This analysis by John Marshall of Talking Points Memo rings true with me. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lust-for-destruction
The key to understanding the Trump phenomenon...is that it has very little to do with Trump and almost everything to do with the portion of the electorate he is currently operating. The current Republican party is built in large part on roughly 25% to 30% of the voting electorate which is radicalized and revanchist...
...a large segment of the American right is animated by a belief that 'their' world, their America is being taken away from them - this includes everything from declining white racial dominance, having to choose whether you want to hear the phone tree message in English or Spanish, changing cultural mores. The whole package. This is the essence of Trump's campaign - beating back the external threat - the harsh anti-immigrant policies, Muslim bans, flirting with white supremacists, etc. This is the most visible and literal part of Trump's appeal.
Second is the appeal to power and force. Trump is the master of GOP 'dominance politics', the inherent appeal of power and the ability to dominate others. All of this has an deep appeal to America's authoritarian right...The phenomenon of the imperiled, resentment right is something you're well familiar with if you're a close observer of American politics...[I was not familiar with it. Ergo I was not a close observer of American politics.]
...we [are] seeing this show up in the demographic data in the unprecedented rising mortality rates of middle-aged whites - from chronic substance abuse, overdose and suicide. And as the Washington Post's Jeff Guo noted last week, the states where middle-aged whites are dying fastest heavily correlate with the states where Trump has had his highest margins. Think about that for a second. Trump's message and policy agenda hits every dimension of threat and change.
On the radicalized, revanchist right, provocation and transgression of norms isn't simply indulged. It functions as a positive good. It is a feature, not a bug, to use the tech phrase. What the mainstream electorate might view as an 'outrage' is actually signal of the willingness to tear down a corrupt order that is unwilling (Democrats and elites) or unable (RINOs, mainstream GOP) to turn back the tide of threat. So whether or not you think it's a good idea to kill terrorists families, saying you will is a signal that you won't accept limits. [Rings absolutely true with what I know of Trumpets.] How can Trump break all the rules and pay no price? What's his magic? Changing your positions, obviously lying, taunting enemies - none of these hurt Trump because his core supporters are not seeing them through the same prism you likely are. They're not signs of deception, bad character or untrustworthiness. They all signal a refusal to accept the norms of the threatening order and thus a willingness to overturn it.[Blair asked me, "Why do you think no attacks on Trump stick?" My answer, my own synthesis of these points made by Mr. Marshall and those by Olivia Nuzzi, was "He has messianistic trust and devotion among followers." Marshall's analysis nails Blair but what of the young people? And the 30/40-somethings?]
To put this concretely, most Democrats will never support Trump for simple policy reasons, even if there are segments of the Democratic coalition that might. But what we are talking about here is a distinction between policy and political mentality [Yes. Trump is also impervious to attacks that he is not really a conservative or even a Republican. His supporters don't care. Blair has texted me "F Bill Kristol" and "F Mitt Romney." Blair is a life-long Republican. It doesn't matter to him. It doesn't matter to Olivia Nuzzi's Trump supporter friends. "They largely don't care" about Trump's positions on issues.], specifically a view of politics based on resentment and desire for revenge. And that operates with a large minority but not close to a majority of the electorate.[Now, here Marshall begins his main point, one made here also, that Trump's support is not enough to win the presidency.]
As long as there is not an organized conservative third party candidate in the election, I think the overwhelming power of contemporary partisanship will pull the vast majority of 'anti-Trump' mainstream into the Republican Trump-supporting camp. [That is confusing. Less-awkwardly, Trump's ceiling is not the 34% he's getting within the Republican Party. His ceiling is the vast majority of people who usually vote Republican even if they are anti-Trump now. That ceiling is not enough to win the presidency.] But Republicans and Republican-leaning independents don't make up 51% of the electorate. What all of this means is that a Trump v Clinton general election will
be fought over the roughly 10% of the electorate which is not firmly anchored in the right/center-right or left/center-left blocs of American politics. It will likely be fought out over the distinction between Trump's policies and the Democrat's. But it will be fought out on conventional political norms - not ones in which rule-breaking and transgressive behavior are positive good in themselves. [Marshall's emphasis with the italics.]This is not wishful thinking. It's based on a clear understanding of the structure of contemporary politics - one backed up by Trump's negative favorability ratings, which have never topped the mid-30s and are now trending down. [Poorly phrased again and as a result confusing. Trump's favorability ratings "have never topped the mid-30's and are now trending down."] So we should not expect that Trump will be able to easily switch gears to become a candidate of racial unity or that it won't boomerang on him if we find him calling Clinton "Little Hillary" at a debate in October. This doesn't mean he can't win. It means that we shouldn't think his political magic is about him. It's about his audience.
Final comment: If the Trump v Clinton election is going to come down to 10% that is not a "lust for destruction."
*UPDATE: Maybe "destruction" refers to what the moron Trump voters want to do to the people they resent?
The key to understanding the Trump phenomenon...is that it has very little to do with Trump and almost everything to do with the portion of the electorate he is currently operating. The current Republican party is built in large part on roughly 25% to 30% of the voting electorate which is radicalized and revanchist...
...a large segment of the American right is animated by a belief that 'their' world, their America is being taken away from them - this includes everything from declining white racial dominance, having to choose whether you want to hear the phone tree message in English or Spanish, changing cultural mores. The whole package. This is the essence of Trump's campaign - beating back the external threat - the harsh anti-immigrant policies, Muslim bans, flirting with white supremacists, etc. This is the most visible and literal part of Trump's appeal.
Second is the appeal to power and force. Trump is the master of GOP 'dominance politics', the inherent appeal of power and the ability to dominate others. All of this has an deep appeal to America's authoritarian right...The phenomenon of the imperiled, resentment right is something you're well familiar with if you're a close observer of American politics...[I was not familiar with it. Ergo I was not a close observer of American politics.]
...we [are] seeing this show up in the demographic data in the unprecedented rising mortality rates of middle-aged whites - from chronic substance abuse, overdose and suicide. And as the Washington Post's Jeff Guo noted last week, the states where middle-aged whites are dying fastest heavily correlate with the states where Trump has had his highest margins. Think about that for a second. Trump's message and policy agenda hits every dimension of threat and change.
On the radicalized, revanchist right, provocation and transgression of norms isn't simply indulged. It functions as a positive good. It is a feature, not a bug, to use the tech phrase. What the mainstream electorate might view as an 'outrage' is actually signal of the willingness to tear down a corrupt order that is unwilling (Democrats and elites) or unable (RINOs, mainstream GOP) to turn back the tide of threat. So whether or not you think it's a good idea to kill terrorists families, saying you will is a signal that you won't accept limits. [Rings absolutely true with what I know of Trumpets.] How can Trump break all the rules and pay no price? What's his magic? Changing your positions, obviously lying, taunting enemies - none of these hurt Trump because his core supporters are not seeing them through the same prism you likely are. They're not signs of deception, bad character or untrustworthiness. They all signal a refusal to accept the norms of the threatening order and thus a willingness to overturn it.[Blair asked me, "Why do you think no attacks on Trump stick?" My answer, my own synthesis of these points made by Mr. Marshall and those by Olivia Nuzzi, was "He has messianistic trust and devotion among followers." Marshall's analysis nails Blair but what of the young people? And the 30/40-somethings?]
To put this concretely, most Democrats will never support Trump for simple policy reasons, even if there are segments of the Democratic coalition that might. But what we are talking about here is a distinction between policy and political mentality [Yes. Trump is also impervious to attacks that he is not really a conservative or even a Republican. His supporters don't care. Blair has texted me "F Bill Kristol" and "F Mitt Romney." Blair is a life-long Republican. It doesn't matter to him. It doesn't matter to Olivia Nuzzi's Trump supporter friends. "They largely don't care" about Trump's positions on issues.], specifically a view of politics based on resentment and desire for revenge. And that operates with a large minority but not close to a majority of the electorate.[Now, here Marshall begins his main point, one made here also, that Trump's support is not enough to win the presidency.]
As long as there is not an organized conservative third party candidate in the election, I think the overwhelming power of contemporary partisanship will pull the vast majority of 'anti-Trump' mainstream into the Republican Trump-supporting camp. [That is confusing. Less-awkwardly, Trump's ceiling is not the 34% he's getting within the Republican Party. His ceiling is the vast majority of people who usually vote Republican even if they are anti-Trump now. That ceiling is not enough to win the presidency.] But Republicans and Republican-leaning independents don't make up 51% of the electorate. What all of this means is that a Trump v Clinton general election will
be fought over the roughly 10% of the electorate which is not firmly anchored in the right/center-right or left/center-left blocs of American politics. It will likely be fought out over the distinction between Trump's policies and the Democrat's. But it will be fought out on conventional political norms - not ones in which rule-breaking and transgressive behavior are positive good in themselves. [Marshall's emphasis with the italics.]This is not wishful thinking. It's based on a clear understanding of the structure of contemporary politics - one backed up by Trump's negative favorability ratings, which have never topped the mid-30s and are now trending down. [Poorly phrased again and as a result confusing. Trump's favorability ratings "have never topped the mid-30's and are now trending down."] So we should not expect that Trump will be able to easily switch gears to become a candidate of racial unity or that it won't boomerang on him if we find him calling Clinton "Little Hillary" at a debate in October. This doesn't mean he can't win. It means that we shouldn't think his political magic is about him. It's about his audience.
Final comment: If the Trump v Clinton election is going to come down to 10% that is not a "lust for destruction."
*UPDATE: Maybe "destruction" refers to what the moron Trump voters want to do to the people they resent?
