How Could Anyone Vote for Donald Trump? –Here’s How

—

People all over the country are looking at this election and wondering how it could even be close? How could anyone possibly vote for Donald Trump, particularly given his history of racism, misogyny, and perpetual insults?

But the truth is, thus far at least, it is a pretty close election. Hillary Clinton is ahead at the moment, but in between the conventions, Trump even took a brief lead in the polls.

How could that be?

There’s a danger in failing or refusing, to understand those who think differently from yourself. It leads to myopic thinking and an inability to see the flaws in our preferred candidate (and they all have them). So, let’s review a few of the reasons why Trump has millions on his side.

Racism and Misogyny

I hesitate to put this first, the truth is, it is his claim to fame. We Americans like to think we’re beyond certain issues, but far from it. Racism is such an issue that in some states of the former Confederacy, the electorate is so racially partisan that around 80 percent of whites vote Republican, and 90 percent of African-Americans vote Democratic.

The idea that leadership in American means being a white male heterosexual Christian is so ingrained in our consciousness that we’re all vulnerable to it. Consider this: some polls in the past few years showed a majority of Republicans believed that President Obama was not born in Hawaii, and a substantial number believed he was secretly a Muslim. There was zero evidence for either, but there was an overwhelming desire to view him as something other than what he is: American.

It may be hard to understand how anyone could look at the evidence and believe this, but it’s hard to overestimate confirmation bias. This was never about evidence.

Trump didn’t create racism and misogyny; he’s simply exploiting them and exposing the degree to which they remain a part of our national character. The good news is, a majority (I think/hope) have moved beyond this view of America. The bad: there’s still a lot of work to do.

But Not Just Working-Class Racism

Call it the Merle Haggard stereotype, but there’s a persistent myth that Trump’s support comes from angry working class white men. The problem with this perception is the utter lack of evidence. FiveThirtyEight studied this during the primaries, and the income of Trump’s supporters is higher than average, like most Republican candidates, and substantially higher than that of Clinton or Sanders supporters.

It’s easy for well-educated whites to scoff down their noses at their economic lessers, but this comes with a cost. Trump’s support is broad across the economic spectrum, which means our efforts to address racism and misogyny must be equally broad.

As for Haggard himself, he endorsed Hillary Clinton way back in 2008 and even wrote a song for her. While his death earlier this year precludes our asking him who he might endorse this year, I’m doubtful he’d have been on the Trump train.

◊♦◊

Anti-Hillary Hysteria

There’s a downside to nominating a candidate with a lot of experience: there’s a lot for the opposition to pick over. Hillary Clinton has been on the national stage for a quarter century and has a public record for nearly twice that time. She does have some real flaws, the nature of which depend on your political perspective (which is beyond the scope of this piece).

But while many of her opponents scoffed at her use of the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy” to describe her opponents in the 1990s, it wasn’t far off the mark. From the moment Bill Clinton was elected, there was a well-funded opposition seeking to destroy his legacy. (He contributed, of course).

Some of these scandals have grains of truth to them, but are exaggerated, such as the State Department email controversy or conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation. Others seem to be made up out of thin air like the numerous investigations into the Benghazi embassy deaths. There are even conspiracy theories suggesting that the Clintons have had numerous people murdered.

She’s a politician, so Clinton has taken liberties with the truth on occasion. An objective examination of the record would suggest that she lies less often than most national politicians and far, far less often than Donald Trump. But this isn’t about objectivity. It’s about what people believe, or want to believe.

It has been two decades now since William Safire labeled Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar” and fair or not, the image has stuck. Republicans have had a lot of time, and a long record to amass against her.

But how could anyone believe this, especially in comparison to the far worse record of Trump? That brings me to the next point.

The Rise of Partisan Media

When asking someone why they’re voting for Trump, the answer you receive will often be that Hillary is worse. If that is a way of thinking you can’t seem to fathom, consider that they likely have different information sources than you have.

If you truly want a view into their world, immerse yourself in it. Try this experiment: For at least a week, restrict yourself only to the following news sources: Fox News, Breitbart, and Infowars. You may be appalled by what you hear, but consider that for millions of Americans, these are their primary sources. They’re not stupid (necessarily), but they have a very different skew of current events than you do.

And to be fair, the left has given rise to a similar echo chamber. If I were speaking to someone on the right, I’d suggest the same experiment: immerse yourself for a week in Democracy Now!, Huffington Post, and Mother Jones.

Social media has only exacerbated this problem. Most of us have friends with political views similar to ourselves, so we sit in another echo chamber. The Wall Street Journal has begun a Red Feed, Blue Feed project, showing, on a variety of subjects, the kinds of articles shared most often by liberals and conservatives.

If you can’t imagine how someone could view Hillary Clinton as worse than, or even equivalent to Donald Trump, take a look at the information red voters and blue voters get on her and the ones they see about him.

I’m far from immune from this phenomenon myself, but as I have family and friends on both sides of the aisle, from the far right to the far left, I do get some variety in my sources. One thing I’d recommend to anyone is that they diversify their information sources. If your media diet doesn’t regularly include sources you often disagree with, you’re doing yourself a disservice.

◊♦◊

Partisan Pragmatism

Ask anyone on either side of the political aisle why they’re supporting a candidate they don’t like, and the answer will often be the same: The Supreme Court.

President Obama has appointed three justices to the court, though only two of them have been confirmed. The next president will likely get three, possibly even four, appointments, depending perhaps on what happens with Merrick Garland after the election. Regardless of who she or he is, the impact on the court will be huge. SCOTUS has leaned to the right for decades now, so regardless of what they may think, most Americans don’t even remember a liberal court, much less one that was both liberal and activist.

But this is something that is seldom lost on either side. Talk to your thoughtful conservative friends (yes, they exist and if you don’t have any thoughtful conservative friends, develop some; see comments about the media above) and they’ll point to the courts as their reason to reluctantly support Trump.

The truth is, they’re backing Trump largely on faith. He’s not, by any reasonable measure, a conservative, and it’s anyone’s guess what kind of justices he’d nominate. But we have a pretty good idea who Clinton would likely nominate. If her history is any indication, it would be moderate liberals.

They don’t have to be radicals to change the direction of the court. Just one justice would do that, which is why we haven’t seen Garland confirmed. If your most important issues are opposition to legal abortion and a very broad interpretation of the second amendment, then voting Trump makes sense, even if it isn’t a sure bet.

Kicking the Walls Down

Back in February, Newt Gingrich told a story about someone he knew who donated to the Trump campaign. When Gingrich, who hadn’t yet endorsed the eventual nominee, asked why his friend replied: “…we have to kick over the tables in Washington.”

Opposition to “The Establishment”, whatever that might be, is a longstanding tradition in American politics. Most candidates portray themselves as outsiders to Washington, regardless of how accurate that might be. One hilarious moment of this campaign was when a Trump supporter initiated a Twitter war with the online magazine The Establishment, mixing it up with the vague term often used to describe the political and economic elite.

Though Americans differ widely on the details and reasons, it’s not a secret that most of us think the country and its institutions just aren’t working. In fact, that sentiment has only increased, even as President Obama’s approval ratings have improved recently.

This feeling is likely stronger on the political right, which has lost the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections. Counterfactual as it may seem, many Republicans think their party has not been strong enough in opposing President Obama. Their support fuels not only Trump but Ted Cruz, whose strategy of blowing things up, including shutting down the government and jeopardizing the country’s credit rating, have substantial support in his party.

And partisanship is part of the reason government doesn’t work. Regardless of which side of the aisle you are on, the evidence is clear that partisanship is increasing and given that politicians generally respond to their incentives, it’s likely to continue to increase into the future.

This partisanship is breaking down our political institutions and making them dysfunctional. It’s why President Obama has used executive authority to implement things with broad support when there that dysfunction prevents them passing Congress. It’s also why his opponents think what he’s doing is illegal, whether or not it is.
We’ve seen some of this anti-establishment cynicism from Bernie Sanders supporters as well. There are legitimate problems with our democratic institutions, and a populace highly distrustful of institutions, in general, is increasingly willing to support anti-establishment candidates, even if it goes against their own interests.

◊♦◊

A Confluence of Factors

In summing up, what is important to understand is that each of these factors I mentioned work together to generate support for Trump. A voter, influenced by partisan media to hate Hillary Clinton beyond what could reasonably be deemed rational, is more likely to give in to their existing prejudices, especially when it coincides with the party they usually support anyway. And thirty years of Republican railing against government and fifty years of coded racial messages make their voters susceptible to anyone willing to exploit those prejudices. It’s no wonder many of them don’t trust even the fact checkers when they’ve been told the media are all biased. This leads many of them to ignore the fact that their candidate lies to them, doesn’t necessarily support their positions, or has been on both sides of many.

If there is anything we should gather from this, it is perhaps that it is important to improve our national institutions, from the voting structure to education, to the media. That’s not simple or easy, and it’s not just about the election. But if we want to prevent candidates like Trump, that hard work is a necessity.

Join our #StopTrump task force today. 

(Weekly conference calls with like-minded people who want to stop a candidate who is racist, sexist, bigoted, incites violence and is demonstrating no competence for the job at hand.)

—

Photo:Getty Image

Source: 30dB.com – @RealDonaldTrump

Comment: “Plenty on Twitter will be voting for him. @RealDonaldTrump is coming in at 36% positive over the last week which is pretty consistent for him given the daily tornado he creates. While Hill does better than Trump overall in social media @HillaryClinton is actually a few ticks lower at 34% positive for the same period.” – Howard K. 30dB