You make a fair assessment of D. Trump's obsessive attachment to 'winning', fair as in a grade issued by someone with over five decades of study in psychology, religion, politics, economics and health, that is, myself. As I have observed from all media and journalists, analysis of D. Trump's behavior is superficial at best. Your article stands as another example of that lack of insight. Please don't take offense. Deeper truths are often uncomfortable and even forbidden at times. In the case of the media, especially commercial media, superficiality is the safer path.
D. Trump's attachment to 'winning' is actually part of an avoidance syndrome. If you are not knowledgeable of his childhood you would be unable to have this insight. I recognized his problem in the course of decades of observance and research, which began for me when he took on Roy Cohn as a mentor of sorts. From early childhood he was subjected to emotional stress from a tyrannical bully, his father Fred. His father's primary diatribe to his sons was that every interaction with people was a contest in which if you did not win you were a loser. Imagine yourself under this constant stress throughout your childhood. As a child interacting with adults and other children you would naturally begin to see yourself as a loser and to avoid this painful condition you would copy your 'winner' father and engage in bullying. His whole childhood is a study in the development of a bully. 'Winning' avoids his painful past.
3
"Demographic change will almost certainly cause a party of mainly white Christians to lose electoral power. But this will take decades and could provoke an enduring backlash among those with strong ties to white ethnic identity."
This is undoubtedly true, as shown by the fact that much of our country is still fighting the Civil War. They call it the Lost Cause, but refuse to admit that it is indeed lost.
You can't escape it, it's in every headline now. "Democrats win on this bill..." "Republicans looking for a win on this bill..." "Trump hopes to win on trade..."
Your last paragraph says it all. And the fix is going to have to start with you guys in the media...
"Winning" solely for the sake of "winning" is a loss...
2
“Once ‘winning’ comes to mean policy victory rather than partisan victory, we’ll know we are on the right track.” After everything you wrote, that is such a non sequitur that I think you tacked it on at the end to sound like a reasonable person.
1
"Winning is such a great feeling" Graduating from from one of the nations military academy's is indeed winning. Leadership is all about Winning. Winning is what is still taught at the Academy's and is what President Trump has brought back to America in 500 days as President. The World has become safer, with him as our leader. Business, large and small have a business friendly government to work with as opposed to the previous administration. Employment for all races and religions are at an all time high. Wages are rising for the first time in a decade. I call that winning for all of Americans. America is finally trying to solve Immigration issues, winning will be when both parties work for a solution.
1
As Mason points out in this article : "Winning draws our attention away from what happens after the election, and focuses us only on whether our team gets the trophy."
I suspect many folks remember the Facebook responses that were going around after the election. If one dared to complain about the outcome, a response would invariably show up stating that liberals simply could not stand the idea of losing.
My response in return would be ,"No, I'm used to losing; I care about what's going to happen to the country."
This reply never seemed to satisfy those on the other side, who seemed permanently fixated on the winning and losing part, and seemed unable to imagine that others could see it in any other light.
Thanks to the author for discussing this.
3
Though Mason is correct - she undercuts her own case with euphemisms. Her basic point is that parties are weak but partisanship is strong. We all want to "win" and our policy views are often informed by our group rather than picking our group based on policy preferences.
Having said that, consider some of her language - "The story of how American politics has grown ever more focused on partisan victory instead of the greater good ..." or "Alternatively, elected officials could model civil and bipartisan behavior, focused on fruitful policy outcomes".
What exactly is the "greater good" or "fruitful policy outcomes" ? Such flowery language forgets that much of our policy is zero-sum or at least subject to "eye of the beholder" values. Do we respect the religious sanctity of life or give a woman the right to abort a child ? Is expanding the welfare state consistent with "the greater good" or is this fostering dependence and unduly burdening the taxpayer ?
Mason calls for "bipartisan behavior" - but the last three major pieces of legislation - Trump tax cut, Obamacare and Dodd Frank - were all party line votes by the ruling party at that time. Don't misunderstand. I prefer compromise. But it's more difficult as the schism between the parties grows. Even more intractable, neither party out of power wants to compromise because getting anything done affirms the leadership qualities of the President and makes it more likely that you stay out of power.
2
How can one claim they are patriotic and then talk in support of a president who has foul mouthed two highly decorated war veterans (John McCain and Robert Mueller)? Why are they willing to believe a guy who has obtained multiple deferments, cheated his way to success and lies everyday and go against people who have served this country and protected the liberty and freedom of the American people??? It takes a special kind of shamelessness to boo people like John McCain and Robert Mueller.
6
Trump has only reinforced the truth of the old saw that patriotism is the ultimate refuge of scoundrels.
And it is really surprising how little shock there seems to be about that.
There is little doubt that the system that we have all lived with ( I`m 75) favors the wealthy. Whether we are talking about Justice ( Never say Guilty and always buy the best lawyers.); Education ( The schools in poor areas of the USA are mostly disgraceful. The increduible DEBT that our young carry after higher Ed is disgusting.)); Housing ( redlining - need I say more!); Health (Millions of children and families are uninsured.). I could go on and on.
4
Any tricky system favors those who can figure out how to work them.
1
It is gratifying how many pieces I have seen on this subject lately. A new understanding of our tribalistic tendencies, of our “us vs. them” compartmentalizing is developing.
Let’s take our thinking one step farther and wrap it all up in the concept of ego, which has been the understanding of eastern sages and philosophers for many centuries. Egotism is more than a description of personality traits. It is a force as real as gravity or magnetism.
Ego causes me to think I am better than you. My religion is the only true one. My city, my country, my family are superior to all others. It is the base cause of wars and every other kind of human conflict.
As the world progresses, through eons of learning experiences by millions of people, ego diminishes. As we evolved, warring tribes became city states, which proceeded to form nations, all because we are gradually coming to see others are not “the other”. That is how a world of contentious individuals will someday become one human family.
6
We are all living vessels of prior human experience burnished by our own experience.
1
The controlling issue—this economic system we work produces tons of wealth: how are we going to distribute it? Everything else is secondary.
2
Supply side economics is dyslexic because all economic activity is limited by demand.
I have to wonder what Trump voters believe they are winning? Their paychecks barely reflect a blip from the "greatest tax cut in history"; opioid addiction is still skyrocketing in their declining communities; blue collar jobs are not coming back; they have deprived themselves of Medicaid and other Federal programs; their education is atrocious; and the price of gasoline is once again on the rise, despite record production. It really seems that they are surviving merely off the fumes from Fox News and nothing else.
You cannot reason with nihilists. The only thing you can do is keep them confined until they've destroyed themselves.
5
True!
3
"In a money allocation task, participants were given a choice between both groups receiving the maximum amount of money, or the subjects’ in-group receiving less than the maximum, but more than the out-group. People reliably chose group victory." If that's a scientifically valid result maybe we need to admit that we are all wretchedly tribal, and perhaps fundamentally awful. Or, assuming that while a majority went tribal but a minority went for the mutually beneficial maximum payday, isolate those people and put the future in their hands. It's time to conceive of a form of unnatural selection if we want the human race to evolve to something better.
3
The wise of the fortunate know their advantages may be fleeting.
Interesting article, but I think that the data and empirical analysis in Ms. Mason Op-Ed piece supports what is already the obvious conclusion here, that the United States has become ungovernable. However, I believe it would be a false equivalence argument to say that both political parties are equally to blame for this divide. None of the Democratic Presidents in my lifetime, (Carter, Clinton or Obama) used social wedge issues like racism, abortion, gun control or negative stereotypes about immigration to polarize the country. Conversely, Republican Presidents have done so, like Nixon's Southern Strategy, Reagan's "Government is the problem, not the solution" and "welfare queens", George W. Bush's born again Christian background and his appeal to Evangelicals, and Trump's direct and open hostility to all non-white minorities and overt racism, using a bullhorn instead of a dog whistle. Also, it was Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" unwillingness to compromise with Democrats and Mitch McConnell's scorched earth, total obstruction against Obama, including stealing a Supreme Court vacancy that have deepened the sentiment that the other side is "the enemy". I really don't think this charge can be leveled fairly against Democrats, even the ones who oppose Trump, who do so for serious policy reasons and who justifiably think that he is unqualified, and lacks the right temperament for the job. Not to mention the corruption, obstruction and collusion etc.
11
I agree with this post. Ms Mason did not do enough to highlight the asymmetry between the parties, their tactics and their respect for the principals of democracy (or lack of it) and explore reasons for the differences. I’m older and white, and I don’t think of myself as a rabid Democrat, but I’m viscerally opposed to what Republicans are doing.
4
God and guns comprise an explosive combination of intransigencies.
It was so much easier for America when it was us vs. the USSR.
Now that we can't figure out who is our enemy - Russia, ISIS, Mexico, China? - we can't unite against whoever it is we want to beat. So like an autoimmune disease, we take things out against ourselves.
2
A very good point. Now our main enemies are our fellow Americans. And they are right at our doorstep!
A brilliant strategy…for the moment at least.
So long as it's a white guy with a statuesque wife and a big ego doing it, 35% of Americans are in favor of it, if it angers all minority groups and despite its bad impact on them. Welcome to America of the teens.
3
Agreed. The White, older male is threatened as it has been in power in this country for hundreds of years. Trump is holding back progress but it's merely a speed bump.
6
Trump voters ( about 38% American) are bored and tired of winning as promised before election and rest of us ( 62%) of Americans are big time looser. Trump's family members, cabinet members, friends, donors and top 1% super rich are really winning. The biggest looser is Puerto Ricans. Then the Hispanics and Muslims are also very big time looser. The middle class Americans are screwed . The African-Americans are not well of either. The Evangelical Leaders and the Gun Lobby groups are big winner . Divide and Rule is the Trump Administration policy. Trump divided and polarized the country very well. Now we look like a Tribal nation.
2
Whenever I would give right wing talk radio a listen I was amazed how little they made sense. Now we have a president who doesn’t make sense. And people yell and cheer for him. Twilight Zone anyone?
6
This piece gives a good idea about the current pro-Democratic thinking. The analysis offers a totally false narrative. Consequently, the conclusions are wishful. Winning is an essential feature of the American culture. Of the two parties, it is the Republicans who are more oriented toward “the greater good of the nation.” The Democrats are all about progress. Their idea of progress is to be the dominant force in America. They do not practice inclusion. They offer privileges to select groups of individuals. They have not significantly advanced inclusion in America. Yes, the Democrats elected a black American as president. Did this mean inclusion for an average black American? No! Why is this the case? The reason is that the Democrats are elitist and elitism entails exclusion. The current divide in American politics is not so much between the Democrats and the Republicans. It is about those who are excluded and the dominant elites who cannot solve the problems this country faces. Trump was able to tap into this protest and outmaneuver the elites. The elites feel threatened and that’s why they resist. Will Trump be able to renew America? This remains to be seen but at least he is perceived as ending the status quo. How will the future play out still remains to be seen? But it definitely will not be determined by the demographics, as the author sees. It will require vision, new ideas, and new policies.
2
Ms. Mason......you are ignoring, hopefully on purpose, and not thru naivite,,,,that one detail that sets the USA apart from the rest of the world. The USA is founded on a principal of Unalienable Individual Rights coupled with a perplexing fierce defense of Private Property. No other place on earth has even the weakest grasp of these concepts. And these concepts have been crushed by every government administration since Ronald Reagan........That Donald Trump pompously and vaingloriously roars into the microphones his pantomimed support for Individual Freedoms and Private Property is "Winning"....even if it never happens. Our government, once "of the people, by the people, and for the people" has morphed into a monster bureaucracy dedicated to limiting all forms of individuality and to denying use of private property, simply by enforcing arbitrary rules and regulations that require permission to do anything....when the American Ideal of "winning" is the opposite......NO permission required...
1
Nothing addresses our "leader's" "winning" philosophy as well as this quote from author Anthony DeMello:
"The three most difficult things for a human being are not physical feats or intellectual achievements. They are, first, returning love for hate; second, including the excluded; third, admitting you are wrong."
5
Perhaps, some day, the 'oblivious to the facts Democrats' will see the light.
1
I am so sick of winning. Can we please stop winning? Please?
2
Except that policy victory now mirrors ethnic differences (white vs. new comer and non-white) and that trend will only harden as non-whites seek power and attempt to gain majority control over policy (more and more unbridled immigration for example) to the detriment of whites.
1
To the Trump supporters who think the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc. (i.e., the "fake news") are being biased and unfair, who argue that Mr. Trump deserves a "fair shake":
Someone who brags about grabbing women by the genitals, who led a racist campaign directed towards his predecessor, who foments hatred towards immigrants and minorities and who lies to the public daily does not deserve a "fair shake," and such a man's approving followers do not deserve the respect otherwise normally reserved for reasoned differences of opinion. Objectivity does not mean turning a blind eye; by way of his words and actions Trump earns and deserves all the criticism dircted at him by this paper and all other professional media outlets. Despite Trump's daily attempts to argue otherwise (e.g., "fake news"), it's not unfair and it's not bias to report the objective truth. Trump's words and actions speak for themselves independent of the media, and you either approve or disapprove of what he says and does.
11
The idea that it is just human nature to want groups we belong to to beat other groups strikes me as seriously oversimplified. Unless there is some specific competition going on, I don't feel any desire to see people in groups I don't belong to do poorly. To the extent we do have animosity toward other groups, there are some specific things going on beyond just innate favoritism, and understanding these things can help us reduce conflict.
One of the biggest things is that leaders increase their power and popularity by promoting anger and fear toward some sort of enemies. McCarthy towards Communists, George W. Bush towards terrorists, both conservatives and progressives towards "elites", Trump towards immigrants, socialists towards capitalists, and Fox News maintains its loyal base by constantly bashing liberals. We all need to avoid being manipulated this way.
3
Wow! Fantastic article!!!
So intent on proving himself a winner, Trump apparently bragged to Rudi Giuliani about bringing Kim Jon Un to his hands and knees to beg for a summit. Giuliani himself, the man in the know, passed along that nugget. In Israel!
I find this old-boy “locker room” talk outrageous. Since when did the blustering blabbermouth Giuliani join the negotiation team? Did Trump bench warmonger Bolton, only to call in clutch-player Giuliani? What a nail biter.
Listening to the lot of them pontificate is beyond insane.
5
"Winning"to Trump is just another manifestation of his deep insecurity. He knows he's a loser in all aspects of being a human so he hides behind the "winning" mantra.
4
Interesting that the NYTs is printing this accusation, while every day there are multiple hopeful articles that the Democrats will reclaim the government from Trump. It appears that the Trump obsession has relegated the "paper of record" to hypocrisy.
1
The Nazi jurist and political scientist Carl Schmitt insisted that a society cannot achieve any meaningful cohesion without an “enemy” to define itself against. The 'truthiness' in this is well-demonstrated by the movie 'Independence Day', where the alien menace served to join Israeli and Arab fighter pilots on the same side... Perhaps the only thing that could...
Following this line of thought, political scientists have publicly speculated that the worst thing that ever happened to the 'West' was the vanquishing its last totalitarian adversary: winning the Cold War. The range of the ideological spectrum - from liberals concerned with human rights and freedoms to evangelical Christians opposed to 'Godless communism' - stood together in opposition to the Soviets. A pro-choice liberal democrat like Charlie Wilson could be elected from rural Texas b/c his purpose was the common crusade.
In the absence of an ideological opponent, liberal democracies everywhere seem to be breaking down along tribal fault-lines: Catalonia's secession crisis and America's alt-right resurgence are a common consequence. ‘Normal’ people can be victims of thinking in terms of one’s own group just as much as terrorists. It is a modern variant of the biological tribal feeling. If we can position ourselves as a group against another group, feelings of empathy easily erode as we cannot possibly sympathize with large numbers of strangers...
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.
He loves to hate.
3
The insanity of having an insane President, a liar as Vice
President and a conviction-less Speaker seems insane at best.
1
When ever a "so-called" civil right leader appears on liberal TV discussion or print columns, they start with Trump is a racist, Nazi, so on, Republicans are racists, Blacks problems are due to White oppression, so on. When these types of comments come out of the mouths of a commentator, the moderators have a responsibility to control and correct. But it is not happening in liberal leaning channels, in fact, it is being encouraged. How can anybody say that what comes out of the mouth of Maxine Waters is not pathetic? Unfortunately her constituency loves to hear whhat she says, but they claim they are pure. Trump's election was a backlash against such double standard by MSM.
3
President Train Wreck will not prevail.
He will not shred our country.
2
If Trump is not a literal Manchurian Candidate puppet of Putin tasked on all fronts with radically weakening America by sowing division at home and abroad, he certainly incessantly behaves like one. Putin and China could not possibly have dreamed up a more perfect leader for driving their chief rival's ship of state right onto the rocks of history. Trump is the perfect president to complete America's death spiral downward of the last fifty years which Steven Brill has rightly called our national "tailspin." In 1960, America held all the aces it could hold. Between then and now it somehow stupidly managed to blow them all, and is now doing all in its power under Trump to hasten its terminal decline and help China's rise to replace it at the apex of world power.
3
Many say Trump is the greatest liar since Hitler. Many say he learned the awesome persuasive power of the outrageous repeated lie on the minds of the feeble from Roy Cohn, and from the book of Hitler speeches that Ivanka said he kept on his bedside table.
Just what I've heard many say.
Voters, want that winning feeling? Vote in November to wipe that smirk from Donald's face.
4
Trump's "winning", as it is being practiced, is based on his governing triad of 'fear, hate and division'. Can you call Trump's winning while he goes on 'raping' the country?
2
It looks to me the Democrat Party is having second thoughts about the identity politics machine it was so instrumental in unleashing upon the country. I guess they have finally realized that minority identities are just that...minorities.
2
When America is winning, Libs and Fake Media must be losing. Good!
2
Evidence for Tajfel's theory - the populations of North and South Dakota make 'ethnic', group jokes about each other. "those North Dakotians are so dumb...." There is no, and I repeat NO, difference between the people living in North and South Dakota. None. But that doesn't stop them from making jokes.
3
Obama was the first African-American president (half-African-American) and Trump was the first troll.
3
Working in a small office in midtown and having the backing of a bar we frequented my employment agency joined a Central Park Softball league. Some of my favorite summer nights were spent watching the sun set in that park, in that city, at that time. Being a small agency we never fielded a team made up of actual employees. We had scabs playing for us that were so obvious, they wore other teams uniforms to our games. One day, we were getting our butts kicked by another team, our manager questioned whether an opposing player actually worked for the opposing teams company because he spoke Spanish throughout the game. Never mind that half our team comprised Spanish speaking people from the high school teacher, to the beverage distributor, to the lawyer and, our dearest friend, the coke dealer. The umpires had to follow procedure and we won the game because of an arcane, arbitrarily enforced rule that our manager, and my boss, thought was our only path to victory. It embarrasses me to this day that that unfair, onesided, hypocritical, unearned victory was scored as a win. Never have I felt more like a loser than I did that day, as we sat by and said nothing. Voter suppression, gerrymandering, accepting Russian interference, that isn't winning, that's cheating.
7
This mantra of winning is just Trump trying to convince himself as he knows deep inside that he is a loser.
• In business—bankruptcies, blacklisted by every US bank
• In marriage—twice divorced with the current wife swatting his hand in full view of the public and the press (imagine what happens in the bedroom)
• In fatherhood—Eric & Junior, enough said
• In golf—documented cheating
• In presidency—being played by Russia, China, and now, Korea
But hey, in his mind there is “so much winning, folks! So much winning! Believe me!
Except that he even does not believe himself.
2
What the What? Winning What? Has not been tethered to facts for decades. Eagles are uninvited for NOT kneeling. Canada torched the White House? He has omnipotent powers to pardon himself? And it's just Wednesday...... As in Bugs Bunny lingo--What a maroon.....
4
Same could be said and was the same for Hitler and Germany.
In the end it was the German people that paid the price.
3
As the embodiment of The Man, I have to say I do like winning. And I do like Trump. And I "our" prospects for winning bigly in the future.
As the columnist says, the left is a grab bag of grievance groups. I would liken it more to a coalition of the fringes, but let's not split hairs. Whatever the left is, the only thing that really unites them is their hatred of the winners. but when you define the winners as the 70% white majority that does pretty well, or the 85% who have their own private healthcare and like it, or the majority of folks who live in every "swing" district that needs to swing, the prospects look pretty solid!
"Wait, wait!" - say the progressives, who seem to think America is lost and should be ashamed and losing, "what about long term demographic trends?" And to that I say, no big deal! In 3-4 generations most Asians and Hispanics will be identifying as "white," just like the descendants of the Irish and the Italians eventually did. Like those groups, their work ethic and opposition to un-earned handouts is going to sour them on progressivism. Plus, who are they more likely to marry and have kids with - a debt wracked head case with a degree in sociology and a lot of rage, or The Man? Will they choose a mini-Mike Brown, or a mini-Carlton (ref. to Fresh Prince of Bel Air)?
The Man wins every time. You can either join us, or embrace the loser's role. But no one's buying this plea for "civil discourse." That's loser talk.
2
Trump has no conception of what “the greater good” means. It’s all an ego-driven zero sum game for him.
2
What is amazing is that the media and commentators in general are so afraid to use the 'H' word. But look closely: the body language, the gesticulations , the staged rallies exuding hate and division, the calls to violent attacks on opponents and most of all the incessant repetition of the big lie(s) all would lead logically to drawing a moustache on this horrid mans face.
4
Finally. NYT has published an article by an academic which is insightful rather than well-written blather.
1
It is so banal and stupid, but alas so are so many of our fellow citizens.
Some how something turned the race for the future to a race for the bottom.
1
What a great article. It gets to the heart of which party is the one of 'racial identity' and why democrats still seek compromise despite some on the far left who will have none of it.
To the GOP winning seems to be about beating down your opponents at any cost. It seems to have lost contact with the need to win for the nation.
Trump if nothing is about the cult of the personality which is associated with narcissism. Politicians in general suffer from this, but democrats who must look to so many factions can not afford to not compromise to bring the various factions together. So egotism meets its limits for democrats and that in the long run is our strength.
4,600 Puerto Ricans are now thought to have died as a direct result of last year's hurricane. How many of those thousands died because of the White House response which was by all accounts insultingly and intentionally inadequate? Trump made it clear he did not think the brown Puerto Rican American citizens were on his white team. He blamed the Puerto Rican hardship and suffering on their own (brown) laziness and corruption. Trump won. Thousands of Americans lost their lives.
3
What are T's commendable "wins" to date" ?
In the back half of his term, those many "yuge", winning, chickens he dispatched are coming home to a lot of roosts.
2
........ and the people who should read this and consider changing their attitude probably will not bother to do so.
1
"politics motivated by cultural, ethnic and religious victory is dangerous."
Yup. Partisanship can’t hold a candle to identity politics when it comes to focusing hatred.
Let’s assume the local GOP disappeared tomorrow. Instantly, that “gorgeous mosaic” which is the Democratic Party – which exists only to oppose Republicans and collapses as soon as there is no common enemy to oppose – becomes a handful of competing identity groups in zero sum undertakings, each advancing the interests of its own sex, ethnic group. race, etc., over others, each perpetually moaning, “it’s not FAIR!!” and demanding more.
Doubt that? NYC is considering abolishing high stakes tests because “too many” Asians do well, not enough other “minorities”. When BHO ran, leftists actually debated whether he was “Black enough”. Leftists routinely elevate group membership over ability. What happens when there is no "them" to hate, and the "us" fractures along group-think fault lines?
Actually, from the perspective of a conservative, this is the one positive element of identity politics: it will, inevitably, consume it adherents. It’s already begun. Godspeed.
A nation wins when its workers win, when they and their families have more control over their standard of living. Millions more worker have jobs today AND more control over the things affecting their lives.
Ms. Mason seems to be all about the identity group Balkanization that Democrats THINK won elections for the ideological Barack Obama. This goes together with the Center for American Commu - oops, for American Progress.
That group has announced/admitted that the Democratic Party is done unless it can get enough illegals to hop or swim the border and end up in progressive states that don't enforce who votes - so that they will vote Democrat.
What the Left REALLY says here is that THEY lose when America wins. Their candidates and their ideas go away when the true roots and meaniongs of America are realized by the citizen-voters.
Free enterprise, free speech, the individual coming before collectives and freedom of choice will push liberal thinking aside and bring in more non-progressives.
there are two types of nationalism : ethnic one and civic one. the United States of America has been known as a typical model of civic nationalism, which embraces all of ethnic groups as nations regardless of race, religion and sexual orientations. (similar to France, Australia, Canada etc.)
what Trump is pushing forward seems to be ethnic nationalism. he has always focused on the mainstream ethnicity in the US : whiteness, Christianity. it is reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's the third Reich, of course.
however, at the same time, what is a loophole in civic nationalism is that it obstensibly seems to embrace and tolerate all of identities, but in reality, even civic nationalists also tend to make a decision based on some kind of ethnic prejudices notably when issuing citizenship, grappling with immigrants. this attitude signifies that every individual who wants to be an American citizen must obey something like 'Americanness' and only on that condition, a person can be a legitimate nation. And it possibly leads to some ingredients for empowering the logic of ethnic nationalism.
diversity and tolerance of course are part of that Americanness. I'm not denying these values. but if there still be some rules or imperatives to be a citizen, how further the diversity can go?
Our tribe, Americans, were always very well unified against the "other" tribe, i.e., fascists, nazis, or communists.
One would think that Trump, in an effort to "win" would define Russia and China as the enemy tribes with very real threats. That would unify our American tribe more than anything.
Yet, he resists identifying these very real threats and enemies and instead and sees more than 60% of Americans, (i.e., Democrats) as the enemy. It stems from the hard right's (Fox, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) scorched earth policy of "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat."
That's no way to win, run, or govern the tribe in these 50 previously "United" States.
2
How many of the political advertisements are about policy and how many are about tribal identities? The sad news is that the wast majority of voters are to lazy and ignorant to discuss the merits of specific policy proposals so it all becomes about tribal identity.
2
It is time to bring the united states to an end and dissolve the union. Decent people simply cannot live with trump supporters. Don't let the problem get any worse - our children will have to pay for our cowardice.
#calexit
6
It is interesting that Trump is championed by that group that identifies with "White" and "Christian."
Trump is about as far from being a Christian as any major party presidential candidate has ever been (while, interestingly, that most Christian of our presidents, Jimmy Carter, a Baptist southern farmer, is routinely reviled by that "white, Christian tribe").
And, being basically orange, Trump isn't really white, now, is he?
1
"Trump's 'Winning' Is America's Losing":
Anyone else tired of "winning"?
2
Trump has never been able to care about anyone other than himself. He is, after all, the only interesting thing in the universe. No one else needs to exist, in fact he wants a lot of people to drop dead...
2
Amazing (and horrifying) that after more than 500 days of corruption, lies and yet-to-be-acknowledged crimes, this is as far as we've gotten in recognition of basic facts about our Criminal-in-Chief
3
The majority of white people want to be winners because they are defined by being smarter than other races. The poor me white person is based on the fairy tales of history. They slaughtered the Indians who welcomed them in peace. For a peaceful welcoming they starved and slaughter them. Blacks were captured and enslaved, slaughtered. Capitalism was built on the backs of minorities and white people became winners not the people who did the work.
Since we refuse to address the issue of race in this country old GOP white people will always be winners because they run the government till we vote in progressive thinkers and move beyond race.
Watch the tape of the Mesa police department and the true death toll of 5k people dying in Puerto Rico. America is going backward while the rest of the world our allies are to tired to be bothered with us. Winners I think not, fools we are for allowing these politicians to collect a pay check an do nothing.
4
An insightful and important piece.
And, though Professor Mason doesn't specifically say so, tribalism, group identity, also explains the anti-abortion movement.
Though they would deny it, their movement has little (directly) to do with fetuses, and everything to do with trying to defeat their hated enemies.
4
It doesn't help, does it, when a columnist like Nicholas Kristof pens a whole column smearing Democrats for acting childish in the face of facile Trumpian "winning" for its own sake.
Everything about Ms. Mason's piece makes perfect sense, except the fact that she doesn't go far enough in distinguishing between the two parties. One is obsessed with the kind of win that will allow them to force their views on others and they're willing to achieve it by cheating, and the other side may want to win, but wants to win legitimately and on a principled platform that will allow more of everyone to win along with them. The difference is starker than Ms. Mason allows here and one only wishes Nicholas Kristof could still see it.
1
I think a word was developed/created about this concept, balkanization. I too feel the younger set will help to bring down the winners like Trump and his ilk. Unfortunately I won't be around to see it happen. Until then we will suffer the damage of shortsighted behavior that set up the decline of the white illegal immigrants. You know, that group who snuck over the border 300 some odd years ago. They squated on the owners land, bred like rats and when they outnumbered the owners took their property. Someone shoulda built a wall and sent the Europeans the bill.
2
Trump has achieved the goal of becoming President, he may consider hieself a winner. He merely achieved an office, by duping a sizeable portion of the population into voting for him.
I regard him as a loser . He has failed miserably in becoming a trustworthy, honorable, intelligent,modest, likeable compassionate, and sensible human being. I would consider myself a loser, and a failure as a parent if my children grew up with the same attitudes as this creature.
This nation must hang it's head in shame because in reality they have elected a loser to it's highest office.
3
“Winning is such a great feeling, isn’t it?
Winning is such a great feeling.
Nothing like winning — you got to win.”
Victory, winning, beautiful words,
But that is what it is all about."
You'll get bored with winning.
You'll get so sick and tired of winning,
You’re going to come to me and go,
‘Please, please, we can’t win anymore,’”
And “I’m going to say,
‘I’m sorry but we’re going to keep
winning, winning, winning.”
Trump's mindless babble stream on "winning" is simply embarrassing.
Why would anyone worth their salt, let alone an author with a fine command of the English language use it as a basis for a serious thought, let alone a serious article?
And yet, half the people of the Untied States think he's a fine president. I guess it's no longer embarrassing - just the way it is. Gotta work with whatcha got.
1
I have noticed over the last four to five decades, an increased national identity that is less patriotism and more jingoism. We seem to be like the people you see in the stands at a football game, painted in team colors and waving a huge foam finger. "We're number 1!" Even as they have lost every game that season.
We aren't number 1, and aren't going to be if we continue to progress along the lines that all we need is everyone on our team to wave that big foam finger. Trump is the cheerleader giving everyone the finger.
The idea that we need to make every political decision a decisive victory, winner take all, make sure you've crushed the opposition, is making us a banana republic. We are designing laws and policies to intentionally hurt some people.
I will take compromise to winning any day. It would at least ensure that not everybody loses.
3
It's pretty clear from the comments here that most of you stopped reading after the first paragraph. In fact your comments very neatly illustrate the truth of the whole piece: we are a deranged mob of ardently tribal, non-thinking promoters of our own race/religion/profession's interests, seething with hostility to anyone outside our circle.
That is true of all of us and probably always has been. The miracle is that for a while, at least, the Americans of the late 18th and early 19th centuries were able to create something, that from our distance, looked different from all that.
THIS WAS POSTED 12 HOURS AGO.
Has Lilliana Mason ever had a serious conversation with a Republican? She has no authority to lecture us about being civil when she resorts to such crude racist and sexist stereotyping of them.
It was precisely this sort of contempt for uncivil "deplorables" that drove many working class white Americans (both men and women) to vote for Trump.
Many who deserted the Democratic party in the last election had voted for Barack Obama four and eight years before. If those voters are now part of the Republican party, the Democratic party is to blame. Based on the demographic bet that Prof. Mason mentions, the Democratic party has declared war on whites and males. You know the narrative: Whites males are the "patriarchy" and the "white power structure" that is irredeemably sexist and racist and stops at nothing to deny minorities and women their place in the sun.
As Mason discusses, Democrats expect this monstrous lie to pay handsome dividends for them in future elections because white Americans will soon be a minority of the US population. That strategy almost paid off for Clinton who deliberately divided Americans by playing the race card, the sexism card, the gay rights card, etc. The only group she didn't pander to was Americans.
It will be poetic justice when the day comes that minorities wake up and realize that they don't want an America which has been divided into resentful groups squabbling over who has been victimized the most.
1
Actually, I think it may, rather, be poetic justice when the former majority awakens to discover that whining about losing its privileged position has been, and remains, a pointless non-starter.
3
This winning mantra is just Trump trying to convince himself that he is not a loser, which, deep down, he knows he is.
• In business - bankruptcies from casinos to steaks to universities, blacklisted by every US bank that he can't secure a loan ever
• In marriage - twice divorced with wife number 3 swatting his hand in full view of the public and the press (imagine what happens in the bedroom)
• In fatherhood - Eric and Junior, enough said
• In politics - lost by over 3 million votes to Hillary and is currently being played by Russia, China, and North Korea
But, hey, "so much winning, folks, so much winning, believe me!"
Except that he can't even convince himself.
1
I have come to realize that the stories of Satan gaining influence and riling everyone up to the point we were in constant conflict might in fact be true and he is in the Whitehouse.
2
I would argue that those who cannot abide a Trump victory are also dangerous to our country. That said, this is a childish position and column.
We as a people have been lied to throughout our lives, pitted against one another through our simplistic political system.
How can anyone expect reason to grow in this soil?
1
It's hardly clear that we have won anything during this presidency. Pulling back on dealing with global warming and undercutting ALL regulation at the EPA is already showing signs of harm. Rebirthing the dead coal and nuclear industries is also a way of decapitating our move to cleaner, cheaper and smarter energy and that is not a win. The new Tarriffs seem to be roiling the markets and many see the loss of lots of manufacturing jobs as secondary effects kick in. Strife, racial tensions, fear, anger and hate are growing and that's not making anyone feel stronger or winning,
Seems that this kind of non winning has to hit the white angry base that was expecting something different, and hopefully will wake up at least the independents who took a chance and lost with Trump.
Oh yes, as for North Korea, way too early to see what that will bring,
4
We are not yet winning a lot, and here winning is defined as the president keeping his promises. Congress has been in the way of doing this. If the president appoints more judges especially to the supreme court that will be plenty enough winning for many who voted for him, even if he does nothing else.
Oh, you mean activist judges, right?
1
I utterly detest people who see life as a zero sum game, and avoid them if at all possible. Trump is the most repellent individual in public life.
21
I agree that Trump is unsuited to be President. Unfortunately what I have yet to hear is how the Democrats are going to do better and who will lead the country. In the absence of a national plan, it looks like the Dems are focusing on local issues in order to at least win a majority in the House. OK, then what?
If a Democratic House produces more gridlock in Washington, you lose. You and all your friends may not like Trump, but to millions of Americans he is producing results that make their life better. We need to be able to tell the American people why voting Democratic will produce better results for the entire nation than Trump has been able to do. It about 29 months to the Presidential election and I'm not seeing a national plan, I am also not seeing any national leader on the Democratic side. . . . .
1
As long as the Dems are run by their Wall St. neoliberal donors, they will remain the losers Wall St.'s darling Hillary made them in 2016. Bernie's vision is the only way forward for the Dems and the working masses of America. It either takes over the Democratic Party, or the party will remain easy prey for the Republicans nationally.
"We are also fighting for the victory of the racial, religious, geographical and gender-based groups that win or lose with the party. " Wrong, wrong, wrong. This demonstrates the false belief that one group has a lock on what constitutes a "win" for any identity. It does not. This is why progressives are losing the battle. So many of their beliefs don't hold up to close scrutiny and/or criticism yet are held as strongly as religious convictions.
1
I don't know what planet Trump and his followers think they're winning on when we're losing all our environmental protections, power stations are being told to use coal instead of natural gas, trade wars are raising consumer prices across the board and we're losing all our traditional allies around the world. Russia and China are winning. We're losing. And with gasoline costing $3.50 a gallon at the pump, my tax cut was wiped out long ago.
10
Trump has no other purpose-his sole purpose-his DNA -is the concept of winning. In fact when he has no "wins" on the table he repeats old "wins"-Like going back to winning the election and how he beat the Dems. That is why you keep on hearing about Hilary or why he would win more but for the Dems in Congress.
If you read his tweets almost all are about "winning" something.
Even if he has to lie and said he won he will do that. Even if he loses he still claims victory by blaming someone else. He blames Sessions for the Russia situation and at the same time says he did nothing wrong-in short he claims victory. It is crazy that he does this everyday. The fact is Trump is mentally unbalanced to be President. In private life you can avoid people like that. But in public life you cannot and in public life Trump is truly very dangerous.
2
Trump wouldn't have capitalized on the salience of race & ethnicity if the Democrats hadn't exploited it. The working class identifies with the GOP because they feel like the Democratic Party has abandoned them. And lets be honest they have.The party's left wing is dragging us into culture wars we can't win. Democrats cannot & will not win over working class swing voters if they persist in ridiculing their cultural vales. The left has become self-righteous, denunciatory, & obsessed with trivial issues that have made Democrats a national laughing stock. This is politically disastrous & just plays into the hands of Fox News. It used to be that the we stood for the dignity of hard work, family, faith & coming together around basic "kitchen table issues." Sadly, over the past 10 years the DP has abandoned those core values in a desperate attempt to please the strident & disrespectful advocates of identity politics, who find it easier to insult mainstream America than to build coalitions, to burn bridges than rather than erect them. It's time we face a fundamental truth. The voters we need to win back the Presidency, Congress, SCOTUS,the majority of governorships & state legislatures, all of which we have lost under progressive leadership, these voters have different values. The far left has been mocking these people for decades. You are bad for eating factory-farmed meat, owning a rifle, & driving an SUV. We have to part company with these fanatics if we want to move forward.
3
Perhaps the lesson for progressives is that when they mock certain Americans, they mock all Americans. Their mocking has become a liability for the Democratic Party. Progressives have not held up to scrutiny well. They are now called out for their hypocrisy on a regular basis and disdained for their identity fixation.
Interesting post highlighting Mr. Brown's view of how things stand with the Democrats. In the South, though, the dynamic is altogether different. Here, where Dems are by far a minority, the 'working class', by which I think we mean white voters, does not seem to feel abandoned at all by the Democrats. On the contrary they view Democrats, when they think of them at all, as the enemy, certainly not as a party they'd considering being a member of. The stridency, disrespect, and condescension described above is mainly flowing the other way around--from Republicans toward Democrats.
One other point, to say 'Trump wouldn't have capitalized on the salience of race and ethnicity if the Democrats hadn't exploited it', ignores that fact that both parties have been exploiting the salience of race and ethnicity for as long as anybody can remember. There's nothing uniquely 'Democrat' about it.
The problem is one of human nature fashioned across generations of citizens through their particular culture and history. The Brits have a 'civic culture' that demands universal healthcare; any German chancellor attempting to copy the U.S. economic model would be slaughtered at the polls while, in dire contrast, any U.S. presidential candidate advocating a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be committing political suicide.
"Winning" in Europe means creating and maintaining a just and safe society; in the U.S. it means precisely the opposite, as Americans have been brainwashed over two centuries into believing 'losers' deserve to lose and that nothing should impede the progress of 'winners'.
Trump merely reflects the primordial instincts of a nation born and bred on violence, a violence that results not only in the incarceration of an exceptionally large number of 'losers' but in the pursuit of a foreign policy that sees 'them against us' warfare as the only solution to everything.
Yes, indeed, Trump's 'Winning' is America's Losing, but Trump certainly did not establish the trend: He is merely the end product of a value system that lionizes 'winners' and shames 'losers'. Ironically, cognitive dissonance affects those 'losers' who believe they can 'win' simply by attaching themselves to ostensible 'winners': After the initial disappointment the 'losers' blame 'the system', not the false Messiah, for their worsening prospects.
6
My grandfather taught us "Its not important whether you win or lose, it is HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME." What happened to that paradigm in today's America? Our value system is corrupted by wanton consumerism and mindless Trumpism. Honor, decency and fairness have been sacrificed in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
3
Great essay. She's absolutely right about people viewing the outcomes of elections as a personal referendum and on a win/loss basis. The profound animosity that conservatives hold for liberals has to be part of the reason many of these people view Trump favorably. That the other side hates him is a redeeming cleansing of his objective repulsion to a normal person. The ending, though, was so disappointing. I'm in my mid 50s and I have been hearing, since I was the subject of the declaration that the "next" generation would bring about change, the false optimism of the future. Bigots beget bigots. The "next" generation always seems to follow in the missteps of the previous one. We're crazy for believing that our progeny will be any better than us.
Lilliana Mason is on the right track about winning and losing, and we cannot simply say that the problem is our tendency to consider a decision-making process as a competition.
When decisions are made by a vote, the process is a competition by definition, and those voting for the losing proposition envy and resent those on the winning side.
That is why the greatest political leaders and the most skilled heads of any organizations work hard to reach a consensus. It can be a much longer process, but everyone has ownership of the “winning” decision. Everyone is much more likely to contribute to successful implementation of the policy.
Donald Trump has an exaggerated need for winning, not usually seen in educated adults. To Trump, the pain and humiliation inflicted upon the losers seems to bring greater personal pleasure than the victory.
6
Interesting article Ms. Mason. I believe the GOP caused the most destruction to political process in America back in the 80's, when they accepted the moral majority as a big part of their platform, in order to win. Then they began out and out lying (Rove, Gingrich (still lying)) to whip up their base. Next, they embraced the angriest, least political group in America, the Tea Party. They have done all they can to make America a zero sum game. And when it is a zero sum game, only winning matters, only your side is right. The loser in this fight is also America and our vision of democracy, shared destiny, truth and honesty. Is there a way back from here?
Record low unemployment
Lowest trade deficit in 7 years
Record corporate earnings
Tax cuts
Record high stock market
Well, sounds like winning to me.......I'm doing pretty well under this admin
1
With the way our president is alienating friends (to gain leverage, or to "win" in his language), King Minus could write the book "How to lose friends and influence bigots".
I wish I could be as sanguine as the writer that younger people will save us, but we can't wait. Every day we're losing. I also see a false equivalence in this essay. We had a president who tried to work with both sides. He was dismissed, ignored, and worse. And Mitch McConnell's little trick of denying and delaying the Constitutional duty to hear a Supreme Court justice nominee was a gambit he and Republicans "won", but we all lost.
2
Though this article is winsome it is also an example of the danger of drawing universal truths from very limited psychological experiments. Henri Tajfel's research referred to here was performed 3 decades ago on a group of only 48 boys from one school in Bristol England. The boys were 14 and 15 years old. One would have to go to a great deal of trouble to find a group more inclined to produce the results of the research and the conclusions that were drawn from it. Psychological and sociological experiments of this kind once published easily become mine fields of fallacious dogma that seeps into and sticks in the minds of "scientists" in these fields of inquiry, and become the foundation of a lot of silly popular analysis, as is the case here.
The danger should be immediately apparent: It promotes the idea that we are hopelessly programmed to act in a tribal manner, and by extension becomes an excuse for acting in such a way. Evidence of this danger is blatantly manifest in the author's sentence: "All humans are equally vulnerable to this type of thinking... " Such a claim should be enough to discredit every bit of the rest of the article, even though we might all agree that Trump's winning is our losing.
As we sink further into tribal behavior-- an existential threat to the civilization that has developed because of our ability to transcend it --it is not helpful to have it cast as inescapable.
3
Thank you for answering the exact question I had - what demographic of people were studied to make that conclusion. I suspected that it was quite narrow.
Group identity by race and religion are atavistic, dangerous but in tune with basic human instincts. Overcoming them requires a difficult conscious effort that runs counter human instincts shaped by millions of years of evolution. Civility and inclusiveness need to be nurtured anew with every generation through carefully designed education, they are easily lost otherwise. The deterioration of education in many sections of the US is at the root of the animal instincts overcoming the necessary norms for a civil society.
2
"This desire for winning exists in all social group members"
This doesn't resonate for me at all.
There remains right & wrong. Invading the wrong country is wrong. Partisans who sided overwhelmingly with war, bitterly attacking anyone opposed to their wrong-headedness, they all were wrong.
White nationalist-minded bigots were wrong, slavery & jim crow were wrong. Pseudoscientific racism is being dismantled by genomics.
Scriptural literalists were wrong, proven wrong about much of the literal interpretations of the bible they were so convinced of in their bones. They were wrong, like a thousand years of wrong.
Group ideological identities tend to be generally wrong, making up facts to sustain dogma, which are generally flawed.
Football teams? Brain-damagingly wrong, bad pick for a national identity, go back to baseball if you must have teams, but people take their soccer teams way too seriously to the point of mob violence. This is absurdly wrong.
It seems that speaking in certitudes is generally wrong, which is why truly inquisitive or scientific minds are often more skeptical & humble.
There may be some illusion of success when people think their group is prevailing at the expense of another, but that too is wrong, as taking pleasure in another's loss is wrong.
I could explain why I'm so sure that virtually all group identities are generally a wrong-headed addictive trap of some sort, but then I suppose I could be wrong...
Nobody's right when everybody's wrong.
3
How can Mr. Trump call bad healthcare or bad school education or bad infrastructure or a dirty environment, or a renuclearised Iran as symbols of winning.
When we are done with Trump's term, our winnings will be made up of bigger national debt, bigger student debt, worse healthcare, greater inequality, worse air quality, worse infrastructure, and a lot more alienation within the country.
What kind of a winning is that?
2
"In sports, we want our team to win for the excitement of winning, not for what the teams do after the game is over."
I've followed the Patriots for decades, but now I'm glad the Eagles won the Super Bowl. As Sally Jenkins wrote in the Wash. Post, the Eagles' response to Trump's childish conduct : "...struck just the right tone, calmly resistant and nonresponsive. And that left Trump windmilling at nothing, and he exposed himself. Without culture wars and Twitter wars and trade wars, what’s left?" I don't think the Pats would have embraced Trump, but I doubt they'd have responded to his bullying with the dignity and determination the Eagles have shown.
I'm liberal but also tired of knee-jerk partisanship, and I admire the principled stands some Republicans have taken against the takeover of the GOP by an incompetent demagogue. I wish Democrats and Republicans could reach a consensus on most issues.
Having lived abroad, I'm also conscious of the image we project, which is now embarrassing. Americans now give the clear impression that we value a fleeting win in the 24-7-365 left-right spitting contest more than we care about real problems. Moreover, we've shown that we're suckers who can be taken in by Putinista trolls. The only victory I care about now is defeating Trump in 2020 and restoring some measure of dignity to the presidency and the nation. I hope that can then stop tearing each other down and start addressing issues.
1
The tribal effect certainly explains how Bernie's supporters could feel so self satisfied while destroying any chance for the centre left to build on Obama's work by electing Hillary president. For months and months they obediently shared Russian missives by cyber bot that ludicrously claimed Hillary was on the take, or worse. And this tearing down of Hillary was done most eagerly, without any compunction whatsoever at the maligning of a world class champion of the vulnerable, the desperately in need, and the totally forgotten. Sheep, it must be said in this era of Bernie and Russian bots, have nothing on humans beings in the twenty first century when it comes to being easily led.
2
Winning?
Only if the Presidency of Trump has unethically become an “office of profit or trust under the United States.”
And his cabinet a for-profit scheme for department chiefs.
Does this president realize we saw he doesn't know the words to patriotic songs? Or saying he can pardon himself admits he committed crimes?
That he's getting foreign policy advice from Fox News?
Have the pressures of the presidency pushed him to the very edge? What's with all the self-praise and conspiratorial fictions?
Does he realize a media editor long proud of his association with Fox News just said:
"Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration."
1
Jordan Peterson the Canadian clinical psychologist says politics is like a drug. It causes a chemical induced high or low in our brains.
Mark Twain's Mysterious Stranger said nothing is so bad that someone doesn't benefit and nothing is so good that someone doesn't benefit.
Politics in America was not meant to be a game of winners and losers but that is what it has become. What ever happened to "create a more perfect union."?
Government is supposed to be the mechanism in a democracy for the people to create the kind of society they want. Do Americans really want incompetent, corrupt and unfocused as their societal norm? There is no time to wait for the next generation change is happening way too quickly. It is dusk in America and China is making the solar panels that recharge the batteries we discarded in 1980.
2
Three-part solution to the enbedded disfunction and gridlock in US Government; 1)Twelve-year Term Limits for Congress and Senate members. 2) Repeal of Citizens United decision. 3) Public Financing of national elections.
"winning" should be focused on doing what is best for the whole country and all of its citizens as the only viable alternative
1
TRUMP = LOSE/LOSE! Always! Trump's focus on winning is a reflection of his profoundly pathological narcissism. With no capacity for empathy or remorse, he is, by definition, a total loser in all the qualities that define humanity. In the language of Trump-ish, winning means that he gets whatever he wants at any given point in time. Since he is also profoundly infantile, his needs and moods can change in the twinkling of the eye. And the tinkling in a Depenz. My condolences to those graduates who have had his presence inflicted on them on a day that is supposed to focus on their achievements and good wishes for their future endeavors. The only thing Trump has ever given out, other than standing and applauding himself for merely walking on the stage, is the rolls of paper towels he threw at the devastated people of Puerto Rico who were unfortunate enough to have been subjected to his heartless words after he was done throwing things at them. That the US would't be there very long to help them. So why didn't anybody think of having him throw paper towels at every graduate as degrees were given out, then exit the stage while applauding his own performance?
1
I continue to think that the identity politics might as well be a dream of the right wing to splinter the left, and to turn historically aligned groups against each other--working people, people of color, immigrants...the list goes on and on--in order to fracture the vote and pit 'different interest groups' against each other.
While the old-fashioned melting pot contained a lot of collateral damage--which can and should be addressed-- I continue to think it the best route to ensure equal rights and care for all Americans.
2
This article is the perfect answer to the divisiveness pushed by Vladimir Putin, both ere and in Western Europe. The answer lies in transcending our petty racial and partisan differences.
I have been saying the identical thing for the past year, but not nearly as well as Ms. Mason.
1
The Rubicon Moment in this tide happened when the GOP refused to even consider PRESIDENT Obama's last SCOTUS appointment. From then on "winning" partisan fights supercedes all else.
1
This is all about the last culture war. We won. Young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage, abortion rights and civil rights. That battle is over.
There is a new culture war brewing that I would broadly call political correctness vs. liberty.
Dave Ruben is called far right because he believes a baker shouldn't be forced to decorate a cake for a gay wedding. He is married to a dude. He is pro life. He is against the drug war etc. He would have been called far left 5 years ago.
If you don't know about Count Dankula, you are oblivious to the latest skirmish about whether or not society should be a safe space for people with progressive views or whether or not there is room for others even if they have bad (or lowbrow) taste.
We should probably mention thirty seven percent of Americans don't watch sports. Forty two percent of eligible voters don't vote. Clearly not everyone is engaged in ritual identity to quite the extent Ms. Mason suggests. I might also mention the declining relevance of party affiliation among young adults. Definitive labels like Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal are increasingly meaningless outside a very narrow demographic of the population.
Imagine every major sports league with only two teams. The same two teams were always playing regardless of the sport. Far from representing personal identity, the contest is neither accurate nor interesting. I might caucus with one side or the other but I rarely share a sense of victory when the moment is done. "Winning" is hollow because neither team truly represents my interests much less my identity. If anything, I resent the obtuse in-groupers, no matter how diverse, for their myopic vision of victory. So long as the team is wearing the right jersey, we much have won. Right?
This brings me back to the uninformed. Even among the fifty eight percent of voting Americans, the vast majority are woefully under informed. Why is that? I don't expect everyone to become a political football coach but a basic understanding of the game is requisite everywhere but in politics. You don't even need a full course in civics. Just one day where a teacher explains the terms "conservative" and "liberal" during class. How hard is that?
This problem of group identification being good for individual groups but bad for everyone in the mass is an old problem. Another word for it is tribalism. A more fundamental way of looking at it is authoritarianism.
Republicans have embraced this tribal "Us versus Them" mindset as they have descended into pure authoritarianism. It goes with the personality follower type that sees the world as a dangerous place, full of threats, both real and imagined. Such people look for 'strong leaders' who can protect them and destroy those threats.
Authoritarian leaders like Trump exploit this desire; in exchange for total loyalty, they promise that protection - and plenty of enemies to blame when they fail. (Such leaders give no loyalty to their followers - they're expendable.)
Sara Robinson has written what is still one of the best introductions to understanding how authoritarianism works - and how it can be dealt with. We need to recognize it and stop it while we can. We are running short of time as Trump and the Republican Party consolidate their grip on this country.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/08/cracks-in-wall-part-i-defining.html
5
I still am astonished that we allowed someone like Trump into the highest office.
I believed we had come so far.
Rights and genuine fairness for women, minorities and those from other nations, all religions or no religion, gay rights.
Now ,with Trump it's all falling apart and going backwards.
Hate and intolerance we haven't witnessed in 50 years is coming out of the proverbial closet.
Somehow, it must be stopped.
6
Clearly your belief about where "we" had come was mistaken and not shared by tens of millions of Americans.
I appreciate the history lesson of Tajfel but can we acknowledge that the empirical body of social psychological research has primarily been conducted among White undergraduate students? I loathe when results are presented as "universal" when they have been based on a small slice of the population. Enough with the generalizations from WEIRD (White, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) populations.
The Times accuses people of attributing too much importance to groups, and then it goes and does the same thing.
During the course of the article it says that "White Christian Americans" as concerned about their "ethnic identity". I'm Christian, white, and American, and this is news to me. "Identity" means what makes a person unique, and my identity is me.
And by the way, "Demographic Change" is a myth. Some bureaucrat changed the government's method of classigying race ( for example, people whose ancestry traces back to Spain are not white for some reason) and created the illusion that the white percentage of the population was declining. Politics has been reacting to this fake news ever since.
1
I agree with the theme of this opinion, but not the conclusion: optimism may no longer be warranted.
Democracy no longer ends with a bang—in a revolution or military coup—but with a whimper: the slow, steady weakening of critical institutions, such as the judiciary and the press, and the gradual erosion of long-standing political norms. Democracies seem to be sickening and dying everywhere... And it always seems to be darkest just before it goes pitch black.
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" - Yates
4
"But I’m optimistic about the social diversity and policy interests of the younger generations now moving into politics." Oh please stop already! If you are hoping the younger generations can stop Trumpism you are going to be greatly disappointed. It will take all generations eligible to vote, the Federal Courts & The Supreme Court, Congress, and probably our Military leaders to stop Trump.
6
What nonsense. If the Dems take the house in Nov., then it's over.
The "Yanny-Laurel phenomenon mirrors our current hyper-divisive culture. A word is heard differently, depending on the context that has developed around an individual, creating a subjective cocoon of virtual reality. Thus, "gun control" can connote either "safe" or "unsafe. "The word, "abortion" can mean either "murder" or "right." "Christianity" can mean "salvation" or "suppression." "Government" can mean "cooperation for the good of everyone" or "the tyranny of the few." "USA" can be "land that I love" or "we're number one." "Trump" may mean, "one of us" or "dangerous narcissist."
A foreign power bent on weakening a country can do so by cultivating these disparities. For those who are unaware of their own cocoon, the enemy can enhance the cocoon through social media. For the segment who are somewhat aware of their own cocoons, the attack must be a bit more sophisticated, enhancing thoughts and feelings of superiority, which will trigger more defensiveness in the other segment, hardening their cocoons. "United we stand, divided we fall" comes to reference one of the two segments, rather than a single United States. Once a foreign power has enhanced this divisiveness, it can continue subdividing until what was once a unified nation of shared values and reality becomes every man for himself.
Only those who see the game can conspire against such a conspiracy. Those unaware of the game unwittingly collude with the enemy. Those who are aware and yet, collude are traitors.
1
Now, with this article, we are finally getting where we need to go. A hundred thousand years ago, you were part of the group or you were going to die. Our group identity is paramount, to the point where we will risk it all to continue to exist: including our life, our morals, and our spiritual identity.
However, there has been a brainwashing in this country. Fox News et al, has overstepped and convinced Republicans that Democrats are now more dangerous to them than our adversaries in places like Russia. Where is the poll of Trump voters asking whether they identify more with their fellow Americans in the Democratic Party or with Russia? I think we already know the answer.
2
I've been a loser all my life and have lost 99 percent of the battles I have fought against the powers that be. So one of the few times in my life I had this delusion of winning was when Obama won the election. After I was disillusioned with Obama, I realized that the whole country and both parties are against anyone who isn't rich. Personally, I've never liked team sports because I've never liked or had group identity. I prefer opera, because, in the end, usually everybody loses, the good guys as well as the bad guys. Everybody dies. Imagine ruling a country from this premise. Maybe we would care more about ourselves and each other if we realized that we were all the same in the end. But the rich and powerful are still running with the delusion that they are immortal. Even their regime will eventually fail and fall.
2
Nice article! I've often marveled at the mangled logic that prefers to dismantle healthcare for all Americans because black Americans will be hurt more by it than white Americans. The focus on winning and mega-partisanship cutting off out-group associations helps move it out of the perverse to the merely sad.
2
No Trump supporter here, but Trump understands that people are attracted to winners. For example...
There has been some extensive research done on the effect that winning and losing professional sports franchises have on their respective cities. Bottomline, data shows that cities that have successful professional sports franchises are a real plus economically due to businesses and people want to be associated with success. For example, a city that wins a baseball World Series will not only see an uptick in tourism, but an uptick in attracting businesses to relocate there as well as more locals starting new businesses. People want to be around winners (they are attractive). But, for cities that have a history losing franchises their effect is at best a no effect to at worst deleterious. For example, the moribund Cleveland Browns is not helping the city of Cleveland, the Pittsburgh Steelers no doubt helped save the city of Pittsburgh especially through the 1970's when steel collapsed, and is now very much its identity to its resilience and pride, and now resurgence as a major city post steel.
Trump understands this power of winning, or at least the perception of winning, and its effect on people. But, in terms of our nation as a whole this is terribly corrosive as it seeks to make half of us losers. After all, you have to have losers in order to have winners. Trump in like Biff in "Back to the Future". No thanks.
2
Was it really ever different? I don't think so, when it comes to the dichotomies of us/them and win/lose. Could the apparent extreme manifestations we see today have anything to do with things that truly are different, like the 24-hour 500-channel "mainstream media" begging for divisive stories to fill time? Or maybe these things called the internet and social media, where everybody gets to spout off on equal footing with news feeds dominated by the need to amass page views? Where every viewpoint, no matter how obtuse, can get instant affirmation from many thousands in any number of individualized echo chambers?
2
This is an excellent summary of the fundamental failure of humanity. The idea that winning makes someone a more valuable person is a childish vanity that humans just can’t seem to get beyond. When the day finally comes that we’ve driven our species and many others over the edge of the precipice of destruction, we will have no one else to blame but ourselves for that. And what else will there be to say, other than that we are entirely deserving of that because we’re just not capable of anything better. Perhaps the next organism that takes our place will more resemble intelligent life.
Thankfully I know enough wonderful, kind, empathetic people to know that a good number of people are quite capable of grasping the distinction between ‘winning’ and ‘success.’ People who have the ability to look beyond the end of their own noses. Unfortunately it’s entirely possible that the human race will extinguish itself because of the ones who can’t.
Moderate, level headed, people of the world, be loud. The world needs your voice now more than ever.
8
I am not as sanguine as Ms. Mason appears to be. We have decades of conflict in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians and in Kashmir between Indians and Pakistanis. Now the human conflict comes home to our own government.
I hear the echo of the prescient 1960's anti-war song, the Merry Minuet:
"There's rioting in Africa,
There's strife in Iran.
What nature doesn't do to us
Will be done by our fellow man."
1
This analysis is just another form of "they both do it", no matter that one party barely asserts itself and dines on the status quo and the other is radically outside the traditions of Western democracies, actively stoking hate and resentment as a governing principle. You will find no equivalent among the liberal milquetoast classes of a Trump rally, least of all inside the party itself.
The reading here also ignores the broad shared consensus on taxes, military spending and social welfare which the boopahs of neither party, from Mitchel McConnell to Nancy Pelosi, will accept (it offends too many donor interests).
Maybe the trouble is less group psychology than a corrupted system of government, in which the only winners are politicians.
6
Donald Trump is the classic rich guy who was born on third base and thinks he hit a home run to win the game. Science has proven that the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average so "Us and them" is not an accurate way to talk about other human beings.
4
Today is Election Day in Ontario, Canada, where I live.
A candidate for one of the political parties, the PCs (Progressive Conservatives) uses the slogan "winning together".
This made me ask, "if someone wins, who loses?"
This piece helps me understand a bit better - thank you Dr. Mason.
But I am disturbed by the fact that our PCs (a mere flickering shadow of your Trumpian GOP) has adopted the same language. Is idiocracy contagious?
14
So everything is a competition. It's us against them. None of this unify and create common bonds stuff. It's Republicans against Democrats. It's the United States against Canada and Mexico and France and Germany. Great idea, Trump.
10
We have already had "violent outcomes". The civil war and the Viet Nam protests come to mind. Charlottesville is the most recent.
We lack acceptance of another person's view. I would say that this has grown stronger since Mitch McConnell, Boehner and Ryan declared that Obama "would only be a one-term President, when they collectively stood in the way of any and all Obama policy initiatives and when McConnell prohibited a hearing on a Supreme Court Justice appointment that was Obama's right.
With these three Republicans being able to stop any progress towards improving the lot of most Americans they sent a message, loud and clear, that Racism is alright, that gerrymandering is alright, that preventing voters from voting is alright.
With these people as our leaders, who needs outside enemies.
17
I see what Ms. Mason is saying. I've never had these extreme feelings about politics and I know it's irrational. I know it's a reaction to this president and how the current Republicans will not stand up to him. But I want the Republicans to lose, and to lose huge.
14
Youth can't grow up fast enough for me, assuming I buy your optimism that social diversity will lead to a greater definition of 'winning" as policy victories.
Yesterday, I re-watched the fine 2013 film, "Lincoln" and was struck by how fervently the passions of the times were.
The film opens with, of course, nasty battle scenes of war, but not Americans against foreign enemies, but Americans against Americans.
My partner remarked how tragic it was that Lincoln died so soon after military victory, denying the nation of the moral leader it needed for the terrible time of reconstruction.
Today, our politics are uglier than ever, and it feels like the Civil War never ended. Because politics has taken over our identities, and ego is bound with party affiliation across all policy lines, it make us inflexible in our emotional responses to the country's needs and challenges.
I wish I could share your optimism, but I'm afraid I can't. Because we're not talking about policy in our divisions--we're talking about belief systems and objective truth.
It's pretty powerful stuff, making policy personal and I venture, impossible to change.
9
Lincoln did not die. He was murdered. Perhaps with the intent of never truly healing or reconciling. I agree with your main point. Things sre bad— no cause for optimism
1
There seems to be a "zero sum" argument here that for every "winner" there is a "loser." Perhaps that reflects the lack of social cohesion we're experiencing, but one would hope strong leaders would advocate "win-win" policies rather than the "win-lose" policies of extreme partisanship as exemplified by Donald Trump. There are many such "win-win" policies that need support from universal background checks and mandatory safety devices for guns to tuition-free higher education to trade agreements negotiated with both worker and corporate involvement. These are all "win-win" in the sense of John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number" and produce social cohesion and stability. What we're seeing today in the "win-lose" policies like the recent tax reform is the reverse where a small minority of wealthy and powerful people and corporations get huge benefits (a "win") at the expense of the majority (the "losers"). This can only go on for so long until we reach a "tipping point" where there will be massive social unrest or our democracy will become an autocratic oligarchy. That is where we currently are in the "win-lose" Trump era.
14
By all accounts, Mr. Trump's father instilled in him the idea that life is a zero-sum game - if you're not winning, by definition, you're a loser. And Fred Trump apparently despised losers.
Being the consummate con man that he is, Trump has zeroed in on this human failing and is playing it to the max. Making his base feel like winners! Rah-rah-rah!
I'm surprised people are surprised. Look at our national (and local) sports, how they have morphed over the past 60 years. It's not enough to win now, you have to decimate the other team, kill 'em, cripple 'em, etc.
We no longer see ourselves as Americans first and foremost, but as members of a sub-group first, and Americans second. Unfortunately, I think all the 'rights' movements, rightly or wrongly, played a part in this. Suddenly we were forced to notice this group or that that had been left out, left behind, whatever. We started using hyphenated designations, like African-American and labels like 'feminist', etc.
While drawing attention to past wrongs, these designations also highlighted what it was about these groups that made them 'other'. And the fact that they were speaking out for what they felt they deserved (rightly so) also caused resentment generally.
Mason writes: "As individuals, we hold multiple identities (being white is an identity, as is being a farmer, a man or a runner). Some are more important than others, and the most important are the ones whose status is threatened."
I don't see how the last clause of the second sentence follows from the rest. Being a husband and, per Mason, a runner, are probably the my two most important identities. Whether the status of those identities is threatened (they're not!) has nothing to do with how important they are to me.
1
Your categories are not so much part of your identity as a couple actions that you accomplished. You are still a husband and still a runner. But those status could change VS you being born WHITE or raised with CHRISTIAN with same parents. I suggest you reconsider your named mundane truths with what makes you YOU and then test your question again.
This editorial begs for a sequel. I would like to know Mason's views on the difference between being told you are winning versus actually having won something. I, for one, am getting bored with a president telling us how we are winning all the time when I see only one "victory." That being a tax cut... which is being negated by a massive and growing debt.
We don't have a new wall under construction. Gun violence in schools is increasing. Income inequality is growing. Our allies feel furious. Nothing has been done to improve election integrity. This list could go on and on.
I feel like the football player in the movie "Jerry McGuire." "Show me the money!"
10
This article was helpful in my understanding my feelings about every Trump move---instead of analyzing this administration's policy moves---if you could call them that---I view every policy as a win/lose situation. But must say, this win/lose feeling, for me, came on during Obama's tenure. It appeared to me that the policies his administration put forward always became a contest---how could the GOP win a victory by trashing what were sound policies. I felt that it was never about the policy, it was always about making him and his party lose a battle.
7
Back when political identity was not a stand in for personal identity, there were such things as liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.
That made it possible for politicians to cross party lines without looking like they had betrayed someone or something.
Today's melding of the personal and political is akin to the old union song, "Which side are you on?"
This analysis ignores the fact that there are more Independents than either Democrats or Republicans. And that number is growing.
As to the demand for party purity, you only need to remember that Sanders supporters were viewed as traitors to the party. Female Sanders supporters were especially excoriated--only there to get dates, would burn in hell, etc. And those statements were made by leaders.
8
Groups are real, and identification towards them can have real outcomes for individuals.
Thus, striving to support your group is normal and rational.
But out country does have one aspect that throughout history has united all groups.
"We are all Americans."
All leaders should always lead with this.
6
There is a zero-sum-game element to our current political climate, which goes beyond a balance of winners/losers into a belief that if "we" are good, then the opposition must be "evil"; if we love America, they must hate America. Such rhetoric pre-dates Trump having been common on the Tea Party blogs and right-wing media after Obama was elected. That rhetoric makes it hard, even for those who do not tend to as strong a tribalism, to keep from becoming fiercely angry. A constant barrage of name calling, hatred, and dismissal of one's opinions and even one's life, background, and patriotism will eventually get anyone's back up.
How we bring down the tone, I don't know. What I do know is that compromise and working with the opposition is at the core of any functional democracy. That is one reason it is so very important that Democrats focus on issues and not on Trump in upcoming elections. Stop telling me how you will stand up to Trump or Impeach Trump. Tell me what you actually do for the poor, the vulnerable, the middle class, education, foreign relations, the economy etc., etc.
32
An insightful, thought provoking article. I was surprised to learn about the study where people would sacrifice receiving the maximum for themselves to get a "win" over their counterparts. Studies like that tell us a great deal about human nature and explained a lot to me as to why our current politics are so hyper partisan.
11
It is important to remember where we came from. Back on the savanna 70,000 years ago, we were a bunch of hunter gatherers trying to eke out a subsistence living in an unforgiving environment. It is likely that mankind came very near to extinction on more than one occasion. We survived. And it is likely due to the fact that the little bands of hunter gatherers were held together by extreme fidelity to the group ethos, willingness to sacrifice everything in defense of the group and a set of social mores including religion that taught us that our group was special, the best and all other groups were anathema. The roots of these characteristics are embedded in our DNA and are in full evidence in modern times. We cannot escape our biology even though we usually fail to take it into account. But recognizing the origin of these characteristics at least provides us with a basis for understanding and mitigating the undesirable consequences of our evolutionary history.
8
Well said. Our DNA may not be our destiny; however, it is difficult to fight against evolution.
4
And yet that is contrary to what evolution fundamentally is - the continuous adaption of a species to ensure that it survives and strives.
The ultra aggression, dominance and desire to win were the traits that allowed people to tame the forces of nature to ensure the survival of (some) of the human species. Now those same traits are the ones that are ruining us. In a world with 7 billion people and technology that can destroy the planet in the blink of an eye, the most desirable human characteristics are now moderation, ability to exist and be productive in groups, and higher ability to deal with complexity.
In my opinion the #metoo movement is about far more than women’s experience in the workforce. It is natural selection happening right underneath our noses to rebalance the world, and filter out the most undesirable traits of men to ensure the continued survival of the species.
5
I think part of the problem is that humans in western societies have removed themselves from the force of natural selection with hospitals, gene therapy and lots of reproductive options other than the one nature authorized. Obviously a big chunk of the world is roiling from the winnowing of natural selection but those of us in the first world have ways around it.
Using elected representatives is not the only model of Democracy. As practiced in the ‘West’ it is not even democratic because decisions are not made according to voters’ desires. The ‘Representative’ model is irretrievably broken; it is corrupted by Money and Corporate power.
The Op Ed misses this fact which diminishes an otherwise very interesting discussion on Group behaviour.
The way to save democracy is to move much more decision-making directly to the People. Place Resources directly into peoples' hands. Direct Democracy is a real prospect and it will prevent massive anti-war marches demonstrating “Not in My Name”.
3
Very insightful, esp. re conservatives having fewer identification groups to align with (and therefore cling more tenaciously to them). Which makes questionable your assertion that "Demographic change will almost certainly cause a party of mainly white Christians to lose electoral power" --> as they become more threatened, they will do anything to retain power, including undermining, and overthrowing, democracy. Sort of like Assad's Alawite minority who are 10% of Syria's population but who run that country.
9
A very thought-provoking article and lots of really thoughtful comments, also lots of concern about where America is heading.
Living in England (where we too have some problem politics going on), it has been hard to believe that America, our friend of so many years, is turning into something unrecognisable and we worry that it may not be easy to rebuild lost trust and undo the damage of the Trump years.
There are obviously many Americans who are equally, probably even more, worried. We can only wish you well and hope that the outcome is as hopeful as Lilliana suggests.
50
Thank you for your support. Americans who are appalled appreciate that.
4
So, let's get to work redefining the team we're on. I was young then, and make no mistake, there was discrimination against Asians, blacks and Hispanics, but the greatness of post-WWII America had to do with the fact that our team was the United States. We were Americans, first and foremost.
"Teams" lead to discrimination, hate, and war. we need to define teams in the biggest terms possible to avoid those. In an ever more connected world, perhaps we should be looking at a team of all the world's people, or even all of the world (living beings or not)--it is the only world we have. But in any case, let's enlarge our local team to all Americans, then reach out and extend it to the whole world later. I can think that a big national disaster (depression or war) could unite us, but is there anyone out there who has an idea to make us all Americans?
My best idea is to have politicians read the preamble to the Constitution out loud before every speech they give (they do swear to uphold that and defend it against all enemies right?), so the voters can compare their policies to the best and most succinct expression of the American idea that I know:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "
13
The preamble says it all. But it's an ideal, not a formula for implementation Therein the problem and even a contradiction: "promote the general welfare" vs. securing "the blessings of liberty." As a general rule conservatives believe the general welfare of the people--a collection of individuals--is realized by few or no restraints upon an individual's freedom to do, say, act, whatever he or she wishes. Liberals take a broader view of "general welfare," it being composed of the collective whole, which requires some guidelines or restraints on freedom to ensure the rights and privileges of one person or a group of persons does not impinge on the rights and privileges of another person or group of persons. In an ideal world conservatives are right. In the real world liberals are right. It boils down to an individual's right vs. the collective's rights. Hard to find the middle ground but that's what the U.S. has been trying to do since the birth of the nation. At this moment in history unfettered rights of the individual seem to be ascendant.
8
In all the debate over America "winning" or "losing" -- including the official presidential debates -- I've never heard this key question asked: "Mr. Trump, please define what you mean by 'winning.'"
25
They need to ask Trump a lot about what he means. After his notorious remark about the Nazi attack on normal Americans in Charlottesville , that there were good people on both sides, nobody tried to pin him down on which of the Nazis were "good".
Well sure, Trump outlined matters all right. But your closing, with that lukewarm expectation of "policy winning" is not rallying cry. Push matters to the natural conclusion. Then nation can change course through elections, a disorder caused by external or internationalized conflict (war, trade, financial crisis), or through some low level or more violent civil war or political solution that starts breaking apart the Union.
If you think these conclusions are extreme, recall that we had a Civil War, that not long ago there were War wars, and that we have a good fraction of the US population armed to the teeth, and ... that that population just elected Trump. Open your eyes.
10
You may classify R & D voters in many generalized ways, I do not think male and female is one of them. There are many differences between male and female views on how we should live, but like all things this is relative to the individual and not the group. We are in a social civil war where the R's have lost all sense of reason with respect to why they cling to their party. The politics and policies of the party matter less than the revulsion to the identity of the other. There never was a reason to justify the revulsion white people felt about people of color, there was no need of one. The majority, the vast majority, of Southern civil war soldiers never owned a slave but fought and died for the right to own one. The vast majority of R voters never had a fortune to protect, but fight to protect the fortune of those that do. Those D's are out to take what I have got from all of my hard work, my savings, my guns, my religion, my right to do as I please with what I have earned, none of which is true. There is no way to change this thinking any more than there was when this country was killing each other over slavery. If taken in it's true perspective, even in those darkest of days of the civil war, the majority of people continued on with their lives with little notice of what was happening to those engaged in the violence, just as they ignore those who are living the results of our unequal justice system, health care system, and wealth distribution today.
19
Since Trump often talks about his so-called great skills as a negotiator, it's useful to explore "winning" in that context.
Essentially there are two styles of negotiating: "Win-win" or "Win-lose".
In win-win negotiating, one seeks to understand the key needs and desires of the other party and craft solutions to enable both sides to achieve at least some of their key objectives. In win-lose negotiating, the subject matter is viewed as a pie, with both sides using whatever leverage they think they have to take as much of the pie as possible.
Diplomacy and lawmaking generally require win-win negotiating, or else no deals ever get done. Win-lose is often used in situations where one side believes it has significantly more leverage than the other.
I don't have to tell you which is Trump's style.
Trump has had his version of "wins" when he has been able to use "win-lose" tactics because he had all the leverage, like tax reform (crafted by a GOP majority congress), moving the Israeli embassy (Netanyahu wanted this anyway and enabled it) and rolling back environmental protections (his guy runs the EPA).
But he has not won much in other domestic areas (like health care), foreign policy or trade. He does not have the leverage in those situations. Why do a bad deal that has nothing in it for them? They are, essentially, choosing to wait him out until they can get a reasonable deal, either from him (when he becomes desperate to announce a "win") or the next president.
11
@Jack Sonville: I'm beginning to think there will not be a 'next president'. I'm praying we get to the midterms.
1
This is interesting although I would question the white Christian identification of the right which these days is more white nationalist and perhaps evangelical.
America as a country has been predicated on equality and not making these distinctions, especially based on religion or status. It was a founding principle that Americans overcome their allegiances to different colonies, ties to England, or identities such as rich vs. poor, rural vs. urban, and find common cause.
The great American democracy is about finding common goals and values. These days that is more among Democrats with current Republicans having a very narrow base of white males, some of whom are evangelical but others simply white nationalist or aggrieved working class or super rich.
The rest of us care about our fellow Americans, and about equality and shared values. In the War of 1812, instead of rescuing personal items from the White House before the British (nota bena, Trump) burned it, Dolly Madison rescued the Portrait of George Washington.
We must discard the constant whining of Trump and his base now, and rescue our shared American values and democracy, perhaps led by women. Vote Democratic in November and stop the Trumpian whining.
22
Just a point. Thats nota bene, not nota beta. I have no idea what nota beta means but nota bene means observe carefully or take special notice (used in written text to draw attention to what follows).
As an argument, what a colossal crock of steaming centipede piles, offensive on so MANY different levels.
The Polish psychologist Henri Tajfel needed to conduct complex psychological experiments to explain to the world basically why fans of American (or everyone else’s) football felt like winners when their team won? Next goal for shrinks probably is determining why it is that the image of one’s octogenarian parents engaging in physical intimacy is so unthinkable.
And we know that when someone seeks to invent language, such as “social sorting,” or the development of “mega-partisan” identities, one seeks to impose power. Obviously, we have too many shrinks in Western society to perform the required amount of related work, causing this need by the otherwise unoccupied to cast about for ridiculous topics on which to build doctoral dissertations and dedicate lives.
I buy that we should support policies that seek to bridge differences, merely instinctively ideological or that cross multiple identities. But the young in whom Prof. Mason rests such faith won’t be forever young, and likely will become, as we always have, more conservative with age and developed experience and wisdom.
In the meantime, Trump’s concept of “winning” is actually what causes a group, such as “Americans”, to actually win. It doesn’t just spontaneously generate like crackpot ideas. And this is not a bad theme to press with graduating warriors at our Naval Academy.
2
But the language, my dear, the language. How can you get past the language? It's chapter and verse from "Ideocracy" which is proving to be the most prescient movie ever made.
How can anyone listen to the Trump doctrine of winning and experience anything but a sick feeling in the middle of their soul, or a "We're number One!" fist in the air drunken bellow at the football stadium. They're feelings, not an economic plan.
4
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Your glee at throwing darts at the ‘potted liberati’, your gloating over trump’s “win” and etc. ad nauseum makes you pretty much a museum piece illustrating the point of this article, Mr. Luettgen.
So, regarding your indignant protest and scorn, the reply can only be given in your own words: “What a crock!” On soooo many levels.
4
@Richard Luettgen:
Trump has no loyalty, responsibility, or concept of "winning" for anyone except himself (or maybe Vladimir Putin). Trump has neither interest nor ability in helping American "win", and your apologies for him are shameful.
3
When Mr. Obama was elected, I actually believed that he might turn out to be someone who, with level-headed, reality-based competence, could mix red and blue into purple. I naively thought that there was a chance that his health plan, which attempted to use *conservative* ideas to achieve a liberal goal might bring people together instead of polarizing them even further.
Well, I was wrong.
Now I'm hoping that I'm also wrong about Mr. Trump -- that somehow his self-serving, take-no-prisoners joke of a Presidency will make Americans understand that our country's greatness does not come from the White House but from ourselves.
22
The myth in our society is that people are competitive by nature and that they are individualistic and that they're selfish. The real reality is quite the opposite. We have certain human needs. The only way that you can talk about human nature concretely is by recognizing that there are certain human needs. We have a human need for companionship and for close contact, to be loved, to be attached to, to be accepted, to be seen, to be received for who we are.
If those needs are met, we develop into people who are compassionate and cooperative and who have empathy for other people. So the opposite, that we often see in our society, is in fact, a distortion of human nature precisely because so few people have their needs met.
So, yes you can talk about human nature but only in the sense of basic human needs that are instinctively evoked or I should say, certain human needs that lead to certain traits if they are met and a different set of traits if they are denied.
16
I don't intend to be rude or (like Mr. Trump), but I fail to find one new idea in this column.
Yes to all of it. And, yes, those who care have known all this.
Thanks for the reminder nonetheless.
4
Let's understand what "winning" means to Trump. It means beating his opponents to a pulp. Not physically (I suppose) but consider how he "won" in casino operations by letting his investors take all the losses and by stealing from his contractors by refusing to pay. That is what "winning" means to Trump.
All this is aside from the evident fact that he doesn't care what he's winning *for*, only that he "wins". His speech at Annapolis makes that clear.
50
@Thomas Zaslavsky, how refreshing to read your comment just below the one by M. Luettgen that read:
"In the meantime, Trump’s concept of “winning” is actually what causes a group, such as “Americans”, to actually win. It doesn’t just spontaneously generate like crackpot ideas. And this is not a bad theme to press with graduating warriors at our Naval Academy."
I find it hard to believe how any NYT reader can confuse selfishness, arrogance, divisiveness and violence with 'winning'.
5
Yes, of course, winning is a powerful draw, and it has been ever since the dawn of Man, but there was a time not too long ago, when people from opposite sides agreed to compromise for the greater good. So what happened? Two major things:
1. The FCC Fairness Doctrine was revoked in 1987 leading to an explosion of mainly conservative talk radio and the rise of Fox News.
2. The "final nail" was the SCOTUS decision that bequeathed personhood on corporations, which led to unregulated campaign donations and spending, effectively blowing apart "one person, one vote" .
These two changes massively tilted the playing field towards the right, and as they gained more power, they saw less need to compromise. On the other side, the left saw that compromise resulted only in them being taken advantage of. The ACA was a perfect example of this when the Dems, who held the Presidency and Congress, engaged in pre-emptive compromise trying to win Republican support, by keeping a for-profit system instead of going Single Payer. Not one R voted for it.
Restore the Fairness Doctrine and get rid of private funding of campaigns so we can get back to working together instead of against each other.
96
Actually, personhood was bequeathed on corporations after the Civil War, so that the robber barons could exploit the new laws that had been intended to help ex-slaves. Government regulation was equated with slavery and struck down by the courts. Citizens United was just the most recent stage.
8
Civilization is one of my little experiments. It's foundation is the nuclear family. All successful politicians evolve from this awareness and they support and enrich this foundation. If they fail to do this, civilization regresses back to the emotive animal world.
Trump and the GOP have lost their way.
9
I hold no brief for the national Rs. If they became again the party of Lincoln, TR, and Ike I’d vote R for federal office.
The R base seems to have become tribal indeed. I mostly blame the Southern Strategy. To its authors: Behold your creation.
But the Rs do tell a story about policy, mostly taxes, regulation, and until recently trade and immigration.
Where is the cogent, persistent D story about public goods like roads and defense; when regulation is necessary as with workplace safety, air and water, pure food and medicine, and insurance; when public administration may be most efficient as with health insurance and old age pensions; and how progressive taxation combined with people contributing to their own support is fair and reasonable? Instead Ds often respond to the R policy story with name calling.
How often do Ds promote a policy without framing it in terms of how it helps people identified by race or gender?
How can the Ds achieve “policy victory” without identifying policies, effectively making the case for them, and showing how they help people generally?
9
I don't get the opinion's point. Trump's supporter are not motivated by party (GOP) identity. It's not Republican vs dem (equated here to opposing teams). The us vs them is newly beign constructed on the fly by Trump, or by Bannon's global followers. Their supporters are not mainstream Rep. Winning is not the Driver, but finally being heard is what motivates/excites them.
5
Yes, we are finally hearing the voices of suburban, old, white males. Their silent cries were ignored for too long.
1
Uncivil disagreement in America begins with racism/the institution of enslavement; racist whites often shed political identities, once Democrats, Republicans. Or fringe groups, now mainstream.
The tie of race to privilege and wealth through labor remains: in this full employment era: the income gap (70% of white earnings) and the numbers gap (black unemployment doubles the national average) remain, constant over 40 years, the lost income and productivity the price of racism. Trump applauds the numbers, but denies the constant gap. Incivility can be silence.
The meta-politics of America's divide separates liberty, a community enterprise; from freedom, an individual enterprise (accountable only to its own interests), but freedom is gaining numbers.
To racism, add a growing incel movement and a parallel movement openly calling for pedophilia. HuffPost describes a VA Congressional candidate writes online about raping women and children, making them slaves, narrating violent fantasies of entitlement—a mirror of Trump's locker room; of his and Kelly's denial of a White House staffer's repeat domestic violence.
Denial is inaction: on wages, on school shooters/gun safety, on separated families, Puerto Rico, accelerating police violence. This White House sought opposition research against the FBI investigating pervasive Russian contacts. Its uncivil silence includes Claudia Patricia Gomez Gonzalez, 20, shot in the head for seeking education and a job.
18
When an elected leader's personality core is oppositional-defiant, conflict reigns--wins reference allusions!
Witness trade: in America, governed by executive decisions outside of the system of checks and balances. Two reasons draw Trump to trade: its balance sheet enables narratives of blame, allowing him to appear tough; its lack of oversight appeals to his drive for global notoriety, enabling him to declare any reset a win.
Trade resets will raise the costs of goods without creating more jobs. The higher costs will be spread throughout the economy, but not as line items on a ledger. These scattered statistics enable Trump's golden dream: scattered, they hide the costs and disruption of his precedent-breaking use of power as defiance. They allow him to tell the perfect lie of opposition: one that fits the circumstances as it hides the truth.
He and his party lie on civil liberties, women's rights, safety nets, environmental protections, transgender military service, Mueller's investigation; their broken logic omits critical details of cause and effect.
It is clear he doesn't know what he is doing and it doesn't matter to him! Surrounded by officials equally adept at dishonesty, Trump pursues power without purpose or end, power for the thrill of its feel. (We see parallels in a minister who demands a $54 million jet: power without conscience. Or shame.)
His trade plans inflate his power. His opposition and defiance! America's loses so he can "win."
18
It has been my view regardless of which party controlled Congress or the White House, ALL Americans were in the same boat dealing with political successes and failures. Recently it seems the party in power is throwing a lot of Americans overboard, deciding who deserves not just economic benefit and security, but who deserves, equality, fairness, and justice. Of course, these things mean nothing if someone is deciding who is deserving, who is human, who is equal. This is in direct contradiction to and in conflict with the words and spirit of the “ALL” in our Constitution. These people are un-American.
14
Because he was born into wealth, Donald Trump has been able to postpone the consequences of losing that most of us experience.
He has lost repeatedly in his life, but he's protected by the ability of his inherited wealth to pay lawyers to get him out of trouble.
At some point, though, his money and/or his luck will run out.
Then he will discover what it means to be truly vulnerable.
61
Is this anything more than wishful thinking?
In many historical cases, there is no justice.
15
I'm not sure how antagonizing the US's best friends in the world is considered winning. Trump told Trudeau that Canada is a security risk because they burned the White House during the War of 1812 (they didn't) and he made such a vile phone call to Macron that Mr. Macron doesn't even want to talk about it, saying that the phone call was like sausage: you don't want to know what's in it.
Really, what does Trump think he's winning by insulting the prime minister of Canada and the president of France?
150
He wants to break up both NAFTA and the EU. He thinks he will be able to make more money if the U.S. has bi-larteral economic agreements. By breaking up the EU he will also be helping Putin. Why the "Trump Hate Cult" who loves Trump would want this is beyond me.
9
He's definitely not winning over America's allies. We've been a friend by your side for a lot of decades. Now we're told the goal is to crush us as an enemy who's a threat to your national security. I can't believe I even have to type these words.
Trump and his enablers are changing America's values in a way that will place America on a remote island in a big world - that won't MAGA. It's in your interest to take your country back.
13
As a Canadian, thank you.
6
This seems more prescriptive than descriptive. I'm white, male, and a veteran, but I can't imagine supporting the GOP. Maybe the fact that I earned a Ph.D. (in philosophy, yet!) and have studied and lectured all over the world, tilted my balance toward the Democrats. In one way, however, it IS descriptive: it describes the Democratic Party leadership's willingness to trade control of legislatures to the GOP in return for the appointment of token minorities to those legislatures.
5
Think for a second how tribalism has pushed Republicans over the edge, so intense is their antipathy toward Democrats and liberals. Think about the many ways the U.S. has become an outlier in the developed world. We spend more on the military than the next 7 countries combined and yet this is deemed insufficient in Republican political circles. The U.S. is less than 5% of the world's population, yet we have almost half of the civilian-owned guns. According to Credit Suisse, the U.S. is 4th in the world in average wealth per adult but not even in the top two dozen countries in median wealth per adult, demonstrating exceedingly high levels of inequality. We are one of only a handful of countries - none of them developed - that don't mandate paid time off for new mothers. We are now the only country that is not a signatory to the Paris Climate Accord. We are the only developed country that doesn't provide health insurance of some type to all citizens.
This country has lurched so far to the right in recent decades, thanks to right-wing propaganda and identity politics, that we are fast becoming a pariah state. We're alienating close allies under Trump and even starting trade wars with them. This is a very dangerous path.
236
The USA is a glorified banana republic.
A Grand Old Plantation for the Whites R Us demagogue party....owned and operated by the Russian-Republican oligarchy.
"Get the most expensive healthcare in the world, suckers....we're #1 in healthcare rip-offs and other moral abominations.....let us prey on the dumb, the bamboozled, the propagandized and the disinformed for infinite profits....free-DUMB !"
127
Seems to me we've hear this song before -- "elected officials could model civil and bipartisan behavior, focused on fruitful policy outcomes". Well, we've tried that, but only ONE side. Once again, somehow, there is the false equivalence.
The Democrats have tried, often too hard, to model this sort of behavior and look what they've gotten for their efforts.
It's time for the Republicans to make the first moves to compromise -- concrete actions, REAL compromise and maybe we'll get somewhere. But Charlie Brown's on to Lucy's "I'll hold the football" trick and we're not falling for it again.
45
"Pit race against race, religion against religion, prejudice against prejudice. Divide and conquer ! We must not let that happen here."
--- Eleanor Roosevelt
Donald Trump appeals to the lowest common denominator....black vs. white...Muslim vs. Christian....uneducated vs. educated....armed vs. unarmed...patriotic vs. unpatriotic...lies vs. truth....Up vs. Down...winning vs. losing.
He doesn't have a uniting bone in his body.
He's a Machiavellian madman, devoid of public policy interest, solely focused on how to glorify the image in his mirror... nation and world be damned to his infinite malignant narcissism.
November 6 2018
Vote in record numbers, America, and send a knockout blow to this Grand Old Psychopath.
291
Machiavellian implies some sense of strategic thinking in service of carefully selected goals.
If you strike the Machiavellian, your comment is perfect:
"He's a madman, devoid of public policy interest..."
7
Ms. Mason inaccurately compares politics to sports. Today, it has become more like the religion she notes later in her piece. Nobody does a suicide bombing or a mass shooting over sports. Politics is about state power, a state, among other things, granted monopoly power to use coercive, sometimes deadly force. Politics can kill. The practical stakes are thus much higher than a game.
8
I had to wrestling coach a long time ago in high school who told me something about winning and losing.
“There are two types of competitors. Those motivated by the joy of winning. And those motivated by the fear of losing. The latter will usually lose because they’re not that good. Which one are you?”
Mr Trump has demonstrated over and over again that he’s not that good at much. Is there any doubt that his motivations come from his innate fear of losing every confrontation in life?
75
"Of course the word “winning” itself is not the problem,..."
Not so sure, Ms. Mason. For there to be a winner there must be a loser, at least in the zero-sum perspective that DT clearly embraces. In sports and games that's not a problem — they don't really matter do they?
But with policy it does matter. Approaches to and evaluation of policy should not be about winning or losing but fairness. Hence the importance of consensus in any discussion about policy.
I suspect one of the reasons DT hates multilateralism is that it doesn't lend itself to the determination of a clear single winner and loser. So he prefers a strictly bilateral approach, more conducive to the emergence of a winner.
Very Canadianly yours....
39
I'm a native born American in my sixties. I never wanted to "win" something so that my fellow citizens would "lose". So what did I want?
As an ethnic minority and as a woman, to receive equal treatment under the law and equal opportunities in education and employment. That's what I wanted.
I became a lawyer in the late 1970's, when there were still few women in the profession. I received no affirmative action "benefit" because of either my ethnicity or my gender. How do I know this? Because the dean of our law school made a point to say so the first time he addressed our class.
I never felt that because of my accomplishments, I'd "won" against someone else. I wanted to do the best I could in my chosen profession, and then as I went on in life, do the best I could as a parent and provide what I could for my child. I never saw any of this as "winning" at the expense of whites. I saw it as what the American Dream was supposed to be about.
I was the first generation in my family to go to college, much less graduate school. My husband is an immigrant. Our daughter is now completing a PhD at one of the Ivies, again, based on nothing more than our willingness to work as hard as we could.
And yet whites now tell us that we shouldn't have "won", that we're not the "true Americans". That somehow what we and others like us have done has caused them to "lose" something. Our family didn't do anything they couldn't have done. If they are "losers" they have only themselves to blame.
182
Honey Grove is near where I grew up. Yours are the true values, and the poem about success lying in making others' lives better, raising a healthy child, etc. matter more. Working hard, having a good education or teaching, helping others and so forth represent an American dream that is out of the reach of people like Trump.
Trump called American POWs losers. They are heroes, sacrificing for their country and showing great courage. They and the immigrants who have contributed so much to this country and everyone else who work, give back, and help their neighbors are the real winners.
12
If they are losers? Oh, they are most definitely losers.
3
Trump’s definition of “winning” is very different from the norm. Winning for him is always at the expense of someone else. I can’t imagine that in his personal Trump lifetime, there has ever been a “Win- Win”....and if there was, he viewed it as a TOTAL loss. He loves to Win at others’ expense. Sick but true. Very sick.
87
Yes, Trump is winning at the cost of America, Americans and all citizens of earth.
AND DO NOT FORGET THAT GOP (Ryan & Mitch) ARE SUPPORTING HIM.
61
Listen to the twisted dialogue as this figure pursues debate with himself about winning. It's hardly fair to expect an Albert Einstein or a Joseph Campbell in our Executive Office but, Lordy please, we should demand something a little deeper than a thinly-worn dime face-down in a gutter puddle.
49
Conservatives love to believe that "American Exceptionalism" is based on winning. Heck, we won against the British. We Europeans committed genocide against the indigenous people (ya, we won that didn't we?). And, yes, we helped win WWII (a war that was truly an existential imperative). BUT, in recent times, the U.S. hasn't really been doing a lot of "winning." Not in Korea, not in Vietnam, not in either the Gulf War or the more recent (unjust and illegal) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We think of ourselves as the good guy and pat ourselves on the back at football games because all those flags look so pretty, but in the end, we aren't such a winning country. We've sold ourselves out to consumerism and hatred and at the helm, we now have an incredibly evil man who will likely bring our once-great republic to its knees. Oh well, this is apparently what a lot of Americans want.
93
I remember a great poster I used in class to poke fun at "inspirational art work". You see a bunch of guys running along a track and it says "For every winner, there is a bunch of losers. Chances are, YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!". On the last day of his life, the great psychologist Kurt Lewin shared with a colleague an ultimate nugget of wisdom: "How tragic is the American ideal of the self made man, standing on his own two feet. We all depend on each other. Inter dependency is the major challenge". Lewin died of a heart attack that same evening. He was a great leader, and he made a lot of leaders and winners of us all.
23
Unfortunately all this so called winning is just driving this nation into selfishionism. We only care about ourselves. Whatever happened to being humble?
46
After 11 years living overseas I came to the realization that the rest of the world was competing against America. The Obama years saw a massive transfer of wealth from America to Asia, Mexico and Canada. Our Middle Class paid the price for Obama's globalist policies. Trump is the first president to really look out for the Middle Class with fair trade and enforcement of our laws against illegal aliens (also known as asylum seekers) as the cornerstones of his approach.
@Dan Locker . . . Trade is not the defining factor in the loss of jobs, although it certainly exacerbates the situation. Automation is a creeping problem that accelerates as technology improves, eliminating work as it goes. Look at just about any job over the past generation and the tools have changed dramatically. Analogue information has been replaced with digital repositories, instant communication and computer driven work of all kinds, work that no longer requires people as the binding force to propel and coordinate tasks.
The problems of withering work in the West are not due to people from 'over there' stealing our places in the production line. The problems follow from maturing technology which will displace many more workers in the next generation. Trump's backward actions and blowhard rhetoric belie a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the problems we face. While it may feel good to rail against the less well off, remember that it was American and other Western companies that arbitraged work out to foreign countries and bring in ever more sophisticated technology year after year to minimise costs.
We must think clearly about how to support the next generation when there is no longer a need for truck drivers, machinists, electricians, clerical staff, accountants, lawyers, etc. China and other Asian countries are already experiencing the same shrinkage in work due to automation. Erecting trade barriers will not bring work back.
25
I can't disagree more. When an American company buys a Chinese made item, from a Chinese contract manufacturer for $2.19 (actual price landed, port of Charleston SC.) with all printed materials and instruction manuals already installed, having already passed UL certification, and they sell it for $5.50 to Home Depot or Lowes, who then sells it to the consumer for $12.99, who is making money?
We have transferred wealth, from American employees to American companies, China or Mexico or Vietnam is just their way of saving labor expenses. The Chinese contract manufacturer may earn a thin dime of profit on that $2.19, their workers committing suicide in record numbers
5
We have lived is a global economy since about 1820. Its a little late to get worry about it. The Great Depression was because global trade stopped. If you are concerned about 'wealth leaving America', Dan, you can console yourself by thinking about all the wealth that is flowing into America.
5
It is a fact that affiliating with groups and the us verses them attitudes that are the result are common to all and are so because of evolution and are very hard to resist. It is possible to affiliate with different groups in different contexts, though. When it was believed necessary people have joined with people from different groups to forms a greater more inclusive one. We have had many examples in our history.
The most relevant example of forming super groups is our democratic form of government. We trust in democracy to the degree that we trust those in the majority will respect our rights and lives and belongings when we are in the minority. To understand our current difficulties just think about how well this is working out by listening to our discussion and complaints about each other.
3
I agree with TMOH that, for Christians, one's goals in life should not focus on defeating others. For anyone who takes the gospel seriously, service to others defines their mission in life. Victory in an election, therefore, would be meaningful to the extent that it promoted the creation of a more caring, humane society.
The fact that millions of white evangelicals view themselves as an embattled minority who can fulfill their divinely-sanctioned mission only by supporting a politician who represents values they should abhor reveals much about their abandonment of the teachings of the founder of their religion. They may continue to call themselves followers of Christ, but they have little in common with the men and women who sacrificed so much to spread the gospel's message of God's unconditional love.
172
You have well described the phenomenon of white evangelicals support of Trump.
The only explanation:
Religion today revolves more around the belonger's tribal allegiances and less about the specific beliefs.
14
Ironically, the only ones following Christ's teachings today are Liberals.
Racking my brain about 'winning', I'm paging through 'Not whether you win or lose but how you play the game,' 'True winners are gracious in defeat,' 'Turnabout is fair play,' and 'Deliberate dirty play is worse than accidental dirty play.' I had thought it was a literal biblical admonition: Neither leader nor follower be. But as soon as differentiation sets in, as with Baptists and Pentecostals and Evangelicals and Quakers, the followers line up and the leaders begin to bray. Except the Quakers. The principle of fair justice is suddenly thought to be a tribal matter, dispensable when faced with a whole wide array of competing doctrine; it simplifies matters. Pruning is our habit. Bikers have whole categories of decisions they don't have to make, and the same could be said of Rev Falwell. Winning in this context is a glucose high, addictive and promoting greed. I hate to add, this is like high butterfat premium ice cream. It just can't be good for you.
19
Winning in war amounts to not getting killed, and the best way to accomplish that is to avoid war and use diplomacy to settle issues, or like Trump did during Vietnam, let other people fight and die while you stay home. When American soldiers start coming back home in coffins from fighting another unnecessary war in the Middle East, people will turn on Trump and things will get ugly.
9
A futile feckless fool,
Uncertainty his rule,
Bankruptcy is his tool,
And stubborn as a mule.
A POTUS that we rue,
We’d love to wish adieu,
A liar loud and crude,
Displaying attitude.
Vocabulary slim,
Advisors chosen, grim,
Nazi-Liberal equater
Quite likely is a traitor.
Amount of reading, meager,
For grabbing women, eager,
Longing to pardon self
Insatiable lust for pelf.
Unsuited for his role,
Coldhearted on the whole
For worshipful praise, avid,
With foreboding we’re gravid.
171
Larry, I always look forward to your poems!
28
pelf - money, especially when gained in a dishonest or dishonorable way; "stolen goods"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pelf
https://www.etymonline.com/word/pelf
That's gold, Larry...GOLD !
63
Another very insightful and thought provoking epistle, Larry. Thank you!
10
“ For white, Christian America, Trump clarified an “us” and a “them.”” There is a fundamental error in this statement. All Christians, white, brown and black, proclaim faith in Jesus’ cross, which represents shame, humiliation and defeat for most humans. But for believers in the Jesus, the cross represents a triumph over injustice, hatred, evil and division and a real opportunity for the reconciliation between all people.
4
If "believers in Jesus" means the evangelicals that Trump caters to, then I see very little triumph over injustice and reconciliation between all people in Trump's government. This when I look at the lack of help for mothers and babies after they are born, the treatment of immigrants and separation of children from their parents, and rejection of people considered to be sinners because of their religion or sexual orientation. Trump is clarifying cruel treatment of people who don't fit a narrow mold (them vs us), and there is very little protest from believers in Jesus. What would Jesus do? What Trump and his evangelical supporters are doing?
1
@TMOH:
Evangelicals who voted for Trump don't deserve to be taken seriously as Christians anymore. They have voted to exalt the rich and punish the poor, they have voted intentionally for injustice, dishonesty, and corruption, all to soothe their fragile white egos.
Sigh.
Yes, of course.
He is a con man. A cheap, tawdry, con man. His whole life is about getting away with murder. A life of deep, ingrained, sociopathic crime. He can't even understand his own depths, which is why he talks about himself in the 3rd person and then adds the bizarre flourish of quotes. He, himself, tweeted "Trump". What does it take in a functioning human to do that?
Megalomania.
And he's going whole hog. He's all-in on this gambit to overthrow the country for his personal gain. A 72-year old child. A man who is staring at his mortality decides to hold us all hostage. A man that's always considered himself king is living out the full fantasy at our MASSIVE expense. It's sickening and disgusting and DANGEROUS.
And yet we are sitting it out. We forgot how to protest. While we still can. Sad.
304
One could almost posit that his overriding motivation for becoming president was to become immune from prosecution for a lifetime of crimes and wreckage.... as he and his people have recently declared him to be?
What ever became of the 2016 tax returns that could not be released due to an "ongoing audit"? Is that audit still ongoing?
17
The horror is magnified when you consider that Trump and Sessions are actually creating 'camps' for immigrants. Double that when you consider that the children are hidden away and Trump does not even allow a US Senator to visit the Brownsville camp to check on the children.
The GOP itself seems to be ignoring these crimes as they continue to rape and pillage. Let me count the ways they are no better than ISIS, the jihad, the Taliban, etc.
11
Every time Mr. Trump says the word “winning” I can’t get away from recollections of Charlie Sheen.
23
Yes. He is right-- if this is winning, I beg, ‘Please, please, we can’t win anymore.’
73
Trump and family are building their brands in China. Isn't that enough said?
44
When DJT shrugs off this mortal coil I wonder what will become of the Trump brand and the Trump Organization.
My guess is that none of his offspring will be stepping into his shoes and it wont be long before brand Trump crumbles away. His children are a quite ordinary bunch of individuals who dont seem to have much more than the name Trump to trade on.
5
Winning. I do not think that word means what he thinks it means. But, how could you tell ??? The " speeches " look, and sound, as if a hugely overgrown toddler is spouting gibberish to his smiling, oblivious Parents.
Everyone else is just hoping for it to end, and avoiding looking directly at one another, to stifle laughter. A normal toddler will grow up, and improve. This one, not so much. Seriously.
109
Remember, half of everything Trump says is a lie. THE OTHER HALF, HE JUST MAKES UP.
78
I almost always agree with your posts. And, I agree with your basic premise here.
But, I am definitely not stifling laughter. There is NOTHING the so-called president does that I find amusing in any way.
I am terrified for our country.
32
You are attending your graduation, and 'winners' are the ones during this passage in life, who are able to refrain from laughing during the ceremony when listening to such hogwash.
18
Some people fear losing, above all their other fears, because losing confirms their strong feelings of inferiority. And the only way they can be sure they’re not a “loser” is if they think they have made someone else be the loser. Trump needs to make others lose because that’s exactly what winning means for him. He can’t see the point of “win-win” solutions, since he doesn’t care at all about what benefits anyone else, including all other Americans. Has there ever been another President who needed so desperately to see his own name displayed in giant letters on buildings?
75
“It is not sufficient that I succeed- all others must fail.”
Genghis Khan
From all evidence, Donald Trump has subscribed all his life to the Genghis Khan school of “winning,” where to be truly satisfying, any victory must also include “crushing” your enemies and making them “suffer.”
Unfortunately for America, the president’s list of perceived enemies is endless, and includes all Americans who did not vote for him (the majority), or oppose his policies. Now that he’s in charge, he’s clearly not looking to compromise or find a “win-win” solution for the good of all.
The constant vindictiveness Trump has expressed/ expresses at his campaign rallies, in his public declarations, or in his rage fueled tweets don’t indicate to me someone motivated by “winning,” but someone with an unquenchable desire for “payback.” Not a great way to run a country.
115
Wait a minute. When did Obama "compromise or find a win-win solution for the good of all" ? His two major legislative accomplishments were both party line votes - Obamacare and Dodd Frank. Even the NYT recognized his autocratic tendencies -
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/politics/obama-era-legacy-regulati...
Yes, I'll concede that Obama is far more civil and even-tempered than Trump. But the article referred to "bipartisan compromise" not temperament. And on that score, Dems are just as guilty of acting unilaterally as are Repubs. The difference isn't a desire to "win" - but rather your clear policy alignment with Obama and disagreement with Trump.
By the way, the last Democrat who most frequently crossed party lines to compromise was Bill Clinton. Each of his major accomplishments - balanced budget, welfare reform, putting 100,000 cops on the street - were bipartisan votes. Yet, Bill Clinton has basically been excommunicated by the Democrats.
Again, this isn't about a preference or resistance to compromise. Rather, this is about your particular policy preferences.
Good observation! I remember reading that the great Khan once asked his lieutenants what they considered the greatest pleasure in life. They all named hunting in one form or another. He said they were all wrong: "The greatest pleasure in life is to vanquish your enemies and drive them before you, to see the faces of their loved ones bedewed with tears, to ride their horses and clasp their women in your arms."
2
When did maintaining white supremacy in a diverse world end up being the "winning" play? Why isn't the winning play advancing the standard of living of a peaceful diverse global society living in harmony with the earth? Obviously, "winning" is in the eyes of the beholder and people who worship money have never won enough.
66
Status, like caste, is not just us-them; it is usually us-them-them-them, etc. The binary fallacy masks a good deal how status plays out in groups and societies.
These hierarchies can exist in multiple forms, further complicating the situation. Take wealth. In the US we work overtime to delineate status levels: mega-wealthy, just below Bill Gates wealthy but far above wealthy, which is above well-to-do, on and on down to working class and further down to poor, thence to homeless. Most of us are content to be positioned wherever it is we get to heat our homes and feed our kids and hold out hope for their future.
Then there is religion, a big deal in this country. That's a bigger mess than wealth because designators of status are varied. It is numbers with Catholoics and evangelical baptists fighting it out for first place? Is it political clout, the ability to get the House Speaker to rehire his chaplain (go Catholics!) or to get a president to renege on his pledge to support LGBTQ people (go evangelicals!) And how about those Jewish folk...where's that capital now, y'all?
And we have even scratched the ugly surface of race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, age and beauty, all of which define groups and confer levels of status.
The leader who commands the winningest record on the most salient status wheels gets elected. He (if it's a he) has the biggest crowds, the greatest talent, the prettiest girls, the least collusion, even the best words.
9
This is a feature of the system not a bug. Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton represent the status quo and would have known the proper amount of racism/identity politics to employ to control the electorate. We'd have another free trade agreement and a "compromise" on immigration by now.
At some level the governed have awoken to this arrangement and want something different (Sanders/Trump). The only thing the establishment has come up with so far is to step on the gas. The cliff is approaching.
16
...have awakened...but, I agree.
3
@Brian - Very astute observation. Big difference is that Bernie would have proposed policies that benefit all (healthcare, free college), while Trump is proposing policies that benefit a tiny few while feeding manure to the masses.
12
No, it's a bug. A concerted effort after the Crash of '08 has succeeded in convincing Americans that the government that pulled the global economy back from the brink (where greed and oligarchy had left it teetering) is actually the enemy. A return to the old Reagan lies, "the government IS the problem" and for obvious reasons. Government regulation and taxation are harshing their mellow and they REALLY want to get back to the gaming tables. Trump is their best ally here, going to continue the demolition and to "let the games begin".
10