I had put this piece written by George Monbiot for the Guardian in the back of my mind months ago and almost forgotten it. On re-reading, it still seems to serve as a good explanation as any for Trump’s seemingly inexplicable appeal to so many Americans.
Monbiot references psychologists who believe that modern culture has fostered two general categories of values that people generally gravitate towards: intrinsic and extrinsic. These are not innate values but ones directly “shaped by the cues and responses we receive from other people and the prevailing mores of our society.”
People with a strong set of intrinsic values are inclined towards empathy, intimacy and self-acceptance. They tend to be open to challenge and change, interested in universal rights and equality, and protective of other people and the living world.
People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum are more attracted to prestige, status, image, fame, power and wealth. They are strongly motivated by the prospect of individual reward and praise. They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community. People with a strong set of extrinsic values are more likely to suffer from frustration, dissatisfaction, stress, anxiety, anger and compulsive behaviour.
While those conclusions sound somewhat loaded and self-fulfilling coming from a clearly liberal writer (after all, few people would consciously categorize themselves as “rude” or “aggressive,” with “little interest in cooperation or community”), there is actually research supporting the argument that the political divisions within this country reflect these dueling value systems.
From the Journal of Applied Psychology (cited by Monbiot):
In 4 studies, party members were compared on extrinsic (money, popularity, image) and intrinsic (intimacy, helping, growth) values. Republicans were consistently higher on extrinsic relative to intrinsic values, a pattern suggested by past research to be personally and socially problematic. In Study 4, Republicans were also lower in a different measure of prosocial values, derived from social-dilemma research. All studies found an interaction such that only nonreligious Republicans were lower than Democrats on the intrinsic value of helping needy others.
(The phraseology of that last sentence seems problematic, because it suggests that Democrats rank low on the intrinsic value of “helping needy others” to begin with. I think what is intended there is more to say that “solely nonreligious Republicans” rank lower on the scale; unfortunately the entire referenced paper is behind a paywall).
Monbiot observes that Donald Trump is a “walking, talking monument” to extrinsic values, possibly more so than any other political figure in history, which accounts for an appeal that those of us not possessed by such value systems find generally incomprehensible. He represents a culmination of a values shift in this country — one that’s gradually been affirmed as valid by our culture — that began with Ronald Reagan and has been fostered throughout American life (in particular), ever since.
As Monbiot notes:
For well over a century, the US, more than most nations, has worshipped extrinsic values: the American dream is a dream of acquiring wealth, spending it conspicuously and escaping the constraints of other people’s needs and demands. It is accompanied, in politics and in popular culture, by toxic myths about failure and success: wealth is the goal, regardless of how it is acquired. The ubiquity of advertising, the commercialisation of society and the rise of consumerism, alongside the media’s obsession with fame and fashion, reinforce this story. The marketing of insecurity, especially about physical appearance, and the manufacture of unfulfilled wants, dig holes in our psyches that we might try to fill with money, fame or power. For decades, the dominant cultural themes in the US – and in many other nations – have functioned as an almost perfect incubator of extrinsic values.
[***]
Ever since Ronald Reagan came to power, on a platform that ensured society became sharply divided into “winners” and “losers”, and ever more people, lacking public provision, were allowed to fall through the cracks, US politics has become fertile soil for extrinsic values. As Democratic presidents, following Reagan, embraced most of the principles of neoliberalism, the ratchet was scarcely reversed.
This analysis would seem to explain why many Trump supporters are bamboozled by anyone who supports Biden. For a substantial segment of the population the only thing that pops into their head when they hear “Donald Trump” or “Republican,” for that matter, is money. Specifically, their money (and by extension, I suppose, their taxes). That is where their analysis really begins and ends --”me, me, me-”- and when you inject race into that mix, it becomes even more potent. A good number of people don’t think very much beyond that.
Which, unfortunately, is understandable, given our culture. They flick on the TV and it’s yet another multimillionaire throwing a baseball, some beautiful person driving a beautiful car in a beautiful place, someone with an abnormally large house or kitchen. Unattractive people are generally portrayed as less wealthy at best, and goofy or comical at worst. There aren’t many TV shows — other than parodies --about middle-class people, except for firemen, cops and teachers. And real life for many people is a competition and exercise in envy at everyone else’s pay scale, house, car, vacation or what college they send their kids to.
One of our political parties does pretty much nothing but foster the notion that someone else is always to blame for their problems. They have a good chunk of the U.S. population to draw on who’ve been conditioned by the culture to consider their personal "status" as more important than the needs of society as a whole.
Of course, this values analysis is a spectrum, with some closer to the extremes than others. Some of those with so-called “extrinsic” values may be personally inclined to perform charitable works (conservatives will be happy to tell you that they volunteer at the local food bank or soup kitchen, or donated big sums to children’s cancer research or the arts). And some on the far end of “intrinsic” side of the spectrum can be utterly insufferable people. One important observable distinction between the extremes is the appetite for violence on the part of those who adopt extrinsic values. But for each side our society has evolved such that one political party that generally captures their overall world view, and neither can fathom how the other could possibly vote the way they do.
The original promo video for a song composed by the very successful son of communist parents is below. I wonder how many people take an entirely different meaning from it than the one the author intended.
Everyone have a great evening.