We have heard from a number of commenters on DKos that to best understand why the election was lost by Secretary Clinton, we have to listen to the people who voted for Trump, to better understand their concerns, why they were willing to support a manifestly unqualified, ignorant, bigoted sexual predator.
This argument is premised on the notion that there is more going on than the obvious. That is, we should skip over the most parsimonious explanation of the all the evidence of the past year-- that Trump voters are perfectly comfortable with Trump as a person, and largely agree with his public statements. “Don’t assume that many of them aren’t good, decent people”, we are told.
Instead, we are told we need to seek out the undercurrent of discontent among white voters in places like Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio, that there must be a more complex and hidden explanation, if only stubborn progressives would stop focusing on, or making too much of, less relevant things like racism, misogyny, religious bigotry, and homophobia, and the overt acts of violence and intimidation that have erupted into plain view in the six days since the election.
In short, don’t believe your eyes and ears.
Dkos member pollwatcher yesterday helped us dispense with the narrative that Secretary Clinton’s campaign under-performed, and therefore she lost the election because of how she ran her campaign (or instead, for those conditioned to despise her, for who she is). Factual reality, the actual data, say she met the levels of support of President Obama, and that Bernie Sanders would have fared no better:
I was mad as hell that Democrats didn’t turn out, just like they didn’t in 2010 or 2014. But if they did turn out, it really changes the reasoning as to why we lost. I guess before we start planning the next election, we better properly analyze the last.
I still don’t like the argument of the disgruntled middle class white guys looking for someone to guide them to the economic promise land. What scares me the most is, maybe in the past they were actually looking for an economic savior, and it was the Democrats, but for the first time in history they didn’t just have a choice between Republican and Democratic economic policies, they had a choice between an authoritarian racist and Democratic economic policies, and racism Trumped economics.
Mark Sumner in his Abbreviated Pundit Roundup pointed us the absolutely essential reading in the aftermath of the election, Masha Gessen’s ‘Autocracy: Rules for Survival’. No one should attempt to analyze the election, and why so many white people voted for Trump, without first reading Gessen:
The president added, “The point, though, is that we all go forward with a presumption of good faith in our fellow citizens, because that presumption of good faith is essential to a vibrant and functioning democracy.” As if Donald Trump had not conned his way into hours of free press coverage, as though he had released (and paid) his taxes, or not brazenly denigrated our system of government, from the courts and Congress, to the election process itself—as if, in other words, he had not won the election precisely by acting in bad faith…
Senator Bernie Sanders was only slightly more cautious, vowing to try to find the good in Trump: “To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him.”
However well-intentioned, this talk assumes that Trump is prepared to find common ground with his many opponents, respect the institutions of government, and repudiate almost everything he has stood for during the campaign. In short, it is treating him as a “normal” politician. There has until now been little evidence that he can be one.
More dangerously, Clinton’s and Obama’s very civil passages, which ended in applause lines, seemed to close off alternative responses to his minority victory. (It was hard not to be reminded of Neville Chamberlain’s statement, that “We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will.”)…
One of the falsehoods in the Clinton speech was the implied equivalency between civil resistance and insurgency. This is an autocrat’s favorite con, the explanation for the violent suppression of peaceful protests the world over.
The second falsehood is the pretense that America is starting from scratch and its president-elect is a tabula rasa. Or we are: “we owe him an open mind.” It was as though Donald Trump had not, in the course of his campaign, promised to deport US citizens, promised to create a system of surveillance targeted specifically at Muslim Americans, promised to build a wall on the border with Mexico, advocated war crimes, endorsed torture, and repeatedly threatened to jail Hillary Clinton herself. It was as though those statements and many more could be written off as so much campaign hyperbole and now that the campaign was over, Trump would be eager to become a regular, rule-abiding politician of the pre-Trump era.
But Trump is anything but a regular politician and this has been anything but a regular election. Trump will be only the fourth candidate in history and the second in more than a century to win the presidency after losing the popular vote. He is also probably the first candidate in history to win the presidency despite having been shown repeatedly by the national media to be a chronic liar, sexual predator, serial tax-avoider, and race-baiter who has attracted the likes of the Ku Klux Klan. Most important, Trump is the first candidate in memory who ran not for president but for autocrat—and won. (emphasis added)
All the things we know about Trump were not veiled, none of his message was subtle. As I, and others here at DKos have pointed out— the people who voted for him voted knowing precisely what he is, and what he intends to be— a bigoted autocrat. Whatever they’re individual motives supposedly are, this fundamental fact was of no concern to them.
I believe no one who has read the history of the rise of fascism in Europe, or witnessed what conservatism, as embodied in the GOP for the past half century, has espoused, should be the least bit surprised. The people who voted for Trump voted for him because he is autocratic, not in spite of it. They voted for him because the support what he says, and what he has promised to do.
Umberto Eco, who lived through the ascendance of Mussolini, and the rise of fascism throughout Europe, gave us the clearest description of what fascism is, and why it appeals to those drawn to it, in his 1995 essay Ur-Fascism:
Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values…
Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.
To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one.
What part of the above description does not fit the worldview of conservatives, and what we’re being told is the reason masses of working class white people in Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio voted for Trump? How about the appeal to the ‘frustrated middle class,a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation ’? Aren’t these the people we’re now told we need to understand? The ones who ‘Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.’ Trump’s political career was founded on the premise that President Obama’s Kenyan heritage made him ‘not American’, and his most consistent rhetoric was in the form of attacks on immigrants.
Trump is nakedly racist, and has avowed Nazi’s among his inner circle. Eco identifies this clearly, as well:
Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
Make no mistake— when a person speaks of ‘traditional values’, as so often we hear from conservatives, what they are really communicating is a fundamental rejection of change and pluralism. This is the very core of conservatism, and it is aligned with authoritarianism:
We broadly follow these newer approaches by suggesting that this core idea (i.e., support for the subordination of the individual to collective authority) represents a social attitudinal expression of the broad motivational goal or value of collective security, which arises from social threat and insecurity in general…
Thus, the “authoritarian submission” dimension can be defined as expressing attitudes favouring uncritical, respectful, obedient, submissive support for existing societal or group authorities and institutions (protrait) versus critical, questioning, rebellious, oppositional attitudes to them (contrait). This dimension expresses the value or motivational goal of maintaining social order, harmony, cohesion, and consensus in society or the collective. Since these values and attitudes effectively involve defending and maintaining the existing social status quo, whatever it is, they seem best described by the concept of Conservatism as a social or ideological value, and as a social attitudinal dimension...
The “authoritarian aggression” dimension can be defined as expressing attitudinal beliefs favouring the use of strict, tough, harsh, punitive, coercive social control (protrait) versus leniency, indulgence, permissiveness, softness, to violation of social rules and laws (contrait). The value or motivational goal of maintaining coercive social control seems well expressed by the concept of Authoritarianism…
The “conventionalism” dimension can be defined as expressing attitudes favouring traditional, old fashioned social norms, values, and morality (protrait) versus modern, liberal, secular, bohemian, “alternative” values, norms, and morality...
Trump voters voted for him for the simple reason that they agreed with his basic premise: the country, and the sole authority to rule over it, belongs to them, and it’s being stolen from them by the ‘basket of liberal special interests’, with the assistance of ‘powerful international elites’ . No need to read between the lines, Steve Bannon and Anne Coulter will tell you— and have said explicitly, repeatedly- the powerful international elites are the Jews.
Elias Canetti, in his epic work, Crowds and Power, showed us how fragile our perceived triumphs in creating a more progressive, pluralistic nation, a more inclusive and just society— from FDR’s New Deal, Social Security, though The Voting Rights Act and Great Society programs, to the election of President Obama and the landmark that was Obergefell --did nothing to change the beliefs of those who had so virulently and violently opposed these efforts every step of the way:
Now no one has ever really believed that the majority decision is necessarily the wiser one because it has received the greater number of votes. It is will against will as in war. Each is convinced that right and reason are on his side. Conviction comes easily and the purpose of a party is, precisely, to keep this will and conviction alive. The member of an outvoted party accepts the majority decision, not because he has ceased to believe in his own case, but simply because he admits defeat. It is easy for him to do this because nothing happens to him: he is not punished in any way for his previous opposition. He would react quite differently if his life was endangered. What he anticipates, however, is future battles, and many of them; in none of them will he be killed. (pg 189, emphasis added)
Those insisting that we seek to identify the message that Trump voters might have wanted to hear, or suggesting a different messenger (anybody but Secretary Clinton) would have reached them, choose to ignore the obvious— they voted for Trump because they liked his message in content and in tone, and they wanted him to be that messenger.
Perhaps those advising ‘listen to Trump voters’ simply can’t imagine that 48% of voters would really think that way, but in any case they can indulge in such comforting musings from a position of perceived safety. Like those that voted for Trump, for those that say ‘hear them out’: ‘What he anticipates, however, is future battles, and many of them; in none of them will he be killed.’
We cannot wish this ugly reality away. And there is nothing mysterious about it, unless we simply disregard what is plainly in front of us:
The world is still horrified and shaken by the fact that the Germans could go so far; that they either participated in a crime of such magnitude, or connived at it, or ignored it. (pg. 188)
Looking for the ‘other motives and concerns’ of Trump voters requires disregarding the evidence that is most abundant, and most evident, in search of a less troubling explanation than the reality of what drew voters to Trump:
People will endure a great deal as long as it is new and exciting and authoritatively presented to them. If one is nothing oneself, there is a peculiar kind of servile gratification to be got from ending in the belly of power. People do not know what will happen, nor when ; others may have precedence with the monster. They wait submissive and trembling and hope to be the chosen victim… (pg. 295)
Canetti even helps us understand those second-guessing Secretary Clinton’s nomination (even though she simply won it on her own merits!), and how she conducted the election:
We constantly catch friends, strangers, or ourselves at this business of judgement, and the pleasure in an unfavourable verdict is always unmistakable.
It is a cruel pleasure, and one which never allows itself to be cheated of its object. The verdict is only a verdict if pronounced with assurance. There is no mercy in it and no caution and it accords best with its real nature when it is reached without reflection.
The passion it conceals is betrayed by its speed. It is quick, unconditional judgments which excite the pleasure visible in the face of their author. In what does this pleasure consist? It consists in relegating something to an inferior group, while presupposing a higher group to which we ourselves belong. We exalt ourselves by abasing others. (pg. 297)