Why are Trumpistas so much nicer than Trumpian politicians?

We all know that Trump’s a bully.  What many people don’t seem to know is that bullying is an important attribute of many Trump-like politicians.  I’ll just provide a few examples here.  Let’s start with a recent article in The Economist, discussing Swedish politics:

Many municipalities, like Gothenburg, are already in this situation. The city’s 13-member executive is split between right and left; the odd seat was won by the Sweden Democrats in 2014. They are shunned by other parties. Besides ideology, says David Lega, the city’s deputy mayor, there is a character issue: the Sweden Democrats’ council member was expelled from his party for allegedly bullying subordinates.

OK, that’s just an anecdote.  But on the very same page of The Economist, there’s an article on Slovenia:

But the SDS has been unable to form a coalition. Many parties refused even to talk to it. Instead, five smaller centre-left parties banded together to form a minority government with outside support from the hard left. Other politicians justify their decision to exclude the SDS by arguing that Mr Jansa is a divisive bully. “When someone attacks us so personally and so aggressively, he should expect to see the results during negotiations,” says Vojmir Urlep, Mr Sarec’s economic adviser. Luka Mesec, of Levica, a leftist party, accuses the SDS of “scary anti-migrant discourse.”

OK, that’s just two anecdotes.  But the most powerful figure in Italy’s new government (Salvini) is almost universally viewed as a Trump-like figure, and he’s also a bully.  (In addition to being an overt racist and a fan of Mussolini. In other words he’s even worse than Trump.)

It’s also worth noting that Trump seems to despise polite leaders such as Obama, Trudeau and Merkel, whereas he’s drawn to leaders who are bullies, such as Duterte, Orban, Putin, etc.

However, I see no evidence that Trump voters are any less polite than Trump’s opponents.  When I moved from an anti-Trump area (Boston) to a pro-Trump area (south Orange County), I immediately noticed that people were nicer, on average.)  So why are Trumpian leaders such jerks?

One possibility is that Trumpistas have a more “tribal” view of the world.  People who travel to regions dominated by tribalism, say Afghanistan, often remark on how the people they meet are incredibly generous and kind.  This despite the fact that these societies are often tearing themselves apart with civil war.

Here’s a hypothesis.  The global rise of right-wing authoritarian nationalism is not really about immigration, it’s about Islam.  Consider the following regions, which have seen political developments that seem a bit “Trumpian”:

The USA, Europe, Russia, India, China, The Philippines, Burma, Thailand.

What do they have in common?  The public worries about Islam.

Now think about countries that have not seen such developments (Argentina, New Zealand, South Korea, etc.)

The first two regions with Trumpian problems (USA and Europe) face immigration issues. Maybe Russia to a lesser extent. But in the remainder, immigration is less of an issue. On the other hand, Islam is a big issue in all of the countries in the first list.  In each case, the majority of the population has a rather negative view of Muslims.  In my view, that’s what’s driving the global rise of Trumpism.  That causes even individually polite voters to support bullies—they want someone strong enough to fight against the perceived threat of Islam. (Yes, some Americans supported Trump for tax cuts or Supreme Court picks, but that’s not what got him the nomination.)

Burma is a particularly interesting case.  In perhaps no other country in the world would you less expect a Trumpian leader.  Burma’s leader is an almost universally revered Nobel Peace Prize winner.  Her career is almost a textbook definition of liberalism.  But the forces of anti-Islam in Burma are so strong that even she has turned into a right-wing authoritarian nationalist. If Burma is not safe, then nowhere is safe.  Except, of course, for countries where Islam is not viewed as a threat (like Argentina, New Zealand and South Korea.)  BTW, so much for the “great woman” theory of history.  If Burma doesn’t refute that theory, I don’t know what will.

You may recall from high school that bullies are less likely to be intelligent than non-bullies. A new book by Bob Woodward confirms that even Trump’s closest aides regard him as an idiot.  They see their job as protecting the country from his rash instincts:

The book is said to claim:

  • One month after Trump became president, he asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford for plans for a preemptive strike on North Korea.
  • After a chemical attack in April 2017 was tied to the Syrian regime and President Bashar al-Assad, Trump told Defense Secretary James Mattis that he wanted Assad assassinated, saying, “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in.”
  • During Trump’s practice session with his lawyers for a potential interview with special counsel Robert Mueller, he disastrously melted down — which led his then-attorney John Dowd to tell him, “Don’t testify. It’s either that or an orange jumpsuit.”

Much like Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury, the book portrays President Trump as detested and scorned by many of his top advisers, who are said to see themselves as working to protect the country from someone they see as ignorant and irresponsible.

  • White House Chief of Staff John Kelly purportedly called Trump an “idiot” and “off the rails,” and said “we’re in Crazytown.”

  • Mattis is described as telling associates that Trump acted like, and had the understanding of, “a fifth- or sixth-grader.”

  • Former National Economic Council director Gary Cohn purportedly took trade-related documents off Trump’s desk to prevent him from signing them and causing crises.

  • Dowd is described as believing Trump to be a “fucking liar.”

In fairness to Trump, he’s a bit better at noticing flaws in others:

Trump himself, meanwhile, is described insulting current or former aides such as Reince Priebus (“like a little rat”), H.R. McMaster (“like a beer salesman”), Jeff Sessions (“mentally retarded, he’s this dumb Southerner”), Wilbur Ross (“past your prime”), and Rudy Giuliani (“you’re like a little baby”).

The new Italian government is even more of a clown show than the Trump administration.  (The ruling party was literally founded by a clown.)  Because Italy has much weaker public finances than the US had when Trump took over, their crazy fiscal proposals threaten to cause a crisis, which might eventually blow the eurozone apart.

There’s another interesting trend in global Trumpism.  In almost every case the populist movement started as a “liberal” party (in the international sense of favoring small government.) In some cases it was a new party (the AfD, etc.)  In other cases they took over an existing party (the GOP).  As far as I can tell, the movement against Islam was almost always associated with a move away from small government ideology in the realm of economic policy.  These parties now favor high government spending.  It’s not obvious to me why these two trends are connected, but they seem to be. I’d be interested in your thoughts.  (This means Corbyn is not as far from Trump as many people assume.  He’s a bigot who talks about going after the “fake news” media.)

I am not interested in your thoughts on whether I was right about Trump.  The fact that his closest advisors have exactly the same view of Trump as I do seals the deal in my mind.  Case closed.  If you still can’t see it, then no amount of debating on my part will help you.

PS.  McCain’s body wasn’t even cold before Lindsey Graham starting kowtowing to Trump.  Sometimes these things just take one’s breath away.

PPS.  Trump’s not the first bully to reach the Presidency, LBJ and FDR also qualify.

 

 


Tags:

 
 
 

52 Responses to “Why are Trumpistas so much nicer than Trumpian politicians?”

  1. Gravatar of Ryan Murphy Ryan Murphy
    4. September 2018 at 17:11

    Shinzo Abe is Trump, super-lite, and Japan doesn’t really fit into the picture presented here.

  2. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    4. September 2018 at 17:24

    Ryan, Fair point, and you can find a few other exceptions. Obviously Japan’s nationalism is pretty strong, but (AFAIK) it doesn’t revolve around anti-Islam feeling.

  3. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    4. September 2018 at 17:42

    Finally a very good post about Trump. Of course Islam plays a very important role. This is not rocket science. The parties and politicians you mentioned say over and over again that it is about Islam.

    People from the left are inventing all kinds of things that are supposed to reveal hidden motives. But there are no hidden motives.

    These movements remind me of fascism. Fascism at its core was simply a reaction to communism. Mussolini and Hitler have repeatedly said that.

    It’s also no surprise that people are now turning to bullies. People feel they are being abandoned by the liberal mainstream. It must be remembered that the Left was once extremely critical of religion. But today they are protecting extremely totalitarian religions like Islam. It is really absurd.

  4. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    4. September 2018 at 18:49

    Putin

    Uh, Sumner, have you ever listened to Putin? He’s no bully.

    Now, ofc, Trump may have an attraction to bullies. After all, he endorsed John McCain twice.

    If you still can’t see it, then no amount of debating on my part will help you.

    Some (probably fabricated) statements aren’t “case closed” in anyone’s mind but a crazy person’s.

    This means Corbyn is not as far from Trump as many people assume. He’s a bigot who talks about going after the “fake news” media.

    Are you denying the news media blatantly lies about him? How is Corbyn a bigot? Corbyn is absolutely right to condemn the lies about him. How would you go about addressing the lies made about you?

    The global rise of right-wing authoritarian nationalism is not really about immigration, it’s about Islam.

    Actually makes a lot of sense. A much better hypothesis than any other I’ve heard so far.

    New Zealand

    Uh, Sumner… I don’t think you’re too informed as to recent news events (or New Zealand’s position relative to Indonesia):

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-politics/hard-labour-nzs-ardern-takes-tougher-line-on-immigration-idUSKCN1B12HP

    The current government there is a coalition between Labour and…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First

    Please do not comment about political events in New Zealand if you are not aware of the FIRST thing about them.

    It’s not obvious to me why these two trends are connected, but they seem to be. I’d be interested in your thoughts.

    Very simple: the White Working Class, which is the base of anti-immigration sentiment, is disproportionately low-income, and, thus, more likely to support redistribution from the rich to the poor. That’s the obvious hypothesis; I know of nothing that contradicts this. BTW Trump is a very standard Republican in his policy, for better or worse. He opposes single-payer healthcare and Medicaid expansion. He has just proposed cutting government workers’ pay. He does support farmers’ subsidies, but so did George Bush. Also, Putin just recently did a highly unpopular entitlement reform.

  5. Gravatar of Max Max
    4. September 2018 at 20:11

    Gullible people tend to be nicer than the predators who exploit them.

  6. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    4. September 2018 at 20:49

    Harding, You asked:

    “How is Corbyn a bigot?”

    Because he’s like you?

  7. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    4. September 2018 at 21:08

    Because he’s like you?

    How so? I do admit to liking Corbyn. I doubt that, if he knew my views, the respect would be mutual. Corbyn genuinely cares about the rights of the Palestinian people. He would find my narrow circle of concern boorish. I have never seen Corbyn make a bigoted statement against anyone (except maybe the rich). I see no ethnic bigotry in Corbyn. I admire him for his circle of concern including those foreigners oppressed by the Western powers. That’s a reason British Muslims voted for him overwhelmingly. That signals pretty much the opposite of bigotry.

    Also, the Boston v. Mission Viejo divide might just be due to East Coast v. West Coast culture. How are the Bay Area and Staten Island like?

  8. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    4. September 2018 at 21:12

    Corbyn is in no sense anti-Muslim, Sumner. Otherwise they wouldn’t vote for him. So you placing him in your narrative about the rise of nationalism being a reaction to Islam is utterly bizarre.

    Also, see the recent denials by James Mattis and General Kelly refuting the false smears in Woodward’s book.

  9. Gravatar of Mike Sandifer Mike Sandifer
    4. September 2018 at 21:51

    Scott,

    You nailed E. Harding. You know him thoroughly. He seems to always like the worst candidates with a chance to win.

  10. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    4. September 2018 at 23:04

    Mike, wrong. I have never in any respect supported Theresa May.

  11. Gravatar of Rob Rob
    5. September 2018 at 01:46

    Honestly, how is any of this a surprise ?

    The globalists start shouting “white people, your days are numbered”.
    And, whaddayaknow, white people start voting in (wanna-be) tough guys.

    You just can’t start stirring sh*t up and complain when it spills all over yourself.

    The obvious lesson is that for civility to return, the kebab will have to be removed. Physically.

    Do you have the stomach for it ?

  12. Gravatar of Rob Rob
    5. September 2018 at 02:08

    Christian,

    There is nothing absurd about what the Left is doing.
    It is merely following the logic of bio-leninism.

    For example, you may have noticed how the US, in any conflict, systematically backs the less civilized group (I mean, seriously, the Rohingya ?).

    Why do you think that would be ?

  13. Gravatar of Rob Rob
    5. September 2018 at 02:29

    One last thing.

    Prof Sumner keeps railing against The Big Bad Orange Man – and relies upon all sort of unverifiable made-up-claims for this.

    And yet, on his area of expertise, he is rock-solid.

    So either he’s completely autistic – and literally cannot imagine people having an ulterior motive.

    Or he’s some kind of political operative,a sort of less entertaining Noah Smith.

  14. Gravatar of Mike Sandifer Mike Sandifer
    5. September 2018 at 03:02

    Scott,

    I assume that when you point to a fear of Islam, I assume you mean in addition to bad economic policy, which has tilted the balance toward right-wing extremism rather than the left-wing extremism seen in Argentina or Venezuela, correct? Obviously, the failure of economic policymakers looms large.

    I think there’s considerable evidence for your idea in the US. Just witness the silly war mongering that led the US to invade Iraq, or the paranoia that led to “total information awareness” programs.

    Also, anecdotes such as an old cousin’s first ever text to me two years ago literally asked me if I supported Sharia law, since I was openly voting for Clinton. He’d never even discussed politics before that I’d heard, but he donated to and voted for Trump. There are many anecdotes like that.

    Then, there was the crazy conspiracy on the right that Obama was Muslim.

    That said, there was always significant racism and other bigotry on the right, so obviously that’s been summoned out of the dark corners.

  15. Gravatar of P Burgos P Burgos
    5. September 2018 at 07:53

    Do Canada and Australia count as exceptions to the rule, or are they confirmation of the rule because they are countries that already have nationalist immigration policies, so the electorate isn’t attracted to Trump-like figures? (I use the term nationalist immigration policy for lack of a better way of describing an immigration policy where the nation has secure borders and an immigration policy whose first goal is to benefit the nation, as opposed to other nations with borders that are porous to unauthorized immigration and immigration policy that has more muddled goals).

  16. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    5. September 2018 at 09:05

    Putin is not a bully.
    Corbyn is not an anti-semite.
    Harding is not batshit crazy.
    And the Earth is flat.

  17. Gravatar of TravisV TravisV
    5. September 2018 at 09:20

    Vox’s Andrew Prokop just used the brilliant Marcy Wheeler to take down Andrew McCarthy’s Mueller arguments (at NRO):

    https://www.vox.com/2018/9/5/17822860/mueller-investigation-trump-russia-news-interview

    More here:

    https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/08/26/andy-mccarthys-misconception/

    https://sidebarsblog.com/andrew-mccarthy-mueller-investigation-trump-russia/

    And it’s not just McCarthy. Lawfare has gotten it wrong too.

  18. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    5. September 2018 at 12:18

    A normal politician projects a kind demeanor in public but is often cruel in private. Trump is the opposite. He’s obnoxious and mean on-camera to political rivals, but he’s deeply kind to regular Americans. That’s the kindness that is important. I care about kindness to regular Americans, not kindness to the Failing New York Times.

    Most celebrity personas and antics are totally inappropriate for normal people in common life situations. Most people know not to imitate their favorite celebrities in their own life.

  19. Gravatar of Justin Justin
    5. September 2018 at 12:36

    It’s a simple testosterone story I think. Threat detection and the drive to police a perimeter are amplified by T. I’ve seen results that show a strong association between grip strength and conservative/reactionary political orientation. A corollary to high T is a tendency to not give a f***, to test people i.e. to be a bully. There’s probably also a survivorship or selection aspect. Only a bully could make it through the gauntlet of shaming and media attack to be a Trumpist and in power. I think it’s quite expected for the archetype of the Trumpist politician to be a bully.

  20. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    5. September 2018 at 13:20

    Harding, I never said he was anti-Muslim.

    Mike, I’ll take a contrarian position on several of your points:

    1. I don’t think the economy is in particularly bad shape, not bad enough to explain the rise of the alt-right. The alt-right was not powerful in 1980, when the economy was far worse.

    2. I don’t think that anti-Muslim feeling was very strong in America prior to the Iraq war. It was certainly out there, but less than what one might have expected after Muslim terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. Bush certainly didn’t try to whip un anti-Muslim hysteria in the way that Trump does.

    Burgos, I think it’s more about Islam than immigration. That’s not to say other factors don’t matter. Obviously there is anti-black prejudice on the alt-right, and most American blacks are not recent immigrants. Among the American alt-right, there seems to be prejudice against blacks, Hispanics and Muslims. All are viewed as being less than “real Americans.”

  21. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    5. September 2018 at 15:18

    And I never said you said Corbyn was anti-Muslim, Sumner. How is he bigoted???

  22. Gravatar of Scott H. Scott H.
    5. September 2018 at 18:02

    I wouldn’t put fear of Islam as a decisive factor here in the United States. It may have played a role, sure, but there are many factors that played a role in Trump becoming President — Hillary’s health, Hillary’s unnatural domination of the DNC, Hillary’s dismal campaign, Twitter, the unchecked rise of identity politics, and Trump’s shirking of some of the right’s most debilitating traditional positions.

  23. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    5. September 2018 at 18:47

    I don’t think that anti-Muslim feeling was very strong in America prior to the Iraq war.

    “Anti-Islamic hate crimes” (what ever that is) peaked in 2001 in the US with around 500. Since then they are always around 150 per year, which looks like basically zero in a population of over 300 million. There’s no connection to the Iraq war, which is obvious, because Bush himself said that it’s not a war against Islam.

    When I grew up, skepticism about religion was considered reasonable and rational. Today, the influentials say it is racism, hate crime, and Islamophobia. How times change.

  24. Gravatar of B Cole B Cole
    5. September 2018 at 19:03

    I pontificate on the “New Fed Inflation Boogeyman” here.

    http://ngdp-advisers.com/2018/09/05/has-the-fed-drawn-precisely-and-exactly-the-wrong-lessons-from-2008/

  25. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    5. September 2018 at 19:48

    Trump told Defense Secretary James Mattis that he wanted Assad assassinated, saying, “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in.”

    That’s actually a good idea. He should have done that, not just talk about it.

    I often wonder why US politicians don’t do assassinations more often. Invasions and wars for billions yes, but assassinations no??? There’s no reasonable logic behind that.

  26. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    5. September 2018 at 20:09

    Trump is a lulu.

    But who is dangerous?

    Headline:

    “Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his wife are making their first major foray into politics with a $10 million contribution to a super PAC that aims to elect military veterans to Congress.”

    Amazon now tight with the CIA, handles their cloud services for a few bil, and owns WaPO.

    Trump begins to looks like Peter Pan, next to what else is out there….

  27. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    5. September 2018 at 21:00

    This recent anonymous Op-ED in the NYT is gold: The only precise example from the author is that Trump was reluctant to expel so many of Putin’s spies as punishment for Putin’s poisoning attack. The author then says the “so-called” deep state took care of it and that makes him proud. — Oh dear.

  28. Gravatar of Mike Sandifer Mike Sandifer
    5. September 2018 at 21:42

    Scott,

    I refer to the pictures of the trend of GDP growth before and after the Great Recession in many of the countries you mention. These economies are a good bit smaller at this point than they were expected to be 10 years ago. Higher than expected scarcity for prolonged periods tends to drive people to their worst instincts, and seems historically to have spurred support for left- and right-wing extremists.

    Then you have countries like the Philippines, Thailand, and Russia with vastly suboptimal economic performance, representing failed development strategies.

    That story doesn’t fit India and Myanmar so well, though economic growth in the latter has slowed in recent years.

    A potentially more serious problem for my story is the case of Berlusconi in Italy, pre-Great Recession. This article is an example of some support for your hypothesis:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/27/afghanistan.terrorism7

    Perhaps I’m just being unscientific, but it’s hard to believe that bad economic policy hasn’t been a factor in the rise of extremism generally, with an Islamophobia being part of an interaction effect. I suspect other factors are imporant as well, such as perceived corruption in government.

    I must admit your hypothesis seems to be supported more than I originally considered.

  29. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    5. September 2018 at 23:47

    @Rob
    I don’t know, Rob, why would that be?

    I agree though that the Left seems to like really stupid religious books, think of Karl Marx and Das Kapital, it’s nothing more than a religion as well. — And now the Koran. They seem to have a faible for stupid books. The more idiotic the better.

    @Mike
    Scott lives in Orange County, one of the richest counties in the US, and says that there are quite some Trump voters. So no, it’s not about the economy. It’s mostly about culture and politics.

  30. Gravatar of Rob Rob
    6. September 2018 at 01:42

    Christian,

    You are clearly not cut for upper-management.

    The reason the Left is promoting the unfit is the same reason the idiots gets promoted to middle-management.

    The unfit know their status is artificially propped-up, they would not be where they are without their sponsors – and so their loyalty is rock-solid.

    Hence the Left’s ardent desire to import the Third World.

  31. Gravatar of Rob Rob
    6. September 2018 at 01:46

    Justin,

    Spot on the money.

    Funny how a society that emasculates the men (hello there, prof Sumner) quickly finds itself overrun by virile idiots.

  32. Gravatar of Philo Philo
    6. September 2018 at 07:38

    So Trumpism is really anti-Islamism. But you were looking for an explanation of why the Trumpian voters are nicer than the Trumpian politicians: So what is your story about why anti-Islamic voters are nicer than anti-Islamic politicians? (Since on the whole voters are nicer than politicians, the question would really concern why the discrepancy would be greater among anti-Islamists than with other groups. Or, since politicians do like to maintain a nice *public image*, the question might be why anti-Islamist politicians have such bad public images.)

  33. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    6. September 2018 at 08:28

    Japan doesn’t really fit into the picture presented here.

    Japan fits perfectly. Japan is obsessed with its own culture and with what Germans call “Überfremdung”, the fear that their own culture could be marginalized in their own country.

    It’s also not about Islam specifically. It could be any other culture/religion that is perceived as aggressive and with the will to dominate.

    Japan is the extreme example because Japan fears any other culture in their own country, aggressive or not.

  34. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    6. September 2018 at 08:39

    Scott,

    I continue to offer the most straight forward explanation for Trump / Nixon, and it accounts for your issues on Islam.

    IN ALL SYSTEMS, there is a Normative Hegemony.

    It’s CRAZY that I even have to keep saying this, all left literature and thinking STARTS OUT by noticing they are on the receiving end of some slight from the normative hegemony.

    I simply say YEP.

    The right (the many and varied small states) PREFERS small govt. It prefers States’ Rights. Etc.

    And as long as left has bent the knee on NORMS, and they almost ALWAYS HAVE then left and right have standard doctrinaire debates about Political Economy.

    —-

    BUT WHEN the left (or the B player or the other, whatever you call them) starts to try and challenge to run be the ACTUAL HOME TEAM???

    Then all bets are off, we’re much closer to buy guns, watch Zombie movies for practice, and get ready to put heads on pikes….

    Because the folks mean enough and nasty enough to control the NORMS – CONTROL THE NORMS. Hegemons will go Medieval to maintain control over WHO DECIDES what the norms are… who writes the dictionary…. who sets the terms of debate.

    MMT?

    Is the beta, they think that just describing , renaming, how money works, the Hegemony will FORGET WHY they set this thing up the way they did (to stay in charge).

    Muslims are force multiplier. They are seen as not merely an “invading force” but rather, a tool that left might use to partner with to try and topple the Hegemony.

    So Scott, make no mistake: anytime, even without Muslims, the left get closer to being in charge. Think: Boys are really girls too. Kneeling at flag. Speech is Violence. Grab the guns. Etc.

    Even without Muslims, any real challenge to the NORMS, expect violence. Expect escalating violence until the weaker side out of FEAR OF VIOLENCE submits.

    Some things are not really open to debate. They can be debated for fun, but fat chance passing laws on stuff, bc the Hegemony hasn’t actually ever agreed to leave everything open to the vote.

    Humans are weird animals. And looking at them, it seems obvious they ultimately care about cultural stability enough to override ANY Economic idea.

    Apes don’t spend all day fighting. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some weaker apes pissed off inside, they don’t get their way, even while the submit to hegemony.

  35. Gravatar of anon/portly anon/portly
    6. September 2018 at 10:55

    “When I moved from an anti-Trump area (Boston) to a pro-Trump area (south Orange County), I immediately noticed that people were nicer, on average.”

    Many years ago, as a student, I had a prof who told us the story of moving from Boston (where he was a grad student) to [West Coast city] and after about six months, he had this moment of shock and revelation where he suddenly realized that he was only winning all of his little one-on-one driving battles because the other drivers were _letting_ him win.

  36. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    6. September 2018 at 10:56

    Morgan, You said:

    “The right (the many and varied small states) PREFERS small govt.”

    I see you haven’t lost your sense of humor. Have you been paying attention to fiscal policy since the GOP took over?

  37. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    6. September 2018 at 11:14

    Maybe he means “small government” in the sense of small Presidents and small aides that get nothing done?

  38. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    6. September 2018 at 11:24

    When I moved from an anti-Trump area (Boston) to a pro-Trump area (south Orange County), I immediately noticed that people were nicer, on average.)

    I appreciate that you are honest about that. It’s my experience as well. Maybe it’s a general big city vs. “country side” thing. Or poorer vs. richer, maybe?

    And tribalism is not always bad, maybe tribalism is the glue that keeps us together, and the honey that makes us nice.

  39. Gravatar of IVV IVV
    6. September 2018 at 11:35

    “In almost every case the populist movement started as a “liberal” party (in the international sense of favoring small government.)… These parties now favor high government spending. It’s not obvious to me why these two trends are connected, but they seem to be. I’d be interested in your thoughts.”

    Simple. When your party is not in control, you want to rein in power handed to those who are. Once your party is in control, you want to give them as much power as possible. Thus, small government until you’re in control, then big government. When the tables turn and you fall out of power, small government again, to instantly flip once you get that power back.

    The equilibrium is that the people in power are always pro-centralization.

  40. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    6. September 2018 at 11:50

    @IVV
    Interesting theory, but parties like the mentioned AfD are not in power at all. Nevertheless, the party is now less and less neo-liberal and more and more national and socialist.

    I think the members are responsible. The AfD was a brainchild of liberal and neo-liberal professors. Currently, more and more workers, high school students and pensioners join. Top-down is being replaced by bottom-up. And bottom-up can be really nasty.

  41. Gravatar of Bob O’Brien Bob O'Brien
    7. September 2018 at 04:58

    “I am not interested in your thoughts on whether I was right about Trump.”

    Ok, you may be right about Trump, I don’t think so but it is possible. So What! I still think we are better off as a nation with Trump than with Hillary. We have conservatives on the courts and a tax cut instead of lefty judges and higher taxes. I don’t see anything the federal government has done in the negative direction that offsets these impressive positive gains?

  42. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    7. September 2018 at 08:36

    @Bob O’Brien: If Hillary had won Congress would never have passed anything she wanted, including higher taxes. She would have had a lot of difficulty getting any justices through as well, so they would have been pretty moderate/centrist not ‘lefty’. We’d have sweet sweet gridlock and a president who wasn’t an idiotic child destroying our nation’s international reputation and prestige.

    I’ve said many times I can respect someone who voted for Trump because they really hated Hillary that much. But now he’s president, she’s gone, you can’t possibly think it’s a good idea that Trump is in there. If that’s who you think our nation should be led by you are insane.

  43. Gravatar of Bob OBrien Bob OBrien
    7. September 2018 at 14:07

    msgkings said:

    “She would have had a lot of difficulty getting any justices through as well, so they would have been pretty moderate/centrist not ‘lefty’.”

    Hilliary would have negotiated with the GOP for two supreme court judges and they would have been lefties. The GOP has a history of approving Dem left wing judges. RBG comes to mind.

    I believe that politicians follow the people in order to get elected. Trump has a loud mouth but I have not seen him do anything to make himself unpopular with his base and his base mostly is conservative.

    Hillary would also follow her base and who knows how much damage they would do!!!

    I am willing to reserve judgement on Trump and I am not insane and I also don’t think the millions of people who voted for Trump are insane.

  44. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    8. September 2018 at 14:32

    @Bob: The parties were in a very different place vs each other when RBG was approved. Hillary was (and still is) Enemy #1 for the Reps. You are wrong about the judges she would have been able to bring in. For all we know the Reps wouldn’t have allowed her to appoint anyone for all 4 years, like with Garland.

    ‘Reserve judgement on Trump’: all that deserves is a giant LOL

    ‘I am not insane…’: the insane aren’t qualified to judge themselves

    Look I already said I can understand voting for Trump to prevent Hillary if it was that important to you. It was not insane to vote for him. It is insane to see him in there after 2 years and think ‘oh this is a good guy to have in charge’

  45. Gravatar of Tom G Tom G
    8. September 2018 at 15:46

    I don’t see Trump forcing, bullying, Little Sisters of the Poor into doing things against their religion. Obama was a bully then.

    Bullies use force against those who they are bullying.

    Trump used force against Syria — after Syria crossed a Red Line that Obama drew, but didn’t enforce, over use of chemical weapons.

    When “bad guys” do bad things, doing violence to the bad guy is not being a bully.

    Trump is frequently calling for Americans to unite, has not called for Reps to get in the faces of Democrats. Maxine Waters is calling for Dems to use mob bullying against Trump staff.

    In the USA today, Dems are ACTUALLY bullies, and doing bullying — but Trump is fighting back, verbally.
    But you call him a bully for fighting back.

    “We all know that Trump’s a bully.” << This is a typical smear. Name 3 cases where President Trump has been a bully (there's lots of cases of developer Trump being an jerk; that's similar, and related, but not really the same.) Actually, you should always name at least case. Like "Trump's a liar" — name one that's important. (Biggest crowd? Photos in the news were Fake News, taken hours earlier.)

    Obama's a liar — "you can keep your doctor". Hillary's a liar, and lied about her illegal server.

    The elite criticize, without examples, over and over. That's intellectual laziness, and very unpersuasive. It makes me thing your thinking is shallow for failure to give data, or even anecdotes.

    Interesting idea about Trump, bullies, strong leaders, and fear of Islam.

  46. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    9. September 2018 at 18:49

    It’s sad when people’s brains are so affected by politics that they can no longer even recognize the personality of a fellow human being. One can differ about policy, but if you can’t even recognize a bully then I really don’t know what to say.

    Most people learn to recognize a bully before the graduate from 8th grade.

  47. Gravatar of David David
    10. September 2018 at 00:47

    It is not just a reaction to Islam. The common denominator, as you’ve rightly observed, is bullying.

    A bully is like a slick sales person. People collectively say they dislike sales techniques, yet they fall for them over and over.

    What ties this together is the human tendency to go for the simplest solution first. What we need is what we lack: people in leadership prepared to take the high ground most of the time.

    Thus the default state for society is Trump. We’re just lucky we’ve set up institutions to prevent the worst impulses of humanity.

    Also, the Muslims the right likes to hate are even worse bullies than them. In fact, the Republicans are a joke and could learn a thing or two from ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah etc.

  48. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    11. September 2018 at 09:08

    It’s sad when people’s brains are so affected by politics that they can no longer even recognize the personality of a fellow human being. One can differ about policy, but if you can’t even recognize a bully then I really don’t know what to say.

    Scott,

    it’s so weird that this is coming from you because my impression is that you are mixing up policy and his alleged personality all the time.

    I agree that Trump might be a “bully” (whatever you mean by that) but most people I know of care about policy only. So your constant ad hominem attacks lead to nothing. They are counter-productive at best.

    I always take Obama as an example. He gives the impression that he could be a very cool person in private. But these people are not my neighbors but politicians. Policy is what counts in the end. The same thing with Clinton back then. It does not interest me who gave him a blowjob and who didn’t. I couldn’t care less. It should be about policy, policy, policy, and policy only.

  49. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    11. September 2018 at 14:26

    Trump may not be the first bully to reach the WH, but he may be the first bully who’s also very stupid (I’m guessing an IQ in the 70 to 80 range) and in addition an incredibly arrogant ignoramus (i.e. a Jackass).

  50. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    11. September 2018 at 14:39

    Scott, you may find these two recent articles interesting:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lets-talk-about-identity-and-politics/

    The second is at WaPo. I can’t get a link unfortunately, but here’s the title: “People don’t vote for what they want. They vote for who they are.”

  51. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    11. September 2018 at 14:51

    As far as I can tell, the movement against Islam was almost always associated with a move away from small government ideology in the realm of economic policy. These parties now favor high government spending. It’s not obvious to me why these two trends are connected, but they seem to be. I’d be interested in your thoughts.

    Small government ideology was never that important to the RW voters. It was simply a club to bash the opposition with when they were in power. We’re approaching a $1 Trillion deficit this year for no good reason, we’ve erected trade barriers and are talking about a multi-billion dollar give away to farmers for purely political reasons (to buy their vote in counteraction to the unnecessary trade war Trumpublicans started). And where is the “Tea Party?” Those purists who supposdely so valiantly rebelled against “both parties” because they were so so upset about the deficit. Lol, what a bunch of phonies: they are nowhere to be seen. What they were was a bunch of brain dead bigoted chumps who didn’t like a Democrat being president, especially a black one. They couldn’t care less about Trump running up the deficit (and for no good reason). They couldn’t care less about the deficit (under Bush or Reagan either). They just need some issue to bash the other side with.

    It’s the same reason we went from Russia being “our greatest enemy” when Romney was running in 2012 to Republicans suddenly warming to Russia when it looks like they helped Trump. It’s the same reason the religious protestant right was OK with abortion in the early 1970s (helped distinguish them from Catholics) to it now being supposedly very very important to them. Lol, what a crock.

  52. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    13. September 2018 at 12:22

    I don’t particularly think that Ontario has a problem with Muslims; can you explain the Ford brothers as some exception that proves the rule?

    (I also agree that Thaksin was tough on the Muslim groups in southern Thailand, but I don’t really think that’s why he won; it was more about redistribution to the rural farming provinces, as seen by his sister’s crazy rice plan.)

Leave a Reply