil will exact it. That is a normal interpretation.
However we may be breaking some new ground in applying such adages to American history and politics: Making a Deal with the Devil could bring around the "End Days" which according to my own conversations with the Evangelical Christian right wing Trump supporters, might be just fine. With Christ's return the Devil will be smited... so for them, win-win. You need to really twist your brain around that type of thinking to understand some of Trump's supporters. They are confident in their prayer-power being able to turn the Donald to their purposes. And if not? well, bring it on...
2
Yes.. Southerners (and apparently Midwesterners) outside of cities tend to be white and Christian. They like people like themselves and are frightened of people who are not like them. We know this. Sarah Palin knew even this, with her talk of "real Americans" back in 2008. That's who they think they are. Individually, they might be kind to, say, a young immigrant couple, especially if that young couple works hard and doesn't flaunt their otherness and acts "good." But in general, they think immigrants bring crime and terrorism. They want the world to be the way they think it used to be. They're racists, and they're very scared that the country has left them behind. Because the fact is, they haven't made any effort to keep up.
2
It's easy: "hegemonic liberty." Read David Hackett Fischer's book, Albion's Seed. The corollary to the Southern honor culture is the Southern idea of liberty, which is hegemonic liberty: that is, the white man's freedom to pretty much do whatever he wants to women and people of color. That is what is at stake for these people. Even white women defend this hegemonic liberty for "their" men.
3
The BFI measures the unique characteristics of one individual based on that person's comparison to a standard. Using it as a regional indicator of "personality" is ridiculous. This is the academia of today? Manipulating objective tests to prove that the politics of the rest of the country does not correlate to the assumed "mean (average) standard" of the Northeast and West Coast? Perhaps political elites and illiberal snobs in academia should consider Trump's universal message: drain the swamp. Washington is vile and hated in this country, as they do nothing for their citizenry. People's anger trumps all good feeling these days. The anger even trumps Trump. Get out of your bubble that insists that all Trump supporters are white nationalists. Many of his supporters are so mad that they simply don't care anymore. Let us all suffer. Perhaps it's revolution.
1
"sympathetic, kind, affectionate, conscientiousness, persevering, thorough and reliable"? If they were sympathetic they wouldn't have cheered when he verbally abused a Gold Star family or laughed when he mocked a disabled reporter, and they would have been welcoming toward refugees. If they were kind they wouldn't have cheered "lock her up", worn hateful t-shirts, or gone after journalists doing their job. If they were affectionate they wouldn't have physically and verbally attacked people who disagreed with them. If they were conscientious they would have educated themselves on the issues and fact checked the many lies fed to them by Fox and Trump. If they were persevering, at best it was perseverance in denial as to the reality of the ignorant, characterless man they blindly supported. If they were thorough, and they really cared about issues that impacted them, they would have become informed on the issues and realized that Trump is a con-man who will never deliver on his promises to them. As to reliable, I'll give you that. These friendly, close-minded, less-educated, intolerant people reliably fell for the con-job of an ignorant, unqualified, racist who treated the campaign trail akin to a sales pitch for Trump University.
3
The Psychological States map is a great tool for non-whites unfamiliar with the country's divide to understand where it is safe to travel and where it is not safe to travel. The hell with "freedom."
4
"...typical Trump voter is not a raging, screaming white nationalist; the typical Trump voter is not much different from the typical Romney, McCain, or Bush voter. They are just ordinary Republicans." These "ordinary Republicans" are just fine with race hatred and nationalism aren't they? They elected a white nationalist demagogue authoritarian. That's why the love him so much and there is nothing he can do to change that, including as Trump said murdering someone on the streets of New York. I see little difference between those amiable Southern Republicans and the white nationalist arm of the Republican Party, but then I grew up in California and now live in New Mexico.
3
Readers of this paper need to understand one term:
Outgroup Homogeneity Bias: The tendency to view an outgroup as homogenous, or as “all the same,” whereas the ingroup is seen as more heterogeneous or varied.
The desire, and I would more accurately use the term fetish, to put all conservatives and especially Trump supporters into a single low moral standing box has become an obsession.
They aren't as dumb as you think, and even low educated people have normal abilities of perception and know when they are being talked down to. These articles come off as anthropology investigations into long lost mysterious civilizations. These people aren't aliens, they are humans with all the same features and drawbacks of other humans.
I hope this mighty intellectual sociological microscope is going to be turned around eventually and a critical view be taken of those who judge others.
I challenge anyone to read many of the comments on this article and not come to the conclusion that the readers here are a little less than open of southern culture. If you think tribalism isn't a two way street you need to reassess your own thoughts.
7
Conscientious Trump voters - oh please just stop.
Trump's voters came from just two groups: racists and those willing to accept a certain measure of racism from their President. Its that simple.
Can you ignore "good conscience" and vote Trump anyway for whatever reason knowing full well that Trump is a white nationalist, and still claim to even have a good conscience. So, I do indeed question the conscientiousness and compassion of those voters, and do not give them a pass this column seems to do.
7
The data on which the displayed map of psychological states was based might be obsolete.
The map shown is confounding in including Texas in the group with California, giving Utah and Idaho more affinity to Washington than with Colorado, associating Colorado with Kansas and so on.
2
How can you write this entire column without using the word "tribe?" If you are in my tribe, you are my friend and if not, you are my enemy and there are no rules because we are at war. IOKIYAR - it's OK if you are a Republican, explains how Republicans poll answers can swing from "ok to stay in office after personal misbehavior" from 20% under Obama to 60% under Trump. Why Hillary's emails are a major crime but everything Trump has done is unimportant. Gun rights are all important but it's OK to shoot any black man with a gun. Free Speech is absolute unless we disagree with you. How torture is an abomination but waterboarding is OK because Islam. The separation of the entire world into us and them means that the Trump Republican cannot see their beliefs as hypocritical - there are just two worlds with different rules - and the nice rules only apply to the Real Americans. They won't see themselves as racist because they are so nice to the help, even if every vote is against human rights and they were once the smiling faces at every lynching.
I didn't use to think the right was this bad, until I watched a long time friend who spent 20 years piously lecturing me on how the sins of Bill and Hillary made them unfit for office, even on how Trump was unfit for office, pivot to voting for Trump because he was on the right side of the culture war.
6
It will not work again with 45, I'll say, simply because this administration was disbanded by the party they who's ticket they ran. The writing on the wall came when Spicer and Priebus left. McConnell doesn't want 45 around, neither does Ryan. Impotent, they couldn't even blame their outsider president who positioned himself well enough not to take the fall. Blowing smoke so that Price, Pence, Pruitt and Sessions can get up to their dirty work is not enough. Republicans will simply find another statue to seat in the Oval Office and as Rentfrow puts well, the "base" we've heard so much about will roll over and vote for them, again.
You don't see Kushner around, you don't hear from the sons anymore, the crazy references to the daughter on stage in Iowa were enough to send her packing, 45 has no friends, and in Washington, friends are what it is all about.
Fin.
2
Watched All the Presidents Men again and the final scene of rabid followers shouting '4 more years' isn't all that different from today's Repubs. In fact why not track down some of those robots from 1972 and find out their views today. Would be interesting.
2
This article misses the most crucial trait of Trump supporters, and Republicans as a whole: Their lack of empathy. Sure, many are nice in their private lives. But the beliefs they harbor and the way they vote are destructive, vindictive, and mean-spirited. Their privately held kindness does nothing for America. Their bitterness and resentment does.
5
Mr. Edsall, perhaps you want to Google the Japanese concepts of "Tatemae" and "Honne". The first means literally "What stands in the front", that is, FAÇADE. The second means "True Heart". Additionally, I recommend reading "The picture of Dorian Gray" of Oscar Wilde. There is no paradox. Only human nature.
1
So essentially, research now confirms that a portion of Trump voters are "deplorable." Too bad no one said that earlier.
7
Interesting but also a gross oversimplification to lump states like Minnesota with Alabama and Mississippi.
4
There is nothing new in this column. I am waiting for the one that explains how to open the closed minds and hearts of all these "friendly" Republicans who support Trump. I have been having this type if discussion with my LA based Libertarian friend for 30 years. He studies this personality thing and he, annoyingly, also has no answer. So, ought we to conclude that this is not a useless study? Like the song from South Pacific: You've got to be taught . . . to hate."
1
My father, raised in Europe, could not shake his education that Blacks are inherently inferior. My mother, who attended NY public schools, retained her exposure to the fact that we're equivalent, if not the same.
So I learned that the lyric, "You have to be carefully taught ... to hate all the people your relatives hate", rings true. We're not all cosmopolitan, but we can be educated at a tender age to appreciate our differences.
"the typical Trump voter is not much different from the typical Romney, McCain, or Bush voter. They are just ordinary Republicans."
True. But it does NOT follow from this fact that "typical Trump voter is not a raging, screaming white nationalist." Trump's election didn't change anything. He didn't swap 60 million voters with a brand new 60 million voters. There wasn't some giant turnover in population that radically changed our composition or how people think. Trump just started saying out loud what the vast majority of the party have been thinking and saying privately for decades. That's how he won the primary. That's how he won the general.
3
To a person, our family members in the south, evangelical and white, educated in nearby state colleges, primarily US travelers only, FOX watchers, had such a deep hatred of the former Black President, Barack Obama, immigrants, and anyone of color, that they jumped at the chance to support the current president, because he was saying what they wanted to hear, even though they didn't fully trust him. Every one of them is on Facebook. Every one believes fake news because "its on the internet and FOX." They are not interested in the truth because it doesn't agree with the opinions they've formed, so they ignore the facts. Half of America has lost their own integrity and don't realize it.
4
How could the Trump voter, who did so poorly in School, think that they are so well-educated?
1
As a psychologist, I agree that we have a highly-skilled demagogue who has an authoritarian personality, but is also frighteningly mentally unstable. And that is, in my professional psychological opinion, the BIG flaw in the research and opinions here. Donald Trump, according to many mental health professionals [and a new book called "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" will discuss this] suffers from an extreme form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder which accounts for his grandiosity, need for constant affirmation and adulation, lack of empathy for others, and hostility to those who are not loyal. Trump's also a virulent white racist and that also appeals to those disenfranchised, poorly educated whites (especially males) who are looking for a scapegoat. With widening economic inequality the growing anger of those left behind provided the perfect opportunity for a man like Donald Trump who first toppled the Republican establishment and then the establishment candidate put forward by the Democrats. Unfortunately, while many Trump followers are thrilled to see people of color banned, deported, and attacked, they will eventually learn that he's a con-man when it comes to economic justice. Right now they seem happy with the racist policies and the race-baiting tweets, but over time they hopefully will see that he's, as they said in the Vietnam era, "part of the problem, not part of the solution" to their economic woes.
2
How you define "tolerance" depends on your political and religious views.
People in red states are more likely to believe that Christian beliefs should be tolerated, so that Christian photographers or bakers should not be forced to provide services for a same-sex marriage. Some blue state residents interpret tolerance of Christian belief as intolerance of homosexuals.
1
This opinion ends with the conclusion that Trump used the race card to win his election. This is not new information just another attempt to explain the Trump supporter and why the rest of America should understand them.
One of the very few things that are 'authentic' about Trump is his racism. Without any handlers or paid policy advisors, Trump the reality TV star peddled his Birtherism lie for 5 years. He could do that because it came from his core belief system. He was able to be consistent and convincing for over 5 years because he was being true to himself. Once on the national stage, Trump needed the full apparatus of advisors to talk about issues because he had no authenticity, knowledge or interest in those issues.
Fast forward to last weekend and what does Trump do? He went full on racist and authoritarian, in full plantation master mode, to tell the African American NFL players that they were not sufficiently grateful for the monies he and his kind 'allowed' them to earn. That they could protest BUT it must be done in the manner, tone and venue of his choosing. In taking this posture, Trump drove another huge wedge into our society and he loved every minute of stirring the hate pot.
Racism and hate are the foundation of Trump and therefore his campaign and his support. Instead of asking Americans to understand yet again, lets look at racism and hate and how to get rid of it.
9 months in and Trump has offered very little except division and hate.
People inherently need to belong to groups, and for centuries there were many institutions to fill that need: religion, social clubs and government to name a few. But as the passing generations moved away form these establishments, coupled with vast changes in communication (social media, mobile) people have formed their own groups more to their own liking. The problem is that most of these self-forming groups don't have the institutional structure, tradition or leadership required to keep them on the rails. That void must be filled. Unfortunately it has been – by brash hucksters who know a sucker when they see one.
Having lived in Utah for over 40 years I can attest that the graphic in this column is incorrect and that Utah's color should be cold, icy, deep purple.
I think the designers of the survey that asked people to self-identify themselves missed an obvious flaw: people that manifest hatred, bigotry and intolerance will NEVER admit to it—they'll smile to your face and genuflect until they get behind closed doors or a voting booth, and then you'll really see how they feel.
This trouble identifying Trump voters is vexing, complicated and mysterious phenomena. It's a urban-rural thing, an educational thing, a generational thing, it's an economic/class thing. It's like a Supreme court justice thing said about pornography when asked to identify it: he couldn't tell you by definition, what makes up pornography, but you can sure tell it when you see it. Same with Trump voters: you can't define them by consistent traits, but you can sure tell by their bigoted, heartless leaders and their policies they vote for.
Nice try Mr Edsell, but when you get respondents that have no trouble lying, then your study results are heavily skewed and basically worthless to analyze.
"White identity" and "high levels of racial resentment" sum up the phenomenon that spawned the rise of the GOP nominee who became president. The millionaire of questionable business ethics found a red carpet waiting for him during the Republican primaries last year and proceeded to school seasoned politicians in the ways of the white Christian right that he promised would make America great again.
The South's "honor culture" has a shameful, racist history that it will never disavow because they call it "heritage" but what's the excuse of "sympathetic, kind, affectionate, conscientiousness, persevering, thorough and reliable" Republicans who bought into white identity politics, knowing that the GOP nominee was unqualified, unlearned, ignorant and divisive, a dangerous mix for any president?
With the runoff win of Roy Moore on Tuesday, it seems that not just the folks from Alabama but millions of Americans are in lockstep with intolerance and racism that signal a different kind of rebirth of the Republican party. The hard-right wing of the GOP has had enough of establishment Republicans and is following the lead of the president. Even Stephen Bannon is now thumbing his nose at his old boss.
This article is about the results of some personality tests, but it doesn't explain what those results really mean. For instance, when people are "friendly" on those tests, does it mean they are open and outgoing to everyone? Or to people from their race and class?
It seems to me that the primary characteristics of Trump voters -- as voters -- are that they are uninformed or misinformed, and they are willing to take their frustrations out on other people. Even those who are not overt racists apparently don't think racism is a very important issue. Trump's scapegoating of immigrants doesn't bother them, or doesn't bother them very much. That it's rare for three days to go by without a report of Trump acting like a two-year-old doesn't bother them. That Trump is profoundly ignorant doesn't bother them. And this is pretty damning, because they see in Trump a kindred spirit.
They may rate high in conscientiousness on this personality test, but these voters -- as voters -- are essentially destructive people. They are mad at "the system" and want to bring it down. They do not talk in terms of sorting out what are good and what are bad parts of the system, and they show no awareness of the extent to which their lives depend on it.
Roger Scruton talks about "Oikophobia" (oikos = greek for home) as hating one's own home, disparaging everything about it, and living in one's imagination for an idealized other place and culture. E.g. many liberals and most of academia.
These conservatives, meanwhile, know their home small-town/rural-county life is lacking in dining, entertainment, etc but it is theirs. So naturally they get defensive about this, because what else do they have?
They'll be nice to you in person, but resent you as a bloc, just as you look down on them as a bloc.
1
Time magazine, which I would have thought was moribund, was much closer to the truth. Shiawassee County, MI - a 20 point swing from Obama to Trump in 8 years. No change in population. If you can't explain both sides of that change, your theory fails.
The more you box off real concerns as "white identity' the more you will push people towards becoming what you fear, because it becomes the only vehicle for legitimate beliefs and concerns.
1
Again, another article explaining Trump's win without a mention of the endemic sexism at play in our society. These Trump voters -- women and men alike -- overlooked the weaknesses of a man and honed into every imperfection of a woman. Why? Because sexist attitudes are so completely normalized as to be invisible. Far too little journalistic space is given to this crucial aspect of Trump's win.
2
they are friendly, sociable and considerate just as long as you are exactly like them.
Save for the eastern "tan block," the psychological purple and tan on the map do not correlate very well with the political blue and red. The central purple area is filled with what are usually blue states (OH, MI, IL, WI, IA, MN). The western tan area is filled with red states (ID, UT, AZ, TX, WV). So what determines why and when "tan" psyches vote red and "purple" psyches vote blue? It's not simply racial identity or attitudes about the same.
First, they believed Trump's false promises.
Second, fear.
ALL this is about is fear that someone not white and American is going to take your job or get things that you aren't allowed to get, even if you don't need them.
The one basic thing these people and all of the GOP LACK--no matter how nice they seem--is emotional intelligence.
And one of the main components of Emotional IQ, no matter whose model you use, is empathy for others.
Empathy: considering other people's feelings especially when making decisions.
For the Republicans, no one deserves anything they can't pay for themselves.
If we look for our differences, we will surely find them. If we look for our commonalities we will surely find them as well. What is really at issue in the body politic is whether the cynical ploy of divide and conquer is at work, or whether our leaders are making a genuine effort to bridge the gap. As exhibit A consider Barcak Obama; exhibit B donald trump (sorry can't use upper case for him, just can't do it). Which of the two can you honestly say uses his influence to unite us? I rest my case.
As someone who's spent his life in the Midwest, your opinion of daily life in a small town is naive. It's way more Gopher Prairie than Smallwood. The backbiting, sabotage and hatred are everywhere. That they're covered over with superficial geniality only makes the situation worse.
This Rentfrow study has weaknesses. see pg 999 Five personality test groups were analyzed. Four of those groups had percentages of participants aged 25 or less ranging from 57-69%, and in that group of four test periods, women participants ranged from 55-65%. Only in one test group, S5, were people aged 25 and older represented. Minorities and people over age 54 were much fewer in number than in the general population. The other problem is that making generalizations based on state boundaries is hardly precise, informative or matching with common experience. This study flirts with the abandoned idea that there are personalty types associated with particular religions or countries of origin. I think the idea of the inquiry is sound-- but this methodology is weak. Especially if you are trying to understand trump voters, I would not base alot of stock in the self-selected personality characteristics of people aged 25 and younger to explain the previous election. This might be informative in 20 years as this cohort ages.
35
It is also quite a stretch to assert that conscientiousness is correlated with racism or authoritarianism.
Hillary lost the election because she relied upon complex modelling of voting tendencies rather than getting out there and glad handing the electorate.
The map is very hard for me to reconcile. As a native Minnesotan, the idea that we score more purple than Mississippi and about the same shade of purple as Alabama, which just nominated a bigoted ignoramus to be the Republican senate candidate is absurd. Unless they are scoring us on our "Purple People Eaters" image of the old MN Vikings? Yes, we pride ourselves on what we call "Minnesota Nice", and yes, I believe it is a veneer that can be pretty thin with "outsiders". But, we are a mostly progressive state with two very intelligent and progressive Senators, we elected the first Muslim to the House (Keith Ellison is my Congressman), and a Democratic Governor who is doing brave battle with Republicans from outstate. This state-level analysis misses all of the nuance. I am certain the major differences in these traits is between rural areas and urban areas. If you were to present this data on a county-level analysis, it would look very different, with orange in urban areas and purple in rural areas; the purple states are just those that have large rural populations.
Trump "voters, according to Ekins and Haidt, “are the true authoritarians — they value obedience while scoring low on compassion.”
What has always been puzzling to me is how people who value obedience (as well as "loyalty/sanctity") can hitch their wagons to Trump, who's notoriously indifferent to being loyal, god fearing and obedient. His loyalty is limited to those who provide him unwavering support; he touts his lack of business ethics; he dismisses obedience when it threatens his personal enrichment; his religious beliefs are expedient at best; and he is profligate in his treatment of women. In other words, Trump maintains his base of "fixed worldview" voters solely with his lack of empathy/compassion/care for struggling non-whites. The only word to describe that...sad.
2
Missing was much insight into the role of religion. Given who just won the Republican senate nomination in Alabama, and his chosen topic which consumed most of his victory speech (almighty God, Christian values, salvation, etc.) and the fact that voters did not care that he twice violated court orders (to remove huge replicas of the Ten Commandment Tablets from his courthouse and to facilitate the rights of gay citizens to enjoy the legal benefits and privileges of marriage) this fierce orthodoxy has got to play a big role in their political proclivities.
If people look like them, worship like them, and abide by their rules, things are fine, friendly, generous and neighborly. It breaks down when skin is darker, English is accented, and religion is non-Christian. The cognitive dissonance tolerance in this group is amazing. They seem likely to participate in the anti-immigrant, anti-BLM, anti-NFL groupspeak, and are quick to condemn these folks for breaking the law, being disrespectful and not having American values. But the fact that Sheriff Joe and Roy Moore flouted court orders and disobeyed the law doesn't bother them. It isn't the breaking the law part they care about, it's the complexion, first language or religion of the person breaking it.
Perhaps the most gobsmacking cognitive dissonance of all is the "Christian" part. Any religion with Jesus at its center demands devotion to the poor, the sick, immigrants, refugees. They willfully ignore that part.
There are many people that I refer to as "politely prejudiced", meaning that they are decent people when they are within their comfort zone. It is when they are challenged to think differently or uncomfortably that prejudice rears its head. My parents are prime examples of someone who would stop and help anyone if, for instance, they were stuck on the side of the road regardless of skin color. But they are against inter-racial marriage because "their children won't know what they are".
In the same way, those uppity athletes are ungrateful if they actually bring up a subject that many want to believe is fake news. The narrative they believe is impervious to facts and figures, much less empathy and compassion for those not like them. It upsets their world so it must be quashed as the wrong way, unpatriotic, disrespectful, etc.
I don't know who is an "average" Trump voter. What perplexes me are specific Trump voters that I know, some of whom I've known my whole life. People in my family who taught me about love and tolerance and compassion, friends who I know (thought I knew?) to be thoughtful people. I have asked some of them, "How could you?" and their replies range from "You are over-reacting, he can't be that bad." to "I didn't really want to but I certainly could never vote for Hillary." to " We just need a conservative supreme court justice."
I lived in the South until I was 30 years old. There are people with all sorts of personalities who voted for Trump because they are in denial, because they myopically oppose abortion more than they support anything else, and because they live in a white evangelical bubble. It's such a pity.
1
Instead of interviewing a bunch of academic psychiatrists to classify people into vague psychological categories to figure out what makes them tick, why not ask some of the people themselves? I would much prefer to hear a Trump voter explain to me her values and outlook on the world than to have an NYU professor attempt to do it in her place. Thats why this clueless piece is so painful to read and so hard to take seriously.
Not surprised. I lived in the South for thirty years, and the syrupy sweetness of "ya'll come back now" and "bless your heart" is a flimsy cover for such meanness, hostility, rancor, bigotry, and venom that it is hard to overstate it.
4
Seeing a lot of responses: "Why can't Democrats/Liberals understand some of the good stuff about Trump?"
Because there isn't any. He's been a fraud and a blowhard and a racist since entering public life in the '80s, and he has not grown in the intervening decades.
But Mr. Trump is just ugly wallpaper in a burning house. He was elected thanks to:
-- Gerrymandering
-- Citizen's United
-- Voter Supression
-- Psy-Ops, mostly backed by the Russians, who can't think of a better way to make America look bad than by having Trump lead it (and they're right)
-- The End of the Civil Rights Voting Act
-- Propaganda backed by an Australian Billionaire
Even if we magically lost Trump -- something that would require Congressional Repubs to have a spine -- we'd still have each and every one of those problems, which injure the nation and the principles for which it stands.
The paradox isn't why people would vote for Trump. The paradox is why Democrats let themselves get beaten up by a bunch of thugs who can't win unless they cheat.
7
"Characterizations of regions based on the psychological characteristics of the people who live in them are appealing because psychological factors are likely to be the driving forces behind the individual-level behaviors that eventually get expressed in terms of macro-level social and economic indicators."
Really? Isn't it a pretty big assumption that "psychological factors" precede (cause?) social and economic influences on behavior?
I disagree with psychological testing that homogenizes attitudes of social, racial, and ethnic groups. This study seems to assume that when asked to describe what they think of "other" people, the person profiled will not imagine someone pretty much like themselves. Ask, instead, what they think about rich/poor, white/black/Hispanic, urban/rural people and you may get very different responses.
And I even more strongly disagree with personality-type tests that have no way to measure the depth of anger that may underly even the most conventionally polite behavior. How does the subjective measure of "moderately low neuroticism" equate with high objective measures of gun violence or opioid addiction in the same region?
2
I grew up in a rural farming community in the Midwest. A few years ago a farmer from the area told me this story. A Pakistani family bought the local motel and restaurant where the farmers would frequently gather for their morning coffee. He said the Pakistani women who served them was at first very shy and hesitant, but over time as they became more familiar she began to talk and joke with them. He concluded by saying "she is one of us now". The more rural areas of the Midwest tend to be isolated from the wider world, a little exposure to those who are "other" often leads to the conclusion that the "other" is in the end really pretty much like "us".
1
Choosing party loyalty...by selling their conscience, does not speak well for the folks unwilling to think for themselves, and voting against their interests when selecting a demagogue (and Trump is so richly endowed with hypocrisy, a coward in disguise we call 'bully', well known for his cheating ways; otherwise, why do you think he won't release his tax returns?). It is like throwing your house through the window when you trust a liar, and a crook, is looking after your best interest; it runs counter to everything you've learned in school (if you were paying attention), unless you choose stupidity as your guiding light and horizon. Trouble is, once we make up our minds about a subject, we remain credulous about it in spite of new evidence refuting it. Such is the case of Trump's base, being led by its nose to the slaughterhouse.
2
I'm sure there will be as much curiosity about what makes a Trump voter as what makes a Mr. Trump for some time to come. The problem with all these efforts is that they will always be done at a distance and have very little scientific rigor. Even the most standardized of personality tests can tell us so much about any one person, never mind a whole group of people. And we have to be very careful about applying any kind of test to figure out why people voted the way they did, lest the testers be labeled as elitists by the very people who view the testers that way anyway.
Personally, I have no problem with thoughtful, well-educated people, but I value qualities like kindness, understanding, and trustworthiness more. If anyone wants to understand why anyone voted the way they did, then talk to that person, go that region, like many political candidates do when they want to win an election. Upcoming elections offer candidates an opportunity to tell the truth for a change.
1
Look at which areas of the nation are the economic powerhouses. Not those deep purple states depicted in the map. Something about "openness to experience" and less adherence to rigid and constrictive "traditional values" must be doing something right.
I grew up in an area of the country that could be considered more "traditional" than where I've chosen to now live. I can attest to the superficial sense of kindness and consideration that exists toward those who are perceived as being part of the dominant social order. However, I have also experienced firsthand how quickly that switch can flip to hostility when a discussion turns to progressive politics, people of color, the LGBT community, and those of differing religious beliefs. I also found it frightening how quickly those disagreements took on a violent undertone.
Let's be frank. "Traditional" in many respects means white supremacy, fundamentalist Christianity, and the patriarchal dominance of heterosexual men. It means a denigration of all people who thrive and live outside of that narrow definition. It also means support for ignorance. It is dead weight, and holding us back in every way.
This concept of "traditionalism" is indefensible, and has no place in a nation that wishes to be a leader in the 21st century. The majority of Americans understand this, and support equality and opportunity.
7
Am I alone in thinking we need to quit referring to Trump supporters as 'conservatives'? It seems to me they are so far on the right of that scale that they should correctly be called 'radicals'.
Or maybe the more radical end of the spectrum is just more vocal.
6
I think the bigger (rhetorical) question to be asked is why so many (Republicans) find it hard to change party affiliation and vote for what is in the best interest of the country. There's a reason the elephant is this party's mascot seemingly ready, able and willing to hold each others' tails and toe the line.
4
All the social science in the world will not explain the Trump voter - and I say this as a political scientist. No data sets or regression analyses will shed light on the current predicament. But there's a very simply explanation gleaned from talking to republicans: they prioritize party over country, and will continue to do so regardless of party actions. It's what they do, it's what their family and friends do, and no one wants to ostracize themselves from their social circle.
Most republican voters I talk with (and yes, I know this is anecdotal) agree with me on the issues, and, more importantly, agree with our one democratic senator too (Senator Heitkamp, ND); however, they plan to support the republican candidate that will run against her. Why? Party politics. Positions do not matter anymore; all that matters to most voters is that their preferred team wins. These people aren't engaged, concerned citizens; they're fans cheering from the sidelines. The rest of their group cheers for the same team. It provides their common bond.
The real issue is: what will it take to change someone's mind? Ask a republican voter what would make them stop voting republican, and I guarantee they will not have an answer. They know not what they do, but they do it anyway. Thus a solution arises: talk to people. Ask them sincere questions and let them find their way to the logical conclusion. Don't tell them what their hypocrisies are; let them deduce them for themselves.
12
Interestingly, most of the group are land-locked and I think that more than anything else explains their attitudes. When you live near the sea you are open to new people and new experiences because of the interaction with whatever and whomever arrives in your ports.
3
It should be pointed out that while "traditional" viewpoints carry a threat of immediate violence, "non-traditional" viewpoints also carry a threat of violence, but one to be carried out by proxy, even if it's only implied as an official sanction for refusing to toe the political line, or for refusing to submit to milder forms of sanction. Someone who will not pay fines, nor attend re-education, nor submit to any kind of confinement, is just as likely to suffer violence as someone who offends "traditional" forms of personal honor.
Here's another paradox to consider: all the entertainment that Cluster 1 enjoys whether it is a form of social media or a movie or a television show or a video game and so on is produced and/or created by those who reside in very liberal states. It seems that residents in Cluster 1 want to adhere to the days of yore and yet enjoy all the perks of modern life. They want to enforce their views on the rest of the country and make us go back to a time that no one cares to revisit except them.
Of course, the same can be said about the liberals. They are enforcing their views on the rest of the country and many resent that. Liberals have made many mistakes too. However, to be fair, liberal mistakes don't seem to threaten our very values for which our country represents. The level of anger in a Trump supporter is very frightening. Liberals may be annoying to some but they have never invoked the level of fear that Trump supporters have caused.
We are a nation divided and it seems to only be getting worse. I think we all sense that on some level and we are all scared.
4
While the statistics are about everyone--at least in theory--the focus of this article is only on Trump voters/Republicans.
Why? Why is no one working through the complexities of Hillary/Democratic voters? I say this as a Democrat who is very, very worried that the desire to understand Trump voters (which is reasonable) all too often slides into a sort of 1930's anthropologist's sympathy and disdain for the natives of some jungle.
Let's even the balance by looking leftward with the same acute eye.
4
Being less open to change, innovation, and tolerance is already dooming the central part of the US to poverty and backwardness, while the rest of the world moves forward.
The problem is they persist on dragging the coastal areas down with them, and when the coastal areas refuse (by encouraging change, innovation, and multi-cultural contributions), they scream about how they themselves are the only true patriots
6
I wonder if Edsall is overthinking the issue here. The characteristics most closely correlated to a vote for Trump were whether the voter's residence was urban or rural and how disproportionately white the voter's Zip Code.
2
It has been amazing to me to discover, as I have more often than I ever thought possible, that some of the kindest, most helpful, and caring people I know are also Trump supporters. For many, it is their anti-abortion beliefs and absolute support of gun rights that led them to vote for him. It sounds simplistic, but it really is that simple for them. Abortion is always wrong and owning a gun is always our right and you only vote for those who say they think that, too.
Most are very faithful Christians, although it is not a deeply thoughtful, introspective faith, but a black & white (no pun intended) vision of the cosmos and God. Reading a theological treatise or engaging in deep study isn't likely to happen but if it does, in will be in the context of showing the flaws in other belief systems.
These are hard working people who value community, but can't really process a worldview outside of theirs. It’s as though they believe that looking at even one thing, like race relations, from a different viewpoint will crumble their entire foundation.
15
What I have seen in my hometown in the Friendly and Conventional Midwest is a lot of religious, family-focused people who are deeply uncomfortable with the changes in society since the 1950s. They are friendly, yes, if you are white and middle class. They see their relative economic comfort as the result of moral superiority and hard work. Indeed, they do work hard and are devoted to their families. They will tell you they aren't racist and that discrimination no longer happens, so things like equal opportunity aren't necessary. They think the less-fortunate deserve their lot. They are friendly but lack empathy. There is no live and let live. It's all my way or the highway.
302
Oh my. Yes, Cate. I see this everyday here in the "Friendly and Conventional Midwest."
They wax eloquent about how great life was when they grew up but no recognition that it wasn't so great for those who weren't in their same situation. The mentality is that my way worked for me, so clearly, it will work for you. If it doesn't, it's your fault.
There is an amazing lack of any sort of introspection. They work very hard, but I think if you asked them why they do so, they couldn't really say. It is just what you are supposed to do. Same with church. Same with voting Republican.
The opioid epidemic & meth problems, though, have hit them hard and they struggle to process it. Drug addiction is what happens to other people. "How could this happen in OUR town?" is an oft repeated phrase.
3
What you've described happens in small-town Ontario as well. Outside of Toronto and other big urban centres, is a sea of conservative and still, largely WASP conformity. This has been slowly changing since the 1940s, but we still see "it's my way or the highway" attitudes and the lack of empathy for and acceptance of, the other.
3
"They will tell you they aren't racist and that discrimination no longer happens, so things like equal opportunity aren't necessary"? Not exactly: read that sentence again. They believe that equal opportunity is indeed necessary, but that it already exists -- hence their questioning (in frustration), "What more do they want?"
Some of these folks even voted for Obama -- but in their view, Obama's a far cry from Michael Brown.
"(Somewhat dissimilar states, like Illinois, belong to the regional cluster partly because of the states they border.)"
Huh? Illinois is a blue state. Illinois is the exception that proves the rule: You cannot define "Trump voters" on the basis of old psychological tests. Even though we are sandwiched between Indiana and Iowa, and we have the wonderful characteristics of agreeableness and what my father caller "Illinois nice," we stand up for our labor unions and for the most part, vote democratic. We are a proud, progressive state. Something is rotten in a "study" that lumps us in with our neighbors simpley through an accident of geography.
2
Illinois is one of the most corrupt states in the country and is a fiscal basket case. It has been hemmoraging population for years.
The saddest part is that at some point all the electoral advantages that this minority has right now will flip. How are they going to react when they find out their power trip is over?
3
My sister and husband once lived in a small town in northern Mississippi where she had made friends from their church community. When I was visiting her, we went to their friend's rural house for an informal get together. The man who's house we were visiting, after finding out I was a sibling of his friend then invited me to come stay with them anytime I want. He was not kidding. Of course, I was living in Indianapolis as a single young white man at the time and posed no threat. I'm sure this man, if still around, is a Trump supporter.
4
>But when threats are made against one’s reputation or values, acts of violence and physical aggression are considered appropriate forms of retribution. In some ways, the profile we observe touches on the surface of this profile — the friendly and considerate aspect when all is well. But I think we’re now beginning to see more of the aggressive aspects. I think many people, perhaps especially in this region, have begun to feel threatened by the changes taking place in society and are reacting with anger.
Interestingly enough, 99% of that statement is perfectly descriptive of ANTIFA and other extreme left wing movements. They profess openness, tolerance and compassion - but only to those who share their views. Any objectors will be shunned and rejected at best and met with violence at worst.
3
The biggest obstacle here is the "very low openness" that Rentfrow and his co-authors identify. It prevents progress.
We are programmed by our evolutionary biology to be skeptical of those we don't know, particularly if they look different from us (this made sense ten thousand years ago when you needed to be wary of newcomers wandering into your valley because they might pose a threat to your tribe). This instinct can generate xenophobic and racist impulses in humans today.
We are, however, also programmed to overcome that skepticism and wariness through familiarity. We do not fear that which we know and understand. Get to know your immigrant neighbor who makes you feel uncomfortable and he becomes José and he likes football too and suddenly he's not so scary anymore. The whole notion of a melting pot society is based on this.
But if there is no openness, if there is an innate resistance to embrace others (newcomers especially), we never get anywhere.
We also need to make a distinction between this behavior at a personal level (we are all inevitably conflicted to some degree by virtue of our evolutionary biology) and at an communal level.
If a community as a whole displays very low openness (and cherishes it), this is an institutionalized choice rather than our evolutionary biology at work. One that is diametrically opposed to American tradition. One that certainly I would struggle to excuse.
63
It's perplexing how nice right wing people here in Oklahoma can be. As a liberal Democrat (old, white male) I struggle to understand it frequently. Racism, xenophobia and homophobia appear to be at the heart of the bad part, while genuine Christianity (generally not the conservative and evangelical sort) and a tradition of hospitality appear to be the good part. People here generally will help anyone in immediate need of assistance, during a natural disaster, etc. but not necessarily in systemic poverty, which they tend to view as an individual or family's own shortcoming.
7
Agreed. Here in Alabama (and in Georgia where I grew up), it has always looked like some form of schizophrenia to me. The same people who 1-on-1 would exemplify courtesy will be the same folks who form lynch mobs. Not only do they blame individuals for the systemic proverty they may be mired in, but these same congenial folks will then consistently take actions to perpetuate that same proverty. I think they like life this way, easy to understand, rich and poor, black and white.
Of course it can work again. As the old saying goes, you can't beat something with nothing, which is what the Democrats offered in yesterday's environment.
I don't mean that Hillary Clinton was nothing. She had much to offer -- In 2008. But as political scientists figured out long ago, charisma is far more a function of the moment than of the persona. By election day 2016, her charisma was severely diminished, with a little help from the odd couple of James Comey and Vladimir Putin and, of course, Goldman-Sachs and e-mails. And her campaign machinery,, distinguished by ego and over reliance on data to the exclusion of shoe leather, was a near nothing.
Question: At one time psychological testing was seen as a bit of a racket, with tests oversold as a way of separating the wheat from the chaff among those seeking employment. How much real world relevance do these tests have? Certainly, there's a lot of cant in an expert"s ban on the word "authoritarian", which has a distinguished pedigree and is certainly applicable to white nationalists though not necessarily to run of the mill Trump supporters.
Could Mr. Edsall have oversold the utility of these studies in explaining voter behavior?
2
Having grown up in the Midwest and a little in the South I experienced the push for conformity. The pressure to conform is very high in the Midwest and Southern places I lived in. The norm that one shouldn't draw attention to oneself, show off or express an opinion that is not mainstream is very strong there. It's the reason why I'm amazed that so many in these areas supported Trump. Loud, braggadocio, flashy, from New York City, he is show off personified. This is the sort of person who was abhorred in the areas I grew up in.
4
There is no contradiction at all; low-openness people are often friendly to their tribe and hostile to outsiders, whereas high-openness people tend to treat others more equally so they are less friendly to their tribe but also less hostile to outsiders.
1
Interesting. My follow up question to Matt Motyl would be:
Why do so many "typical Trump" voters remain silent or passively supportive in the face of authoritarianism voiced by Trump? Particularly, why do they do so when many of the other Republican primary candidates--perhaps their first choice therein-- would condemn it?
1
I am pretty far to the left on economic and social issues. I also meet a lot of the criteria for being an introvert. I am perfectly willing to stipulate that, on a one-to-one basis, many Trump supporters are nicer and friendlier than I. But, so what? The issue is one of recognizing the need for empathy and fairness when it comes to groups other than one's own, if for no other reason than self-interest. To oversimplify: Give me a rude New Yorker or Californian who recognizes that, for instance, his or her own access to medical care is not jeopardized when members of other groups enjoy similar access, over a gracious South Carolinian who, out of some imagined fear that OTHERS are somehow jumping the queue, wants access to medical care denied to everyone.
6
I think this is more complex than regional cultural norms.
1
My wife and I grew up in the South, but we left for the sake of our kids and careers. We're retired now, and sometimes we joke about writing a book on growing up below the Mason-Dixon line. We thought we'd call it "Soft Voices, Hard Hearts."
This article confirms much of what we saw in our fellow Southerners. Not all of them, of course, but too many. Far too many.
1
Who is saying it won't work again? No one with any understanding of what motivated Trump voters. This focus on personality traits is entirely misplaced. Trump won the election because the leadership in America - - Democratic and Republican -- has failed to put America first like every other country in the world. This mentality of 'share our wealth with the world' led to trade deals that took away jobs from Americans who desperately needed them while making people living on the coasts richer and richer. At the same time, the lack of a strong border to prevent illegal immigration, combined with a legal immigration policy that brought more and more foreign workers into the county further diminished Trump's core supporters' ability to earn a living. Personality has little to do with it. Putting food on the table has a lot to do with it.
4
A little generalized. I am an Indianapolis born and raised Hoosier. The city and area today are much more "liberal" that most of the rest of the state. Sizable foreign born population etc. The deep South, however outside of a few metropolitan areas remains as it always has been.
A few lacunae in this paper, or at least in its presentation here. First, Texas, Idaho, Utah, and West Virginia all fall into the more "open" states while having voted massively for Trump. Colorado and Illinois, on the other hand, generally blue states, votes for Clinton yet fall in the more "closed" category. Second, I live in Norway, which is relatively homogeneous, quite conformist, and rule-driven, yet is worshiped like the rest of Scandinavia by American liberals as a bastion of openness because of its welfare state.
Some of this is at least counter-intuitive. Minnesota and Wisconsin are more conservative than Mississippi? Extremely hard to believe.
1
America needs to tell Congress that we will be happy to review Trump's Tax Plan right after we review his own tax returns.
2
I have never been sure what they mean by "authoritarian," other than it seems to be a bad thing. It seems to apply just as much to progressives who use rules to dictate behavior, language, and acceptable thought.
I still believe that this is an urban/rural divide for the most part. People who live in big urban areas - be that deep south or high north - live among different types of people. They are forced to reckon with those people and over time tend to learn that those people are just people like any other. People who live as you say a "community ... full of people much like oneself," if they are not already interested in getting alone with others, will never learn that lesson - that people are people.
Here in Minnesota racism abounds, but more so in the rural areas where people have had little to no real experience with the people who they denigrate. Their "experience" with people of color, immigrants and so on is mostly, God help us, television, and worse yet, the likes of Fox News. And while television is definitely able to make enemies of us (because it's easy to do) it does not make us friends (because tolerance, love and friendship take real work).
In a sense it's hard to blame someone whose lived in "the sticks" their whole life, with next to no contact with anyone but people who look just like them. It's like when I ask my kids to try Brussel sprouts and they say, "I hate Brussel sprouts!" To which I reply, "You've never had Brussel sprouts."
1
It is dangerous to generalize about groups of people, but as humans, we're going to do it. We try to make sense out of chaos we experience. This is an interesting article and does have a lot of good points with personality traits being linked to behaviors.
I feel the Trump phenomenon is much more base than even personality. The GOP rightly divined that anger, selfishness, and a sense of being left out were key emotions among disaffected voters. They found that trump, with his wild, ridiculous promises and absolutely no intentions toward accomplishing those promises, was how to get power back.
Just like when they embraced the tea party; when you embrace anger and play on people's worst fears, you get a group of people you cannot control.
No real surprise to learn that Republicans and Trump supporters in particular rank low in openness. This is to say that they are hostile to learning new things, and now thanks to Trump, they are quick to label as "fake" anything that they disagree with. In other words, they are against learning anything new if it doesn't fit their worldview, irrespective of the evidence. (Climate change science, or evolution, or even much of evidence-based reasoning overall.) Now let's amplify and reinforce these traits with media like Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars--media outlets that specifically feed on the fear and anxiety of change--and you get to the situation we have today.
3
This relentless search for the "other who is not like me" as an object of blame for ones troubles has been building for quite some time. Political history aside, events like 9/11 and the recession, loss of traditional employment , and the rise of multiculturalism have made those open and friendly people fearful enough to grasp at anything that allows them to preserve their world view. What puzzles me most is that these adherents to conventional behavior and honor are perfectly willing to tolerate and enable the continual and deliberate lies coming from the man they elected.
I am a liberal immigrant living in Texas. I have been well-received by the local native population for most part, but also I happen to be white and largely quiet about my liberal persuasions. It has been very confusing to me how people here can be kind and empathetic in personal interactions while at the same time expressing ugly intolerance to groups different from their own. In the wake of Harvey, I witnessed local residents investing major effort to help undocumented immigrants who had lost everything but were afraid to seek help in shelters due to fear of being deported. At the same time, my Facebook feed is full of articles expressing narrow-minded views. shared by my local FB "friends". Since the Trump election, I started feeling uneasy about living here, although nothing has materially changed for me.
210
I don't know if it is good or bad that you keep your political views to yourself, but I do know it was the smart thing to do. I can't get a job in my chosen profession here because everyone knows I'm "different".
3
I'm a bit disappointed in this column. I think most human beings become "tribal" and "authoritarian" when they feel stressed and threatened, and this probably holds true regardless of nationality or ethnicity. Not earth shattering insight, frankly. I began the article hoping Mr. Edsall was going to point out how liberals talk a great game in theory, but in practice they are often snobbish, unfriendly, and disastrous romantic partners. It's like all the liberal high mindedness is just a front to hide behind or something.
there are a lot of ugly sentiments expressed on facebook and a lot of fake groups spreading stories that arent factual i joined briefly some anti dump trump groups big mistake trolls anger they dont want to discuss the issues or learn something they just want to rant and rave i had to disjoin these groups and block them very upsetting
1
Hetherington is splitting hairs. If the laws of the land promote personal freedoms but a community demands adherence to a specific set of social norms under threat of expulsion and/or violence it is authoritarianism.
1
It takes two to autocracy. I always felt that those who were raised under a strict autocratic system, either military or organized religious, are to quick to go along with authority and hold those that didn't as outsiders. I could never understand how someone could sign up for the military knowing full well that the next administration could do the exact opposite of what you signed up for. Seems irresponsible to yourself. The blind loyalty to authority is something that educated people usuallly can't relate to. I grew up questioning authority and had great exposure in Catholic schools.
For a real indication of the thin veneer of 'charm', just get into a simple and polite exchange on Facebook with a Southerner. Things change very quickly when any question to clarify a belief is asked. Gratuitous cursing and incredible insults will flow like water. Then you will be informed that you are 'not from around here' or something like that. This would be understandable if it was someone in their 30's but this is often from people in their 60's and 70's with an amazing amount of venom ready to go. Don't rock the boat indeed.
2
A truly fascinating piece and very worrisome. It looks like the kind of 'followship' pattern witnessed elsewhere where low information, universal suffrage and lowest common denominator media lead to striking levels of support for obviously useless leaders. Look at the ANC and Zuma in South Africa. And the level of hate ! Is there a happy medium where cohesive communities are genuinely kind and open to difference? There is a fascinating article on the BBC today about the people on the 21st floor of Grenfell Tower the social housing block where many lost their lives in a fire in June this year. Maybe it existed there - and you can't imagine any of those voting for a trump like figure.
The present damage being caused by the presidency of this personage is mild compared to the destruction it will inflict upon our nation, the United States, at so many levels, over future decades. Just as the Reagan presidency did.
2
Adult development models are a much better explanation, especially the work of Clare Graves/Robert Kegen/Ken Wilber...stages of development are different than personality "types" that the authors of this study seem to be confusing/conflating.
No big mystery here. People on the right are extremely friendly and generous within their own community, and compensate with suspicion and even hostility toward the rest of the world. Leftists are brimming with goodwill and generosity toward everyone in the world, but make up for it by being self-serving and mercenary in their personal lives.
As a personality psychologist -- this article is beyond silly. It lacks rigor or thought. This is more about using a tool of limited validity to make political points against the Trump voter.
I'm not a particular fan of the Big 5 for reasons too detailed to go into here. But there is quite a bit of evidence that many personality dimensions have an inherited component. So unless one is going to posit that people's personality traits lead them to settle in various areas of the country, it is difficult to make a case that personality dimensions some how differ by region. For example, sociability, defined as the drive to be with others. Do you think there are regional differences?
No doubt you will find some behavioral differences among various areas of the country. But these are more likely cultural. Having lived in the South and in the northeast, I can tell you without hesitation that southerners are more outgoing generally. They aren't as rude or noisy in most instances. But those aren't necessarily personality differences, they are cultural -- and to some extent experiential. It is a much different living environment in NYC where the typical person is shoe horned into subways, packed onto sidewalks and generally has little personal space vs living even in a large city in the south that is much more spread out and private. Those environmental differences may lead to behavioral & attitudinal differences among regions, but are unrelated to personality.
93
I think what you mean is "They aren't as rude [to one's face]". They will say "why thank you, sugar" but in the safety of their white enclaves, they'll be talking smack about you if you don't fit the norm, well, their norm. I've seen this sort of behaviour from conservatives many times.
Your claim that behavioural and attitudinal differences between regions is unrelated to personality, but you didn't provide anything to support this claim, so it comes across as mere opinion. Did you consider that perhaps southerners who have more "liberal personalities" may just move to more liberal regions and those with more "conservative personalities" stay in the south, and that this might help explain these regional "personality" differences?
1
Ralphie, your post is a bit confusing. First you dismiss the use of a flawed research method but then use your personal anecdotes to make your point, which is not considered sound research.
Second, there may be some self-selection in internal immigration patterns - I don't know but it would be an interesting line of inquiry. Since you fell back on personal experience to bolster your argument, I will do the same. I was born and raised in the Pacific Northwest, an area with a shorter European settlement history, and lived for a while in the Midwest. When I returned to the PNW I noticed a lot more solitary diners in restaurants and out and about than in the Midwest. A lot of people in the PNW are from the Midwest, which could mean people with personalities who prefer solitude are self-selecting where they live based on similar personality types.
Joseph -- having many liberal friends I can assure you they talk smack about people they don't like when they aren't around.
And Joseph, in saying that regional differences are more likely cultural than personality driven, I'm offering an alternative explanation. I don't have to have proof, the burden of proof is on those making the claim that there are differences in personality by region.
Les and J -- Of course there could be some self selection involved in migration patterns. People who are brighter may tend to migrate to cities that have high IQ jobs. But there are plenty of those in the south & midwest. Less likely that personality factors would drive much migration I would think. For example, while I wouldn't classify creativity/artistic talent as a personality dimension, it is quite likely that creative types who want to make a career may tend to move to NYC or LA. But does that mean NYorkers are more creative on average than Texans? Doubt it.
And to finish -- I've read and published lots of personality research. While there are cross cultural studies, I don't recall any research (other than in this column) where the hypothesis is that regions of the US have different personalty types / traits.
And I don't believe that there is a "liberal" personality trait in the political sense of the term.
It's getting tiresome to keep reading explanation after explanation of why people voted for Trump. These articles all seem to start from the proposition that Trump voters are really nice folks, who just happened to vote for a not-very-nice man. But, really nice folks would not vote for a man who said the things Trump said or did when he was campaigning. Nice folks would have turned their backs on a man who said disgusting things about women. They would have been appalled when a Gold Star family was persecuted and bullied in public. Nice folks would never vote for a candidate who insults war heroes, mocks the disabled and insults religious leaders. And, yet, millions of people did vote for a candidate who did all those things. So, regardless of the surveys, it's just not credible to start from the notion that Trump voters are nice folks, good Americans and well-meaning. In fact, they are the opposite of that.
5
After a weak opening, your column came to a strong and almost correct conclusion. One of the norms that the majority of Republicans accept is white predominance (because it is more and more a political term, I avoid the term of "white supremacy" for the moment), and within that white predominance, male leadership, in their society. A person in this community might not be seething in anger, but they do identify with the majority in their community. And this defense of racial privilege has been motivating factor in electing more and more demented figures such as Judge Moore. And also there was a a "great party" switch, a party switch that started in 1948 and continued right though the 2010 election, when in reaction to the election of a Black President, most whites in the South and Midwest moved in mass to the Republican Party, the Democrats being the Black people's party.
1
I don't think it's all that hard. People who feel their values are not respected will be very nice personally but very angry to outsiders. It's nothing new.
1
A lot of people are simply lazy and don't want to think. If an authority figure comes along and tells them: run your life like this then you will be happy they ignore any contrary evidence and believe what they want to believe. I have often thought an indirect purpose purpose of organized religion is to ensure that people learn how to follow authority figures. Never before in the history of the world have so many people had an opportunity to develop their mind and think for themselves and it seems to be the one thing most do not want to do. In fact, they are vilifying education and knowledge as well as common sense.
We are conducting a social experiment here that has never been tried before. People tend to bond over shared culture and values. All you have to do is look at the history of planet earth to see this.
But what happens when there is no longer any set of shared values and culture because of extreme diversity?
The left's new motto is "diversity is strength" but they can offer no evidence for this. Only a feel good slogan.
1
Very interesting, and there is a cognitive dissonance. Looking at a political event such as the Republican National Convention and watching people descend from normal nice-looking people to those screaming to "Lock her up" with great viciousness and with obscene misogynistic signs outside and on t-shirts was to experience a dislocation with modern-day America. The comparison could easily be to the anti-integration rallies looking at the faces of hatred directed at black children going to school or in earlier times, frankly, to postcards of lynchings with happy faces and macabre scenes. The South where I live has all these decent pleasant people who are totally oblivious of the majority black population and other views. One glimpse appeared after hurricanes without power, when suddenly there was paranoia about looters -- the others who might invade their white enclaves.
Trump directed and encouraged the anger of his supporters. He sometimes attacked reporters and changed the negative energy of his mobs towards journalists, or he would attack protesters, again turning the hostility towards specific targets.
This is politics as blood sport, and the NFL hate mongering is just one more example. Trump's moving targets will continue to appear, and white supremacists are eager to go along for the ride.
285
Trump supporters are not experiencing "dislocation with modern-day America". Rather, they are a large part of modern America, a large part that has been dislocated by the failure of both Democratic and Republican establishment politicians to take globalist the trade and immigration policies impact on their jobs and families.
Sometime, watch an old documentary of a Hitler speech, and deja vu, the crowd mimics that of a Trump rally. The republicans have gone to night school . . .
1
I also live in the South, in my case the very heart of Trump country. I have observed the cognitive dissonance of which you write. If you are white, wealthy, and belong to the right church, you can pretty much do anything and be excused. In times of illness or trouble, neighbors and fellow church members will provide the very kindest of care.
But, if you are not Caucasian, rich, and protestant watch out!
1
Classifying anything by state makes little sense. You'll get vastly different results if you study Atlanta vs if you study the rest of the state. I suppose the scholars averaged their results for each state. Did they also record the deviation?
1
When I mix it up with conservative commenters in various internet fora, I am exceedingly polite and generous to conservatives. After two comments where they act that way as well, they respond with ear curling vitriol. It has happened so often that it appears to be a trait, not random. I respond politely, prefacing my comment with "why are you so angry?" It's truly bizarre.
5
People by and large like to be thought of as "sympathetic, kind, affectionate, conscientiousness, persevering, thorough and reliable" They certainly like to think of themselves that way. So while they might pick up a stranger who stumbles before them in the street they are perfectly content to say and do vicious things behind closed doors or in the public company of like-minded folk. And, even then, they can justify their malice by blaming the victims of it by attributing flaws to the victims' character.
People who make pacts with the devil recognize that they are like-minded at core.
2
My personal conclusion about this paradox is that underneath all the friendliness and even warmth for one's own is a deep anger that is displaced onto others who are deemed unworthy such as the poor.
2
My friendly, well-educated widow neighbor is a 77 year old retired schoolteacher on a public pension--and a white Republican who voted for Trump. Her late husband, she said, was told after losing a big promotion that the company had to hire a minority or a woman instead. They became conservatives as a result. She's conscientious and self-reliant, but a bit weak on history. She told me that "Slavery used to be normal... like having a cleaning lady."
7
One piece missing from the story of why mainstream Republicans supported Trump is the FBI. The strange innuendo in Comey's letters branded Clinton as a crook and took the whole discussion of Trump's character off the table (https://wordpress.com/post/ontheoutside.blog/787). Comey settled any crisis of conscience once and for all.
5
My difficulty with "fixed worldview" is that we don't really know what that world looks like. I'm not talking about the alt-right--I think we've figured out what they want. I'm talking about all the "regular" Republicans. Seriously, what does their perfect world look like?
Before the 2016 election, I believed that a person could hold conservative views, fiscal or social, and still be a good citizen. What the election taught us is that the conviction to be good doesn't run very deep. "Regular" Republicans want to shake up a gridlocked government, but they're willing to elect someone who brags about sexual assault to do it? They resent the liberal elite and want "payback" for what they see as 8 years of overreach, but they're willing to elect someone who calls Mexicans rapists and thinks we should use torture on terrorist suspects? They want someone in the WH who speaks their mind and doesn't care about being politically correct, but they're willing to elect someone who asked Russia to hack his opponent and implied that NRA defenders should shoot her?
I get that the voters Edsall is describing feel that they are protecting the values they hold dear. That's natural and human--we all do that. But at such a high cost? That's what's troubling to me. That "regular" Republicans want lower taxes, smaller government, and family values--and they're willing to sacrifice the world's climate, civil rights, and even the most foundational aspects of our democracy to get it.
623
"but they're willing to elect someone who brags about sexual assault to do it?"
The alternative was a woman who had voted for the Iraq war and who had said about Muammar Gaddafi, "We came, we saw, he died." She also wanted a "no fly" zone over Syria, thereby risking WW3.
Maybe the next time you Democrats will remember not to sideline Sanders.
2
They're voting for a label, "Republican . . .", and anybody who wears it passes muster.
2
"Republicans want lower taxes, smaller government, and family values--and they're willing to sacrifice the world's climate, civil rights, and even the most foundational aspects of our democracy to get it."
Maybe they simply concluded that their opponents didn't realize how strongly they felt -- so their message was a warning about how badly they wanted those things.
I don't agree with their goals, but I understand anger and frustration.
2
The "us" versus "them" dynamic is reinforced in the way many religious denominations look at the world. It runs through our history and is easy to see in the treatment of native Americans and slaves, but much harder for us to face its presence in today's society. My own conclusion is that this is the genetic legacy of our tribal background, something that is very deep in us and difficult to counter by education.
5
..but education is the first place to start.
I am an affluent white woman and the only Democrat in my family.I am the youngest ( now 61) and I left home early and "saw" the world .I got a better education in a world view sense and am the only true progressive in my family.So it isn't entirely about "tribe'.Although I would agree with you that it is very difficult to go against your tribe.
1
I read something very interesting about the Obama to Trump voters. It was written by a journalist who'd spent a lot of time in 20 counties that flipped from 2 elections voting for Obama to Trump.
His assessment was these voters wanted change more than anything. They were happy to vote for a black candidate if he could deliver the change they wanted.
When they didn't get those changes, or things got worse, they were willing to vote for Trump on the hope that he might deliver.
Struck me as interesting and insightful.
16
If someone wanted change and voted first for Obama and than for Trump, I can only conclude that they are people who are poorly informed and completely unaware. It would be impossible for someone who actually listened to what first Obama and then Trump were saying during their campaigns and then cross over with their votes.
1
The change vote always has the upper hand. We live in a nation of dissatisfaction always wanting the new ,bigger, better.As if that will make us happy. The new president ,the new car ,the new house ,etc etc etc .How about we get off the consumer treadmill and take the time spent shopping and use it for something more meaningful like reading and education and service to others.
Especially when the other candidate is Hillary, with both her and her husband's baggage & history. Voting for her, even for those like me who voted for her, seemed like "same old, same old."
People want to move forward. And Trump was the candidate of change (horrible change, but at least change).
It feels like these studies are not addressing the elephant in the room. Perhaps there is a better way to study people's views, which engages people's values and people's sense of rights, as well as their ability to tackle complex issues. And, susceptibility to the rhetoric of racial resentment from their leaders.
For example, it's a universal, traditional value that a child should not suffer for the sins or decisions of their parents. Yet many people in this country, are ready to deport hundreds of thousands of young people brought here by their parents, disregarding the punishing impacts of this decision.
To be in accordance with their own values, and grant full rights to those young people, some Americans might have to give up a little in the short term. Leadership could guide Americans to make the choice which affirms their values and their faith, with positive long-term effects. Or, push them in the opposite direction.
My question would be: what is causing people to demand rights only for their own group, denying them to others, and what's causing people to act in opposition to their traditional values when it comes to the "other"?
11
Totally unscientific answer, but I think people who would deny to "others" the same rights and privileges they claim for themselves (and whoever they deem to be like themselves) believe that it diminishes themselves in some way, or costs them some societal advantage, to allow others equal footing.
It's a false premise, of course, especially if you believe that we each do better when we all do better. But if you can't get beyond viewing your value in relation to others, then you only feel good about yourself when others occupy a lower rung of the ladder.
2
Interesting thought. Have you asked yourself how much are you willing to give up?
I normally enjoy Mr. Edsall's columns very much, but this one is straight from the pages of "Duh!" magazine. People in the south have rigid, conventional viewpoints? Right. And that's good for them, but bad for those outside the mainstream? Got it.
I suppose it's nice when social science confirms what's right in front of your nose, but I hope to have something a little deeper next time.
7
As a red stater (around here I'm regarded as pretty left, but I'd be considered conservative by the average Times subscriber), I find the suggestion that people from the South and Midwest are necessarily "rigid" and "closed-minded" more than a little offensive. One of the sources of resentment is the impression that folks in these parts of the country have of "coastal elites" and the like, i.e., that "they" denigrate those who see the utility and value of social conventions and cultural traditions. In my experience, a lot of conservative people (and I am friends with people who work for and actually know the Koch brothers) are not "bad" or "stupid" or "rigid." They view the world and imbalanced and they resent the impositions of and insulting stereotyping by "outsiders" (i.e., people in Washington, New York, LA, etc.).
Perhaps the best line in this piece is the comment the Motyl quote: "As is the case for many stereotypes, there is a grain of truth, but the grain of truth is just that--a grain."
1
Oh yes, and people in Northern states have just as rigid viewpoints, too.
2
As a psychologist, I'm not at all surprised. "That's mighty white of you," was a way of expressing gratitude to a neighbor who gave a helping hand or who offered an even-handed exchange. The data say that 10-15% of the country--half of Trump's unshakable core base--would likely be comfortable reverting to norms where this would be an acceptable, even warm, expression of thanks.
How does a democracy enfold and make peace with people like this, who seek and participate in community only on their own narrow and rigid terms; and who otherwise are arming themselves to the teeth, in order to deal with those who see things differently?
99
Carl F.
If a trained psychologist such as yourself cannot answer your question,
then I believe the answer is that rubes will be rubes, and there is no means of shaking the rube-ishness out of them.
That's been my experience. That's why I make a deliberate effort to avoid these people, including some who are family and life long friends.
It is simply not worth the aggravation.
I'm also tired of the 'optimists' who tell me I should make the effort to understand these people.
I owe these people nothing.
They are all adults. They made many bad choices to get where they are.
My only consolation is from the fact that I believe they are all miserable .
2
There is no science in politics nor economics nor psychology nor health nor geography. Nor are there any "correlates "of the other social "sciences" to a natural science.
There are too many variables and unknowns to craft meaningful controls to provide predictable repeatable results. Nor is " a reader in the psychology department" at any university nor their "five co-authors" a scientist.
Correlation is not causation. Correlation is history. History is not science. Paradox is the nature of history. There is no paradox in science.
7
I grew up in the South, and having seen people who are friendly to me then turn around and treat someone different in a way that shocked me . . . this article speaks to an underlying issue that has puzzled me. How two peers can experience the same upbringing and end up with two vastly different worldviews. I see now that when I witnessed my parents being friendly and conscientious in their dealings with others, for example, I took from that the idea of honesty and integrity, which has informed my life. Yet perhaps my friends saw their parents' dealings as justifying social group rule-following instead and are dogmatically applying that to everything they do today. Hmmm.
23
“I suspect that this personality factor has more to do with a need for order or desire for rule-following, which can easily take an authoritarian turn…”
This is important stuff and very interesting, but I agree with Mr. Hetherington’s decision to abandon the use of the term “authoritarian” in future studies. If following rules and the need for order makes one an authoritarian, then I suspect that many of us could be classified as such. To quote George Costanza, “We’re trying to have a civilization here!”
Granted the degree of order acceptable will differ from one person to the next, but humans will always need some semblance of order and rule following, without it we have anarchy. I think that we need to recognize that Trump voters are as complex (more so perhaps) and prone to the same contradictions and moral foibles as you or I. Only then can we truly begin to understand the underlying causes of our differences, because at the end of the day, they are us and we are them.
23
So Tom you just think they're "nice". As a New Yorker who has spent a lot of time in the South I can tell you that as with every other place on the planet, there are indeeed nice genteel people there. They tend to be liberals. But a huge percentage of the population are nasty, bigoted and rude -- and have no problem stereotyping you and saying all sorts of unkind things about people from New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles or wherever else they don't like the way people other than them think. These people are uniformly "conservative". The most open friendly welcoming places in this country are by far and away from our liberal cities. Let's stop pretending otherwise.
206
Let me weigh in with a huge, Yes, the friendly business about at least some of the region is nonsense. Michigan below the UP is filled with expressionless, half-dead people who will not speak if you say hello to them on the street. They do not laugh if you make a joke.They do not open doors for the handicapped. As to the South, I think the picture is a bit more mixed. It must be, because I have lived there and never experienced anything like the Michigan dead zone. I am in Cambridge, MA, at the moment, where the Harvard kids are sweet and helpful, the general mine of people love to talk to a stranger, and diversity reigns supreme.
2
As I was told by a female Texan years ago, when I asked how she could be SO friendly to Yankees (of which I was one) and yet actually almost hate us. She said her parents would equate her marrying a Yankee the same marrying a black person!!!. Her response was that she was brought up (by her parents)to always be nice to everyone! I guess one could call that Southern Hospitality.
2
No one who has ever seen the photographs of happy smiling crowds viewing a lynching in the rural South would be at all surprised by the combination of smiling hospitality and blind hatred that Mr. Edsall describes. Most people seem to have little difficulty loving their neighbors and long as their neighbors shares the same hatreds
254
People should watch Ken Burns. A lot of people are reliving their youth.
The anti-Trump hate and intolerrance found in 90% of the comments in the NYT and the Wash Post is worst than that found among whites in the South. But of course they are better educated and say the right things on a poll.
Burns is really interested if seen in terms of the present. The crazies ensured that a really good man and real war hero in McGovern got 38% of the vote. They have learned nothing and will get Trump's opponent in 2020 something like that if they don't start worrying about the swing vote and wagesl
18
And, just as McGovern, we are facing a Republican president and establishment that committed treason (as verified by the recent discovery of smoking-gun memos in Nixon's papers). Republican treason in '72 was committed on behalf of their own electoral fortunes; treason that cost tens of thousands of American lives, and untold millions of Vietnamese deaths.
Nixon and Vietnam.
Reagan and Iran/Contra
G.W.Bush and Iraq
Trump and Russia
It is abundantly clear where the greatest threats facing America over the last 40 years have come from...and for what? Tax cuts for the Mercer, Koch and DeVos families (and their peers), and obscene enrichment of the armament and fossil fuel industries?
So much blood for so few peoples' treasure...
10
You imply that Mr. Trump is concerned about 'wages'.
Trump, who is currently straining to alienate our best trading partner and importer of American goods. Which he can do since he has already succeeded at alienating our second best, and third best, and...well you have eyes.
Trump who is running around blustering about yet another "secret package" of legislation designed to give the rich a break and make people like you and me responsible for the all the important financial holes they will leave behind.
I understand this doesn't worry you because the bill says, pretty explicitly, "don't worry about that, we'll fix it later".
Trump who has the wisdom and the direct connection to God (via VP Pence) to understand that even victims of genetic disease, industrial accidents, decisions by the rich to make their corporations abandon their communities and move jobs overseas, even these forlorn souls are losers, and lazy, and takers who lack the personal responsibility to manage their own lives and do not deserve our concern and certainly not any of our money.
I'm trying to see the appeal...
If you're looking for examples of beating down war heroes, look no further than Trump/McCain or Swift Boat Republicans/Kerry. Both disgraceful in the extreme, and both rabidly consumed by people, I assume, much like you.
4
Sorry, but this comment made me laugh. I read WaPo and NYTimes articles and comments but also drop into Breitbart from time to time. That you can equate the disgust many of us feel toward the narcissistic boy child with the rage expressed by his supporters suggests you have some friends in the Breitbart crowd. Very few supporters of progressive/liberal candidates celebrate violence as happened quite regularly at Trump rallies. I've no idea how this country will come to terms with Trump's success at the polls, but a number of friend who were shocked to learn some of their friends supported him, have learned more recently that those same folks are now embarrassed by his actions and would happily, if given the chance, take back that vote. Remember, swing votes can go both ways. Without Hillary as punching bag, the next election may very well feature the Donald as punching bag. Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.
5
I also see a correlation between conscientiousness limited within one's own group--often described by saying "we take care of our own"--and a lack of faith in Government to solve problems. In bluer states, where there is greater diversity, and more acceptance of that diversity, more people believe in collective, state based, solutions to problems whereas in redder states people tend to trust in their local community, and its rigid social rules, to solve problems.
36
Colin Woodard has an interesting book on this topic. He identifies 11 different regions within the US and argues that historical migration patterns have created enduring regional distinctions along the lines you mention.
Our most recent round of (very, very loud) "we take care of our own" was oozing out of Houston as Texas was deciding to sit on its own $10 billion and pressure the Feds for more.
As utility crews from around the continent descended on the place to make it right.
As crews of despised Arab immigrants seized on an opportunity to maybe make themselves acceptable in their own home town.
"We take care of our own" typically translates to "Give us lots of stuff, then shut up and go away. And don't ask us for anything, ever. Losers."
Or, as they say in Texas "Let 'em freeze in the dark."
1
Honor is great and all... until you remember what it did for the Hatfields and McCoys.
37
Honor is a major part of the reason for the Civil War. Southern honor.
3
The southern idea of "honor" itself is suspect.
3
I have decided I don't need to save for retirement. I will make much more money, unbound by corporate ethics, when I can set up my own website selling fake news and fake cures to Trump voters. I can't wait!
23
"...made a pact with the devil and chose party loyalty over conscience."
This kind of presumption, that anyone is privy to or has dominion over the conscience of any other individual, is getting beyond tedious. Hillary Clinton told me to vote my conscience, so i did. And as it happened, it wasn't for either her or for Trump. Just yesterday Michelle Obama said that "Women who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton 'voted against their own voice". Really? She never even met me but she knows my own voice better than i do? This kind of sanctimony hasn't been serving the Dems well over the last few elections. Maybe you take care of your own concience, and let others take care of theirs. And put up some candidates who people can actually vote for in good conscience. We deserve better than the choice that we were dealt.
22
You deserve better candidates if you're working hard between elections to generate them. If you're politically sitting on your hands for four years and rousing yourself to awareness only every four years, then you deserve whatever candidates other people are working for.
"made a pact with the devil and chose party loyalty over conscience."
I don't think it was "party loyalty". Whoever won would appoint judges to the Supreme Court. For conservatives it was their best and possibly only opportunity to bring abortion law back under democratic control. It was very much a matter of conscience.
@AW
I suspect that i wasn't clear. I did vote, and for a candidate i worked for. It just wasn't the R or the D. If the Dems want the votes (and a reminder again that they've been getting slaughtered since 2010, 2016 was just the icing on the cake), they're going to have to cough up candidates people will vote for. Don't count on me to work for them, although there's a possibility i might vote for them, only candidates i'm willing to work for are outside of the two main parties.
The Trump supporters that I know and try to talk with have variable levels of life experience, education, social and financial status. The older ones dislike Obamacare but love and accept (their own) Medicare. All seem to still blame Hillary and will do so every time she arises in the news (usually Fox). When they cannot refute a (strange, bizarre, hateful) Trump move with logic, they become silent, sullen. Russia is a very sore subject. They pivot quickly to distractions like the NFL. There is the belief that he is hindered by the complicated "regular order" in government policy formulation and lawmaking that requires care and legal precision. They seem addicted to the Trump cult of personality without accountability. The wave that brought in Trump has crested yet. Not yet.
105
I would like to add my experience/observation: The Trump voters that I know believe that Trump really cares about them, the little guy. They believe that he is not one of the "insiders", not one of the "fat cats" who run the world. As evidenced by his past behavior, Trump actually cares nothing about them, and was indeed born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and yet his supporters believe what they believe. It does not make any logical sense, so I conclude that these folks are basically anti science, and create their own make-believe world.
4
FROM THE ARTICLE: "Matt Motyl, a political psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, argued in an email that in the general election, the
typical Trump voter is not a raging, screaming white nationalist; the typical Trump voter is not much different from the typical Romney, McCain, or Bush voter. They are just ordinary Republicans."
In light of the above, I would like to ask the following. If one's routine social conduct is such that he/she would not be characterized as a bigot; but this non-bigoted person votes for a candidate (i.e. Trump) who is demonstrably bigoted, and recognizably so to the person who voted for him; is it then reasonable to characterize that voter as bigoted as well? If you yourself do not rage and scream white nationalist slogans, but then vote for someone who does, what does the act of casting that vote say about who you are? Can you cast that vote and still be an "ordinary Republican"?
178
"If you yourself do not rage and scream white nationalist slogans, but then vote for someone who does, what does the act of casting that vote say about who you are?" Answer: It doesn't say anything whatsoever about who you are; perhaps you just really didn't want Hillary in the White House. The same is true of people who voted for Hillary. They weren't necessarily condoning her approval of the Iraq War or her decision to stay with Bill after the affair. You simply can not attribute traits to entire groups of voters based on one candidate they voted for!
When the only other choice is someone who is even less acceptable, what else can you do? That's the issue in this article. Many Republicans voted against Trump in the large primary field, but had only 'deeply-flawed' Clinton as an alternative in the general election.
Like the Simpson's joke about Fox News, "Not Racist--but #1 with Racists"
1
As always in America, race is at the bottom of it all.
The hostility to the Other. The will to often-violent extremism against dissent. The self-exculpation, indeed, self-forgiveness, in the face of racist rhetoric and deeds. the desire to punish status rather than behavior. The double standards. The lies. The Trump depredatons highlight rather than establish patters of hegemonic behavior decades if not centuries in their pedigree.
People ask 'What's the matter with Kansas?' They might more honestly (and usefully) ask 'What's the matter with me?'
22
wow. Happened upon this article and after reading it and the comments I am totally horrified about the "echo chamber" nature of the commentators. People, there is no secret here. I believe many people just couldn't vote for Hillary as she was a known entity and also known to be very "flawed." I myself, New York born could not in good conscious vote for Hillary. However, the difference is I couldn't in good conscience vote for Trump either. I couldn't even find the "lesser of two evils" and bring myself to press the button for either one of them.
But what I don't and will not do (as opposed to most commentators and Mr. Edsall) is make judgements about other people's character. I have no idea what drove so many people to vote for either of these candidates. I don't attribute bad personal character (racism, hate, sexism, etc.) to anyone for their choice. Unless someone told me directly or said something that I considered racist or sexist I refuse to make snap judgements about someone's inner beliefs.
I wish Mr. Edsall would do the same.
14
It is not what what they say, it is what they do that matters. Like vote. "One can smile and smile be a damned villain."
1
You seem to be patting yourself on the back, but clearly you were too lax to do any homework at all, swallowing wholesale all the rightwing smears, repeated giddily by Sanders and pretty much all the media, about Hillary Clinton. What "flaws" exactly prevented you from voting for the most honest and qualified candidate? In what you presumably recognise is a binary system?
Doesn't look like conscience to me. Conscience would recognise the consequences to others, and act accordingly. Looks like you voted your ignorance and ego, and expected my vote, and maybe your privilege, to save you from the consequences of your own.
3
Mr. Edsall hardly made a snap judgement. He cited extensive research in his article.
"Who's to say it won't work again?"
Hoping that the Dems will actually pick an attractive candidate (one who is both agreeable and moderate, to cite two necessary traits) are dim. They are now struggling between two choices, both likely losers. Don't look for any help from them.
The Trump base seems happier and happier.
But the hope is that over his four years, if he lasts that long, the ever-stronger evidence that he's not fit to govern, and the absolutely amazing impotence and incompetence of the Reps in both the House and the Senate will pull away enough moderate Reps who voted for Trump in 2016 but will either stay home, or maybe even vote Dem, in 2020. Don't forget; he lost the popular vote in 2016, and for sure he isn't enlarging his base as he galumphs from one outrage to the next.
Hope springs eternal...
21
"Hoping that the Dems will actually pick an attractive candidate (one who is both agreeable and moderate, to cite two necessary traits) are dim."
Democrats don't even seem to be thinking about the next election. At the moment their energy is devoted is pulling down Confederate statues, which is a good thing to do but rather low priority in my opinion.
Reminds me of 2004 when the Democrats were more concerned with gay marriage than defeating Bush. Bush won.
2
I don't know that I buy this. The whole authoritarian dimension describes Donnie, but I don't see that extending to the folks who voted for him.
First, I have lived both in the Northeast and in the South. I would describe the difference as the Northeast folks tend to judge based on the choices you make, the South as who you are. It always bothered me that the second question (after what is your name) I got asked when meeting someone down south was "where do you go to church?"
Second, I have two friends who admit voting for Donnie. In both cases they wanted the chaos and shake-up of the political status quo. They don't see any possible incremental change possible which would positively impact their lives. Break it and rebuild. My arguments against that as a desirable path were not successful.
31
Change friends.
1
We must stop searching for economic, social, religious or other excuses for Trump. Doing so prevents us from addressing the basic issue. It is all about race. Alt-right protesters were not criticized because they were white. Athletes taking knees were maligned because they were black. Trump represents white backlash by voters who could never accept the fact that the nation had elected a black president, worse yet one of the best presidents in decades. Take a look at the utterly vile comments that circulate on the internet to gain some appreciation of the level of racism in the country. Trump did not win because voters chose party loyalty over conscience. If Trump was black, with everything else the same, he would have been destroyed in the election.
128
Not about racism although racists may have voted for Trump. It's about jobs, money, immigration, ISIS. Any candidate who stated what Trump stated would have gotten the same vote as he did.
'And the clout of the authoritarian, white identity wing of the Republican Party is such that Trump is governing to please this wing first and foremost."
Or maybe he "governs" to please them only coincidentally, to the extent that they reflect his own authoritarian, white-identity proclivities and provide him with the adulation his ego craves like crack. He has said he "loves the uneducated"--and of course he does, because they're so easy to snooker into believing he's doing what he does to please them. But it's not about them at all; they are a means to an end rather than the focus of his efforts. And as we all know, the focus is me, me, me and my money.
36
If you are a republican and vote that way ( support the party in any way ), then you cannot rationalize that vote\support away by declaring that you are for one or two issues only. ( and not for all of the baggage that comes along with the party\candidate )
It is just that simple.
Your vote allows for religious extremism, when there is supposed to be clear cut separation of church and state ( like the founding fathers intended ) Your vote allows for continuous and illegal wars. ( and possibly new ones started ) Your vote allows for the subjugation of women and minorities through direct policy. Your vote allows the rich to get richer, most likely at your expense. Your vote allows for the planet to be irreparably harmed, with possibly no return.
You do get your little tax cut though...
198
There are many single-issue voters. Abortion, Israel, Homosexuality, taxes, etc.
Here in Brooklyn, many Trump supporters are now in a bind. They voted for Trump because he was thought to be the best for Israel, but they also have large families and will be big loser if the proposed change in the personal exemption goes through.
2
I'm assuming that you did not vote or otherwise support Democratic Party when when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were against gay marriage, right? Because it's just that simple.
3
If you are a democrat and vote that way (support the party in any way ), then you cannot rationalize that vote\support away by declaring that you are for one or two issues only (and not for all of the baggage that comes along with the party\candidate).
It is just that simple.
Your vote allows for casual, fashionable regional bigotry to flourish, to the detriment of the nation. Your vote allows for continuous and illegal wars (and ever-increasing domestic surveillance). Your vote allows for the subjugation of women and minorities.... because your representatives fawn over the financial elite, who own their mortgages, student loans and car loans. Your vote allows the rich to get richer, inevitably at your expense. Your vote allows for the planet to be irreparably harmed, with possibly no return, because you do not, in fact do anything to effect real change.
But you sound so 'woke' while doing these things! Who could dream of accusing you of........ splendid, self-congratulatory inadequacy?
Seeing this photo and others, I am amazed that so many women are in favor of an administration that is not very interested in their overall well-being. This is an incredible throwback in time. It is not surprising, that women try to attach themself to powerful men, they always did and always will, but I wonder if these "modern" women realize the prize they are paying. Perhaps, a little more knowlede about history would teach them - maybe.
27
Women care about their children being safe and their children having jobs. Trump is working on those issues. HRC would have made this country less safe with her liberal immigration policies. She would have continued the process of exporting our jobs to Mexico. Elitist liberals don't care about blue collar jobs; they look down on blue collar workers. But, Detroit tells you the societal cost of a country without blue collar jobs. It's a very important issue which the liberals in their secure white-collar professions overlook.
My family members who are pro-Trumpers and "Evangelicals" say they love the sinner, but hate the sin. They say this to me about my liberal views.
26
If you are a republican and vote that way ( support the party in any way ), then you cannot rationalize that vote\support away by declaring that you are for one or two issues only. ( and not for all of the baggage that comes along with the party\candidate )
It is just that simple.
Your vote allows for religious extremism, when there is supposed to be clear cut separation of church and state ( like the founding fathers intended ) Your vote allows for continuous and illegal wars. ( and possibly new ones started ) Your vote allows for the subjugation of women and minorities through direct policy. Your vote allows the rich to get richer, most likely at your expense. Your vote allows for the planet to be irreparably harmed, with possibly no return.
You do get your little tax cut though...
23
This sums up my place of residence beautifully. Plenty of people in our town seem really friendly and helpful, but it's only as long as they think you are "their kind." They won't think twice about mocking gays and transgender people, are openly racist and anti-Semitic, but continue to think of themselves as good folk who would go the extra mile for people.
56
Maybe everyone has "someone" inside their head that they argue with--someone whose beliefs are repugnant but whom they're forced to see pretty often. For me, it's a brother-in-law. He has worked around and hated people of color all his life, and he has always been eager to tell me or anyone else how he feels.
In the past, when he'd begin to get racist, I'd just get scarce. I never offered any evidence to refute his beliefs, figuring he was too far gone to listen to the other side.
Later, by myself, I'd think about this brother-in-law and have a conversation with him in my head, to try to change his views. This, of course, never got either of us anywhere and made me feel frustrated.
But recently at a family gathering, he and I were sitting at a table apart from others when he began to rant about "entitlement" and "family values" and how people of color are ruining America. For some reason, I didn't argue with any of his points, but I started to tell him about some of my friends who are wonderful folks and who also happen to be people of color. I told a couple of anecdotes, concrete reasons these friends have come to mean a great deal to me.
His reaction was to frown and say, "Really?"
"Yes," I said. "Really."
And then I got up and left the table.
30
I don't think anyone who is not white and protestant would ask this question.
6
I think it would be better if this editorial described all the results in the original paper.
Region 1 - Midwest: Friendly and Conventional.
Region 2 - West Coast/Mountain: Relaxed and Creative.
Region 3 - Northeast: Temperamental and Uninhibited.
Region 2 ranked low on extraversion, very low on neuroticism and very high on openness.
Region 3 ranked very low on agreeableness, conscientiousness, very high on neuroticism and moderate on openness.
16
Something doesn't make sense here. Illinois and Minnesota voted Democratic. And Utah is considered a less traditional state? I suspect some nuance is missing.
23
Agree- the Rentfrow map does not match up very well with the actual 2016 election map. It's not accurate to keep referring to the entire center of the country as "Trump states". Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico were all blue. Wisconsin and Michigan were very close. I moved to Minnesota as an adult after living all over the world and found it to be a place with better social services than any other place I'd lived, and the state has a history of accepting refugees that is outstanding.
10
Speaking as a resident of that area whose family has been here 150 years, it's because it's not actually a national geographical split there, it's a local one" urban vs. rural. the Twin Cities, Milwaukee, Madison, Des Moines, Grand Rapids, Detroit, etc I believe all voted very strongly against Trump. But in the more rural areas the vote was equally heavy Trump. My own family dynamics illustrate this: those that grew up/live in cities can't stand Trump, while my cousin proudly has a giant "Trump - Pence" sign on her barn, even as recently as a couple months ago it was still there. And this is the first campaign sign they've ever put up there, so you know they feel strongly. We all just implicitly choose not to talk about it, it's all you can do.
3
This all fits neatly into studies of authoritarians, who are very big on in-groups and out-groups.
If you are part of the in-group, they are very friendly; but if you are part of the out-group, then they don't even need to obey laws or ethical standards in the way they treat you.
No paradox there at all, just basic authoritarianism. Do we still have to point people to Bob Altemeyer's work?
23
The "friendliness" described here is very shallow water. Think of it as hypocrisy with a thin coat of white paint... (Mixed Metaphors R'Us).
Republicans figured out a long time ago how easy it is to win support by telling people that some undeserving "others" are responsible for all their misfortunes real or imagined. It's so simple and works so well.
210
Yes, but democrats blame "others" too, like big businesses and the top .01% of monied elite. Somehow, the republican's Other is a believable foil for the white middle class, but the democrat's Other is ignored. What's the difference? People aspire to be what the democrats blame, but do not want to become what the republicans blame. It's ok to be rich and greedy; but it's not ok to be a lazy minority (or whatever other trope the republicans invented as something to hate).
Bernie employed/employs the same device.
We are focused on Trump and his "supporters," those who voted for him and are still behind him vocally. It' has become a national sport.
But we also need to pay attention to the opposite alternative, or at least a reasonable alternative that we could imagine as possible in this country. Talk to some affluent Liberal Democrats, old and young, and see how well the average worker fits in with this crowd.
The people in my family are all in the top 20% in terms of education, earnings, accrued wealth, and life experience (if you consider travel, adventures, lifestyle and social connections). We work hard, study hard, and are not all about luxury or conspicuous consumption in the traditional sense. We hike, read, go on long bicycle trips in Europe, hang out in rustic cabins by remote lakes, speak foreign languages. We challenge ourselves mentally and physically. We're just BETTER, and we work hard at proving this to ourselves, our competitive friends, and anyone else who happens to pass by. Our lives are better. We really look down on those of the white working class in the South and the Midwest because they are so boring and limited. They don't know how to be anything else but nice when they are at their best, and downright ugly when someone knocks the chip off their inferior shoulders.
Supporting Trump is the only defiant gesture they have left. It doesn't matter that it is wrong and illogical. So is elitism.
47
People in the top 20% like your family are accomplished in many ways. However, this city mouse would prefer to be with her country cousins in the event of a major emergency, because they have survival skills and can live off the land. People in earthquake country know that you can't always take a plane to outrun a natural disaster.
? This doesn't make any sense. You're saying your proud to be elitist and yet it's wrong?
Also, some perspective would be good. Very few people are "superior' or inferior to other people. We're simply raised the way we are with the mental faculties we have, and it can happen no other way. Those things are beyond our control.
2
Al
You too easily conflate social factors and economics, much in the way the research described here ignores economic issues.
That doesn't really excuse your straw-man sarcasm, but it does raise the really salient point in all this.
When we acquiesce in a horribly unequal economic regime, justified by dishonest appeals to patriotism and "free market" America, we get people like you, who actually believe your Bicycle Tour of the Loire River Valley makes you 'better', and who lack the good sense, the grace, the intelligence and the perspective to keep from blaring that impression of themselves to every passer-by.
I take you at your word that you work hard. I also cannot ignore the evidence that you honestly believe no one else does.
4
My Blue Minnesota is in this group? and Illinois? Doesn't make sense. When I travel to southern states, I feel like I'm in a foreign country.
30
Outside Chicagoland, Illinois is *very* conservative. It's just that Chicagoland contains almost three-quarters of Illinois's population.
3
Yes, it isn't just political leanings; it's also adherency to tradition. I am thankful to be in a very Democratic family here in very red southern Indiana. However, paint my 2 year old son's toenails blue or alow him to wear a nightgown to bed, because his twin sister is and I will very easily see how non-progressive the ideals are. Keep in step with the things that have always been done and ideas of others and I'm safe. These are people that wouldn't vote for a Republican even if they were a close friend. Yet the concepts of kneeling for the anthem and "taking down our historical monuments" are cause for contempt. Tradition runs strong here, cross that and you will see. Gay marriage is fine. but heaven forbid your child doesn't conform to gender norms. That stuff is for those on the West Coast. Don't even get me started on the number of Confederate flags waving from front porches and truck beds. At least those people wave their predjudice in the wind for all to see, others bury theirs down deep and save it for those closest to them.
92
That's kind of the point, Grace.
1
Sounds pretty accurate. The republican leaders, in their attempt to expand their voter base, have widened their "inclusiveness" to far right. They "sold their soul" (whatever remained of it) to do this. Hopefully, it will be a fatal move.
5
There is nothing unexpected in this. People associate with the ones they feel comfortable with. People feel comfortable with the ones they agree with, they share values with. What those values are doesn't really matter.
And people will actually fight, I mean use physical violence, in defense of these values, especially if and when non-group members dare question, let alone criticize them. Of course, change and assimilation are possible, and may, given enough time, lead to full reversals of the initial value set, but this takes time and cannot be imposed.
In the mean time, people will also quite unquestioningly follow those who express their values with some eloquence. And the best way to gain adherence is to proffer a scapegoat. Acknowledge the ills and the problems, but absolve the victims and sufferers by pointing to an "other". It works every time. If that other can then be easily recognized, so much the better...
Trump knows this. And he knows how to use it. Expect your, and the world's, problems to get bigger.
7
This time Edsell is trucking in not-so-cutting-edge scholarship. This insight has been around since at least Katherine Comer's _The Politics of Resentment_. Moreover, the problem with the map is that it doesn't mesh very well with the red-blue voter behavior, which requires a much finer grained analysis. Probably a more enlightening mapping project would be to spatialize the research by Anne Case and Sir Angus Deaton on "deaths of despair," this research by Rentfrow's group, and county-level voting results on the 2016 presidential race. Then we might get more clarity. Resentment isn't simply circling around race. That's too simplistic a prism to capture the depth of genuinely material problems that plague many Americans and that neither Democrats or Republicans have done anything to respond to.
10
What's indeed to say that the Trump campaign playbook won't work again?
The only hopes I can see are that his presidency is proving so gawd awful that Democrats and fence-sitters will be motivated enough to remove him from office, that the Democratic party nominates an electable young presidential candidate, that the Democratic party develops some compelling ideas and that the Democratic party figures out how to market these ideas persuasively. ANY ideas will trump anything the GOP has on-offer.
I have no hope for a third party effort, although this is what I believe the country so desperately needs.
11
And how would you characterize that third party?
So, basically, Trump supporters find it easy to be get along with people just as long as everyone around them is just like them? I think there's a name for that.
33
Mr. Edsall, you strain mightily to portray the average Trump supporter as, by turns, jovial, friendly, and deeply concerned with only what they know. This might be admirable if there were not much more to it.
They're Americans in name only; beneath the troubled and uneasy surface of their showy civility lies an authoritarian streak that is based on tribalism, racism, exclusion and repression. They're a lot like Patrick Henry who, while owning slaves, famously said "give ME liberty or give me death."
There is none of the flexibility in temperament or outlook that embraces the humanities; "fixed worldview" is one of the descriptors that I read. An inability to adjust to life's moving parts has imprisoned them in a web of constriction that brooks no deviance from the strict and unforgiving norms of the in-group; outsiders are forever forbidden.
Donald Trump is no genuis for having mined this ore; he was simply in the right place at the right time. When, and not if, another far worse model comes along, he (or she) will have a ready-built core of between 35%-40%, not a bad grubstake if you're determined to bring the country down.
83
Yes, the "humanities".....remember them? and when they were valued?
Here a complicated sociological and moral story has been told and well documented. Although this is a brief summary of much information, in large part--at least from my point of view--the article succeeds. The New York Times is to be complimented and thanked.
6
“These voters, according to Elkins and Haidt, “are the true authoritarians- they value obedience while scoring low on compassion.”
Besides the Trump voters, I’d say that “obedient” and “low in compassion” describe perfectly our current GOP Congress. The Ryans, Sessions, McConnells et.al. refuse to call out even the most outrageous words and deeds of their President, even as he castigates and humiliates them - Trump remains “he who must be obeyed.” As far as “compassion” is concerned, watching the Republicans on their seemingly never ending quest to remove affordable, decent healthcare from millions of Americans one can only remark that “low compassion” is an egregious understatement.
28
"authoritarian vs fixed worldview". Nice try at not sounding pejorative.... Given the issues we are facing in International relations, migration of populations, etc., to have a "fixed worldview" is probably the worst character traits imaginable for a politician today.
2
It won't "work again" because Trump has lost the Independents, the "anybody but Hillary" voters, the Bernie voters, and the intelligent Republicans who are not authoritarian.
5
I'm poor. You (singular) didn't do this to me. You (plural) did this to us.
Thus, a Trump supporter will be polite - even kind - to an individual of a different political orientation. If the same person is psychologically primed to think of themselves as being part of a larger political or social group (republican, caucasian, etc.) they will show intolerance.
3
How many times do we need to slice and dice this supposed Trump voter phenomenon?
Any "northerner" who has driven down the I-95 corridor from New England or New York and stopped to eat at a pancake house could have made those observations.
This is hardly groundbreaking stuff here.
Y'all have a good day now!
6
@ JayK
Your observation is spot on --but here's the thing: your take on this phenomenon, your personal experience is anecdotal. Prof Edsall offers the evidence that supports what you have long since discovered to be true.
1
I have to travel around the country a lot and when I'm in the land of the "agreeable" "sociable" and "considerate" I often find myself ostracized and shunned as soon as I open my mouth and they hear my New York accent. Agreeable, sociable and considerate people don't act like this and they don't believe, as these people do, that bad things should happen to people who disagree with them. Label them what they are: small-minded bigots. My only question is: is there a cure for that?
179
Yes there is a cure. Mark Twain: "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts."
Compulsory terms of national service in another part of the world, whether military, AmeriCorps, or Peace Corps would do the trick.
The quote continues, "Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime."
7
Maybe it is the attitude people object to and not the accent.
4
The Pence Solution - pray it away! Spoiler alert...doesn't work.
Every time I hear a "scientist" say "I suspect", it means to me that the data doesn't confirm what he believes so he has to stretch it. The interpretation of this study depends on what each analyst believes the words mean, and whether they, as it seems, have predetermined moral judgements on those categories. This article is a study in that manipulation. At least it's in the opinion section.
10
When a scientist says "I suspect," she herself is acknowledging that the (current) data doesn't confirm what she believes - most likely, the data at hand doesn't directly address whatever it is she suspects.
2
And notice how the people who are not "scientists" speak with much more certainty.
Do I "suspect" that's true or do I know it for a fact?
If you were a scientist, you would understand that "I suspect" is a universal concession to the understanding that uncertainty is embedded in even the most obvious truth. The inference you are drawing from the phrase is incorrect, identifying you as someone not conversant with the scientific method.
There's a lot of that thinking going around in the Trump Era. (God help us.)
6
While this is a very enlightening article with many references, the differences between Trump voters was not explored. There is some mention of those who voted for Trump and those who voted republican but those groups can and should be broken down further.
There are the core Trump voters who to some extent are broken down in the article. After that there are those who voted Republican, against Democrats, against Hilary and against establishment. In those groups there are those that would still vote for Trump and some who could change their vote if they could -- they thought he would become more "presidential" after taking office.
Also mentioned in the article was Trump's plurality of votes during the early primaries. Trump did not have a majority in any of the first 28 primaries and caucuses. What would have happened if the remaining votes hadn't been spread out among as many as 11 other candidate?
17
I'm a little confused, not by the research though.
So, if these 27 states are so traditional in their values, I assume American values; then our president's behavior over his entire life, never mind the past two years must be representative, if not acceptable to these folks.
I don't take much stock in the political argument that the president was the voter's' second choice but since he was in their tribe it was OK to vote for him. You would be hard pressed to find a liberal or democrat to support a candidate that acted in the manner of the president, certainly not me.
In the end there are at least two America's, one wants to hold on to the past, and one accepts that it is 21st century
34
Interesting reading, but why is it that the article explains the psychological analyses to understand Republicans and 'Trump voters' while ignoring the results for Democrats and 'Hillary voters?' I would suggest that Mr. Edsall harbors underlying assumptions that Democrats and Trump opponents are 'normal' and that Trump supporters are aberrant and need to be explained. This assumption is why the people in the purple regions don't trust the 'liberal elites.' Lets go for a more balanced and well-rounded discussion next time please.
15
@ George Rowland: "I would suggest that Mr. Edsall harbors underlying assumptions that Democrats and Trump opponents are 'normal' and that Trump supporters are aberrant and need to be explained."
I would hasten to add that we Dems & the entire WORLD are crying for a definitive explanation of why this president commands such loyalty. His unethical & often childish behavior, the chronic lying & bullying tactics he employs, the many vulgarities he directs at all who refuse to prop up his insatiable ego, continue to embarrass the country & disgrace the office. You waste your time here trying to promote a false equivalence on this issue.
7
In all of science, social science particularly, researcher perspective and style become significant components in the interpretation of findings, even the nature of data produced.
For example the term 'friendliness'. In the context of this study, one would like to know what, exactly, are the constituent parts of the concept and how researchers settled on 'friendliness', light and fluffy and welcoming, when the study itself appears to describe a darker, exclusionary, context-bound tolerance for those most like oneself.
This subjective thinking arises again in comments like that of Marc Herrington who finds the term 'authoritarian' "condescending" and has chosen to muddy the research waters by arbitrarily substituting 'fixed worldview', a mash up of factors bearing little relationship to the original term, ignoring that the scientists you cite here have made authoritarianism a key analytical element.
We are parsing a unitary phenomenon: people who most tolerate those just like themselves, and a willingness to enforce that preference through derision, blame, and physical force. Doesn't sound all that friendly.
Combine that with the social reality that these people have, until recently, been spared the need to associate with others who are different, and traditions such as 'honor' (another wobbly concept) take hold.
This is, as presented here, a problematic approach to research and a weak-tea description of what can be a dangerous and reactionary culture.
13
You've hit the nail on the head. The fundamentally unscientific nature of much so-called "social science research" (as evidenced by Herrington's arbitrary and subjective choice of words) calls analyses like this into question.
A very though provoking article Thomas but it does not include the most important component of human existence.The economic one.
The restructuring of the economy since the 90s has left many honest and hardworking people in the dust.I am a very highly educated person who came from Greece for graduate studies back in the early 80s but i never had the chance to work in my field as i lacked the appropriate immigration status back then.The H1 visas is a recent phenomenon.As a result i have lived and worked among the so called Trump supporters and i can tell you with 100% certainty that the main reason that they behave this way is the fear of becoming irrelevant .They see the humongous salaries that the so called educated are receiving at their expense and at the same time they have the common sense to realize that 80% of the people are not college material and there you have a trap from which there is no escape.Voting for Trump and submitting to ideologies of hate and sometimes extreme racism is their way for smashing this trap.I have seen a very similar phenomenon in Greece during the late 70s.
56
I wonder about this too. One is poor and knows they are not smart enough or connected enough or talented enough in some way to become rich, so they latch on to the rich oligarch who is obviously only interested in getting richer himself, helping the .1% become ever wealthier, and grifting the country for all the dough he can carry?
How is it that people in dire economic straits latch onto this guy? He's a gold plated con artist. Surely it's obvious. Why does anyone think he was going to turn out like FDR?
1
This is an interesting articles, with fascinating studies. The description of "Southern Honors" and the behavior of Republicans and Trump supporters is disturbing: "as everyone is respectful and abides by the social norms, everyone is happy and agreeable. But when threats are made against one’s reputation or values, acts of violence and physical aggression are considered appropriate forms of retribution".
It reminds me most of the film "The Stepford Wives" in that these regions maintain a certain artificial standard of "normality", and practice violence, both social and physical, against anyone unable to conform to their strict standards of race, sexuality, and identity. It is a dystopia future realized right now, in our country: those who conform live good lives, while those who are unable to are isolated, hurt, or killed for their uncontrollable trespass.
15
Your seeming objectivity, utilizing data from a serious study article, died at the end with "made a pact with the devil and chose party loyalty over conscience. " as you draw a conclusion of conscience not in the data. You ignore their was just a binary choice, Trump or Clinton. The latter, articulated no clear message, exhibited questionable judgment throughout her career and was nearly indited for using a private email server, set up to avoid disclosing government owned communication, for classified communications. Clinton also spent little time campaigning in those areas. Many people, who did not love Trump, in good conscience, could not vote for her.
8
Anyone who can pretend they voted for our contemptible President "in good conscience" either didnt actually possess one, or was so misinformed that their intentions were betrayed by ignorance.
10
She was not "nearly indited (sic)." Comey said no responsible prosecutor would have indicted her. If you did not vote for her, you helped elect Trump. Good job!
8
University of California at Berkeley linguist Geroge Lakoff has a different take than political science methodists. Lakoff sees the great divide in terms described, in his own words, thus:
"The answer came from a realization that we tend to understand the nation metaphorically in family terms: We have founding fathers. We send our sons and daughters to war. We have homeland security. The conservative and progressive worldviews dividing our country can most readily be understood in terms of moral worldviews that are encapsulated in two very different common forms of family life: The Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative)."
G. Lakoff, Understanding Trump, https://georgelakoff.com/2016/07/23/understanding-trump-2/
I think there is merit in considering the academic tools that Lakoff is well respected. I would add that people sometimes play roles. In terms of politics, political parties and candidates may push the interest buttons during a campiagn. The more connections one has with a particualr worldview, the great the chance of accepting the candidate closest to that view. In Trump's case, we see a complex maverick standing for president based on a controversial past and no expertise and experience in policy-driven government. What happened? Robert Mercer and Steve Bannion would likely agree that Trump voters were 'cultivated'. Theses voters offered distilled common traits that George Lakoff described. It may be that simple.
6
Glad to see someone recommending George Lakoff's ideas. I am a great
disciple of his, although I view the family analogy as somewhat of a simplification.
But he has hit the nail on the head in describing the "conservative" and
"liberal" mindsets.I think that he has ideas that are very applicable to
our currant political culture.
"Law and Order" appeals to many who vote conservative and Republican, especially the order. They look past Trump and see a Republican Party that supports the status quo, resists change and dreams fondly of an idyllic past. Minorities, protesters, immigrants, atheists and anyone who deviates from the norm are the oppostion. They do not embrace diversity or internationalism. It is fear and loathing of the other and those who tolerate or support them. That is the culture wars in miniature. And unfortunately our electoral system and how states are represented in Washingon favors the states where these voters live.
23
Ironic that the people who putatively support "law and order" are perfectly OK with Roy Moore, removed TWICE from the Alabama Supreme Court for flouting lawful orders of the US Supreme Court, and the pardon of Joe Arpaio, who flouted legal rulings he didn't like.
10
Well, with these folks "law and order" means making sure that people (you know which "people," right?) know their place.
1
It would be interesting to do a similar study of liberal voters living in blue states. They are probably pretty much the same - very nice and friendly to people with similar values and political beliefs, but deeply hostile to anyone who might vote for Trump!
46
Except that there is a difference between people who are frustrated with those with authoritarian tendencies who want to take rights away from others, and people who are frustrated with those who won't join them in their intolerance and bow to their particular authority.
27
"Deeply hostile to anyone who voted Trump"...
I don't see this. I see deep hostility to the ideas that these people hold, not necessarily to the people themselves.
But I have seen a tendency among tRump supporters to conflate the two- to take a debate of ideas and take it personally, to make decisions with their own inflamed emotions and inflated sense of righteousness and persecution.
I had a facebook flame with a family member who responded with outrage when I applauded and participated in the protests during the early days of this admin. I made points citing facts and even offered my sources. She responded that I was being all elitist aint no one got time to read and learn about politics.
OTOH, I was able to have a wonderful, days long debate with a Hillary supporter about policy, we each cited facts for the other. He even agreed to go see The Big Short with me after initial disinterest.
1
Probably true of liberal voters, like me... although I reserve my hostility for the GOP and for trump. However, I suggest you go read some Faulkner, or Welty, or other writers that address the south. There are some odd traits there that aren't prevalent in other parts of the country.
Not surprising that the survey shows Midwest and South to be generally more conservative and less open to change. The social mores in these regions are grounded on a homogeneous culture and unbroken tradition. The more culturally diverse areas of the country, i.e. CA and NY, have learned to be more tolerant of differences because that’s what works best for them.
96
As long as your "difference" is one of "approved differences" - sure.
LGBTQ? Love it. Cisgender Heteronormative? No way! Socialist? Absolutely. Conservative Republican? Hell no. Atheist? Fantastic. Mormon? Very suspicious.
1
This column makes good reading, and articulates its points well, but at its core it contains very little that is new. I'll give you an example from my own travels from early 2008.
In New Iberia, a charming little town in Louisiana, there is a wonderful place to eat called "Lagniappe II". It's charming, and its clientele include local ladies who lunch that look right out of "Driving Miss Daisy". The owner is very charming and polite, but when the topic veered towards politics, she said unbidden, "You know, I don't like that Hillary. She needs to pay more attention to her own house than running around stirring things up. And I won't even talk about that Obama fella. Who does he think he is, anyway?"
For just that one minute, I felt like I was in either a time-warp of an episode of the Twilight Zone.
Sorry the column didn't tell us about the other two zones. Now I'll have to read the book.
357
Grew up in Opelousas, LA. You didn't spend enough time in New Iberia. That place can be downright scary (so can Opelousas). I remember taking a friend from CA to Shawdows on the Teche, the local plantation. We watched the info video before going in that kept referring to the "workers." My friend's daughter loudly asked, don't they mean slaves? The blue haired ladies didn't take kindly to that.
47
Hi, Renee L -
Thanks for that. Actually, I've spent all the time in New Iberia that I care to. I think your "blue haired ladies" were the ones who lunch at Lagniappe II. Cheers.
2
Really, thats your anecdote? The polite people in the restaurant didnt care for Hillary or Obama and that in itself shocked you out of your skull?
Many of us have been dealing with these questions for years, long before Mr. Trump figured out he could make a buck off of right wing anger. It's myopic to imagine a defined boundary between Trump voters & other Republicans. 2 of my closest relatives (& friends), intelligent & college educated, are so filled with fake news & blind hatred of "liberals" that we can barely discuss politics--yet neither could support Trump, whom they found untrustworthy (and, incidentally, uninformed). Both would give you the shirt off their back, and would not even notice if you were black or Muslim or gay.
Truth is, the political gullibility and anger say nothing about character or culture. The anger is raw & close to the surface, but it's skin deep. It erupts in a second if a particular subject comes up, but is expressed in the same 3 or 4 phrases. If you can counter it with personal experience (NOT with political boilerplate or statistics or "facts"), it evaporates. Politics has become something separate from actual life. It isn't as if these Republicans have actually had liberal thugs confiscate their guns, or as if they actually know women who like to have abortions for fun. It isn't the person who is talking, it's the media.
214
I agree with much of what you say, and have a number of conservative friends who exhibit similar behavior. But why did you put the word facts in quotation marks? Are facts not objectively real?
4
I've had a similar experience. I would get periodic telephone calls from a friend who would start with an innocuous question, then talk radio would pour out of his mouth.
1
That resentment, in the face of personal experience of others, disappears for an instant. It is back in full force in an hour because it is not skin deep and it isn't a veneer. It goes to the heart and that is where the tenacity to hate blacks and foreigners etc. is lodged. Republican elites and others with authoritarian leanings just use it for their own purposes.
2
". . .made a pact with the devil and chose party loyalty over conscience. Who’s to say it won’t work again?"
Should Mueller uncover material which portrays Trump as a 21st Century Benedict Arnold, I suspect Trump's that hardcore supporters will continue to do so (Trump could shoot them and they would still support him), while more moderate GOP voters may either stay home, or just refuse to pull the lever for Trump.
36
Having lived in the South in my twenties, I witnessed the thin veneer of niceness up and close. Being a white Protestant, I was on the receiving end of this niceness but I also heard all the below surface nastiness about everyone else. My mother always taught me it is how people treat others that makes them truly nice not how they treat their own kind. Southerners are not really nice. It is a truly misrepresentation of that group. That veneer truly is thin. Democracy is not welcome in most of that area.
570
I have lived in Texas all of my life. I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I have also spent a great deal of time in New York City. My personal experience is that while they can be a bit abrupt, and are usually in a hurry, I find that on average New Yorkers are friendlier than my fellow Texans and many others from the southern part of the country. But in the end most people are good and we would do well to remember that and spend less temporary trying to exploit divisions in society.
7
@David Gifford - "Southerners are not really nice". Born and raised in GA, lived here all my life, I can attest to what you might have been exposed to that prompted that statement, however, not all southerners fit your stereotype and I wish people would quit lumping us all together. A lot of us are of the 'live and let live', 'treat others as you would want to be treated' persuasion. I even went so far as to put an Obama/Biden decal on my car in 08 & 12 in an area where your car could get keyed, but thankfully did not.
On the other hand, my husband born/raised in Queens, NY, is as rabid a republican as they come, along with the outrage, racism and authoritarian streak. He's also of Jewish heritage. Have you considered the many northern retirees in FL, AZ? So please, in spite of demographics and history, please understand many of us don't fit the mold, and are working to break it.
14
TW
I pretty much live by your last sentence. It makes everything better, easier, nicer. And it works well, with indivudals and local communities.
But what to do with huge, well-funded, angry, and easily manipulated groups of people predisposed to fear and insecurity, most often manifest as anger, labelling, intolerance and even violence? I am often at a loss.
2
"Who's to say it won't work again?". Please god, someone say it! Even if all his rabid supporters and republican fellow travelers show up again, surely the opposition has been energized to get off their couches in 2020? Though it would be hard to imagine Trump running for re-election; surely he'll be bored with the whole "leader of the free world" thing by then?
14
I don't think they'll get off their couches in 2020. I'm currently working for a Democratic mayoral candidate for Albuquerque to replace a thoroughly useless Republican that pandered to business, destroyed our economy, and decreased the number of voting hours eliminating Saturday voting and much more. Each week I call Democrats to get them out to vote. It looks like we might not even get 10% of voters to the polls. Democrats can't be bothered. They are not patriots. At least Republicans always vote.
6
It's not a paradox. The circle of empathy is simply somewhat smaller with that component of the republican electorate. As an evolutionary strategy, it makes sense, and it used to be almost exclusively how humans lived, placing people in an in-group and out-group. Nowadays, real empathy is not extended to illegal immigrants, traditionalist muslims, criminals, atheists, various foreigners etc.
This is simply what it is. Care within groups is if anything more powerful than liberals with their empathy diffused by an universal perspective, who try to care for everybody and may end up caring for almost no-one.
10
The solution to this is embodied in the concept of diversity. Add a little spice to your in-group circle and before you know it, your in-group will encompass parts of your former out-group. But if you stick your head in the sand and never let in an outsider, you will remain the closed person that is a natural tendency for some.
4
Millions of peaceful Christians have just entered the enraged zone.
And they are NOT in favor of the current Republican party as it now stands.
18
From your lips to god's ear, Paul.
2
Seems to me that if you want to understand how Southerners think, you would have talked to some Southerners. Edsall only quotes people from other places. Makes me feel like an animal in a zoo.
2
Compare "traditional" with per capita GDP. Hint: NY is number one, Mississippi is number 50, the bottom five states have Republican governments.
The states with large sanctuary cities are all above average.
277
amen
4
There was more than one kind of pact with the devil at work in 2016, Mr. Edsall. I was one of those Republicans who objected so adamantly for Trump that I voted Democratic — for the first time in my life — for president. In the process, I voted for Hillary Clinton, a thoroughly amoral, pandering, and dishonest candidate. I would do the same again, offered the same choice, but that's not to say I did it joyously.
60
As a Democrat I would agree with part of that, although I don't think Hillary's morality and level of honesty is even comparable to the Trump's lack of it. You are a voter on the tail of the distribution that actually thinks critically, and I thank you for that.
13
What was HRC dishonesty? How is she amoral? All politicians are pandering that doesn't add anything. And they are pandering becuase we (the voting public) require it of them. We don't consider it pandering when it is for items we agree with.
5
And what, pray tell, is amoral about Hillary Clinton? If there is a grain of truth in what you and fake news say about Clinton, it disappears into the miles of sand someone like Trump and his ilk live in. I have no more words left to defend the lady against the years of microscopic attention paid to her every move. Enough!
3
Not much surprise here. Right wing authoritarians are generally better human beings than egalitarians. They have a healthier sense of self-identity and ethnic nationalism. Most "racists" I've met have been far more tolerable people than the average white liberal living in urban areas. They might harbor some stereotypes about me, but I do the same to them. That's how it should be. The idea that human beings are equal or interchangeable is not only factually wrong, it's willfully ignorant and socially harmful.
Besides, this is only a paradox if you consider a "tolerance" a good thing. Outside the western world, tolerance is a neutral value. Some things should be tolerated, some things not.
Diversity should not be tolerated. Equality should not be tolerated. Minorities should not be catered to, as they already benefit from the privilege of living in society while being a minority. What white westerners call 'traditional values' is what most people call universal human values. Hierarchy, family, tribalism, courtesy. That's the path towards actual progress, not your so-called Enlightenment values. America's folly is that right wing authoritarianism is only encouraged for whites, when it should be encouraged for all people.
8
Authoritarianism (right or left) does not have a good track record for long-term success anywhere in the world. Right-wing authoritarianism has kept South America a mess for generations, and left-wing authoritarianism kept communist Russia, Cuba, the Middle-East, and yes even China in poverty for decades. It's not a universal value, but a universal problem to overcome.
2
"Diversity should not be tolerated. Equality should not be tolerated. Minorities should not be catered to, as they already benefit from the privilege of living in society while being a minority."
Regardless of what you imagine to be "true" in the rest of the world, sentiments like these are proof that you have no understanding of what it means to be part of a free and democratic society.
10
I couldn't disagree with you more.
4
Here's another paradox. Enough of these voters gave Barack Obama the presidency for two terms, then they switched, in a big way. What happened? Did they suddenly all become white supremacists? Or did we fail them somehow?
I'm also getting a little tired of the never-ending fascination with the mind if the Trump voter. What about our votes and beliefs? Seems like we need more analysis about our own voting patterns, because we are split in a big way and not coming together as far as I can see.
256
they switched because things did not get better form them after two terms of obama. sure, we can say that obama faced some horrible choices and set long term gains ahead of short term help and that he was obstructed..... but the fact remains that lot of working people were no better off when he left and there was no real explanation offered.
5
What happened? Democrats did not bother to vote. That lacked sufficient bigotry, fear and hatred to drive them to the polls.
5
Don't forget that the 2016 election was hacked by Russia via social media.
4
Since the election, there has been a slew of these articles which treat Trump-voting as a disease, with a set of symptoms and mysterious causes. It would be easier to treat these as less of a pejorative assault on half the country if similar articles looked at Democratic or Hilary-voters in the same way, but these articles do not exist. True, academics who approach politics through the lens of sociology and anthropology are all Democrats. But just imagine what could be achieved if that telescope lens were a mirror, instead. Think of what could be learned about Democrats, and why they never seem to win elections.
.
"Observe all men; thy self most" -- Benjamin Franklin
56
It’s called gerrymandering and an archaic electoral college system honey. We liberals don’t mind being studied. When you have a Progressive and tolerant mindset, you’re not so closed off or defensive. The thing is—the opposition has to come with something other than racism, deep seeded hatred to others and/or fake news talking points.
I’ve tried to discuss politics with some of those folks. They get all flustered when i ask them to state facts. The truth is—they don’t care about facts. They hold firm to their traditions (some of which include sexism, racism and xenophobia. )
22
Ahhh, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the last twice elected President a Democrat? And he faced more competent opponents than Trump. The pendulum always swings both ways and will continue to do so despite political amnesia.
2
You can't deny that Trump is unlike any other president or presidential nominee that we've had. He is shockingly unfit for the presidency. This was obvious on the campaign trail. So it stands to reason that many of us want to understand why people voted for Trump. It is not an exaggeration to say that our president is completely uninformed. He watches six hours of TV a day, and never reads. He makes embarrassing mistakes all the time. Foreign leaders have to explain things over and over again to him because he doesn't listen. (Merkel, for example, had to tell him repeatedly that countries that are part of the EU can't unilaterally do trade agreements.) He is cruel. He made fun of a disabled man. He harassed reporters so much on the campaign trail that they needed to be protected from his followers. He is mean to his staff, to individual Americans, and to large groups of people. He tells lies long after they have been proven false. He changes his opinions so much that you don't know from one minute to the next what policies he supports.
So, yes, I do want to know more about the people who voted for him. What I don't understand is why they don't feel they have any responsibility to learn about the rest of us. They sneer at us for being snobby "coastal elites" without knowing a thing about our lives. Go ahead. Write articles based on SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH about what Hillary voters are like. I would love to see folks like you sincerely interested in folks like us.
5
You call Trump the leader of hard-right, white America. You are right. He's proud of it. They are proud of it. Together they have made the Republican Party the home for the nation's racists and fascists. But you realize this is not a new trend. It goes back at least as far as Richard Nixon and his Southern Strategy. Has anybody recently checked the burial plot of Abraham Lincoln? It must be totally churned up by the increasing revolutions of his body therein.
82
It has always been like this, and anyone who has some experience with the subject know it well: true racists and authoritarians are often some of the most friendly people. Why? Because to these people there are no shades of grey. People are either "good", in which case total friendliness is deserved, or "bad", in which case brutality is deserved. They may seem friendly, but scratch the surface a little with an argument or uncomfortable subject, and you'll always find angry rot underneath.
378
Exactly. Never challenge the status quo. No room for different ways of thinking.
2
The word "evangelical" doesn't appear in the article. If 80% of the Trump voters are evangelicals, how can the author ignore this obvious fact?
131
Actually, 80% of self identified "evangelicals" voted for Trump. Not 80% of his voters were evangelicals. Big difference
5