You may be done with election post-mortems, but one came to my attention recently that I want to share and to comment on.
It was written by a progressive Christian minister, Phillip Gulley, who says he “has been asked the question ‘Who Would Vote for Donald Trump?’ literally hundreds of times,” and so offered his thoughts on the matter at his Substack site.
He lists six categories of people who would vote for Donald Trump. He elaborates on each category in an extended paragraph, which I’ve not included here for reasons of length. With a couple of exceptions, I cite only the lead sentence of each paragraph. Those are as follows:
- “Racists voted for Donald Trump.
- “Misogynists voted for Donald Trump.
- “The uber-wealthy without a social conscience voted for Donald Trump.
- “The Republican party stalwarts voted for Trump. These are the people who vote Republican no matter what.
- “Xenophobes voted for Donald Trump. They fear anyone and anything that doesn’t meet their definition of a true American.
- “The last category of people to vote for Donald Trump were those who would deny women bodily autonomy . . . they are the American Taliban, not resting until every woman of child-bearing age is pregnant, bare-foot, and defeated.”
He concludes, “Our task in the next four years is to oppose these people and their plots at every turn. Our high calling is to shine the bright light of compassion, progress, and reason into the darkened corners they inhabit . . .”
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not feeling the “compassion,” “progress,” and “reason” here. And yet Gulley’s thoughts are not that different from a number of other pieces that have shown up in various media, some as estimable as The New York Times. They purport to explain this election with broad-brush indictments of fellow citizens as racists, misogynists, etc. Does that fit some Trump supporters? Sure. Does it really explain where we find ourselves or help move us forward? Seems unlikely.
Instead, each Trump voter has been boxed, labeled, and I would say demonized. It may have provided some catharsis for the author, and perhaps to his congregation — unless of course you happen to be a closet Trump voter in their midst, though that seems unlikely. Churches have become silos of the like-minded, a highly unfortunate development in my view. Moreover, I’m old enough to remember when that wasn’t the case.
Often the complaint of progressives and liberals about Trump and MAGA is that they demonize people or that they “other” people, rendering them targets of prejudice and suspicion. Add to that labeling people with demeaning and nasty names. But I’m not seeing how Gulley’s commentary, or others like it, is a whole lot different.
In the wake of the election, I’ve been trying to focus less on Trump himself (delegating that, so to speak, to a legion of others), and more on those who voted for him, many of them new in his camp as of this election. I’m trying to understand where they’re coming from, what moved them in his direction. I’ve also tried to look at some of the deeper social forces in play.
In that “deeper social forces” connection, I recommend David Brooks’s recent cover article in the Atlantic titled, “How The Ivy League Broke America.” It is an indictment of our nation’s elites. Brooks writes, “The meritocracy as currently constituted seems to want you to be self-centered and manipulative.” A meritocracy without morality.
He goes on to say that “the meritocracy has created an American caste system. After decades of cognitive segregation, a chasm divides the well-educated from the less well-educated.” He also observes that “success in school” (where IQ and other intelligence tests are privileged) “is not the same as success in life.” And that the system has overvalued intelligence while undervaluing qualities like curiosity, energy, social intelligence, and agility. Really “smart,” while a value, does not necessarily equate to really good human beings.
In my own most recent attempt along those lines, I channeled music critic Ted Gioia, who was himself channeling Ortega Y Gasset and his classic book, Revolt of the Masses. If you missed it, you can link here to that essay, “Look Out Above.”
After I posted that blog, one of you sent me a brilliant 2014 essay by Nick Hanauer, from Politico, and I recommend it as well. Hanauer, a Seattle business leader and activist, calls attention to the threat to democracy posed by extreme and concentrated wealth, even as he is a beneficiary of that arrangement.
I doubt the minister I have quoted above intends to be unfair or mean-spirited. He probably intends to be bold and fearless. But he does, for me, illustrate the condescension and lack of critical self-reflection that characterize too many progressives and Democrats. (I confess to my own similar failures in the past.)
If we’re going to get through this, we are all going to have to do better.
It’s a particularly funny critique, because it’s more likely the most distinct category who voted for Trump is his own people. From a research report from Arizona Christian University —
” The one segment that has gotten virtually no attention from the media are Christians. Simply put, among self-identified Christians, President Trump won a 56% share of their vote. And because Christians represented 72% of the voters who turned out, their support for the re-elected Republican made the difference in the race.
In comparison, among people of other faiths or no faith, Vice President Harris was preferred with 60% of the non-Christian vote. Although Harris won a larger share of the non-Christian vote than Trump’s share of the Christian votes, Christians outnumbered non-Christian voters by more than a five-to-two margin—delivering the decisive Nov. 5 victory to President Trump. ”
Remember that as this outcome really starts to bear its presumably foul fruits. We can’t just oppose those people at every turn over the next four years. Some real change is needed here.
Thank you for sharing these perspectives on what is actually going on, Mr. Robinson. Unbridled capitalism is indeed wreaking predictable havoc.
I’d like to further recommend The Pitch, https://civicventures.substack.com/about, a blog financed by Nick Hanauer.
These perspectives are not what’s going on at all. Being educated does not make you a snob. The Democrats are the party who try to help the down and outs, Republicans want to crush them and support more money for the rich, except half of these uneducated twats don’t even know that. Hilary used to do pro bono work as a young lawyer, Trump demonised her as running a pedophile ring. Biden’s policies are about distribution of wealth more equally by making the rich pay their fair share of tax, Trump’s policies are the opposite. Trump’s family are all Uni educated, as is Vance. Republicans are just as educated, rich and snobby as anyone else. The difference is, modern Republican politicians tell lies and Republican voters believe them. Can’t fix stupid.
Well, to be fair, his David Brooks quote itself doesn’t call out “the elite” as Biden supporters. Obviously quite a few of them aren’t. If you find a self centered and manipulative Ivy League cohort somewhere in our picture – and you just named one of them – that does not at all mean the voters saw that and ran away from them.
Brooks may go there or not, don’t care, but Robinson appears to be just lamenting that we aren’t doing our best to put “good human beings” at the top, which is pretty hard to argue with. Now suddenly personal character is important, when for all these generations we thought the free market would deliver the best of all possible worlds. (Or do we really have a free market? Exploitatarian economic theology is so confusing!)
Pauline, thanks for your comments. I’m not against education, nor is Brooks. But for some all of life is the race to get into the best colleges in order to make the most money on the other side. It’s not really about education nor certainly service. It’s about money and status. Getting a college “education” so you can have the most toys and envied life-style.
reason #7
– we just don’t like the donks and/or the progs or their insane agenda!
I would recommend that the Left try a little introspection because it really is all-about you.
I think reverend Gulley may have been correct in his listing of Trump voters. There’s at least one more category: those who resent people who claim some kind of moral high ground, for themselves or their elected officials. Few care about scandals or personal lives. Most Trump voters recognize that this is crap. Did they grant any moral superiority to the Democrats? Me no tinkso. Biden? They flushed him down the toilet but they weren’t quick enough. And if you’re scraping by, how much are you paying for gasoline? Or ham and eggs? What did that old candidate say? “A chicken in every pot!” Today we could add tofu as a choice.
Two observations on this. First, there is an important distinction in whether you are demonizing people for intrinsic characteristics, or for behavior. The Democrats are mostly criticizing Trump supporters for behavior (racism, misogyny, xenophobia), and the Republicans (in the Democrats’ view, at least) are in many cases calling out people for intrinsic aspects (gender, skin color, sexual orientation, country of origin).
Second, the glaring omission from his list of Trump supporters is people who think that Democrats don’t see them and don’t care about them — a group that skews white and male, though is not exclusively so. People from rural and Rust Belt areas who said “hey, I’m struggling to get by and could use some help too” but what they thought they heard from the Democrats was “helping you is the lowest priority on our list” and in some cases “you already enjoy privilege in society and don’t need help.” We can have a good argument about whether Democrats meant to deliver that message, but even if they didn’t, it was still a fundamental failure to communicate with a constituency that ultimately decided the election.
I realize this article is focused on profiles of groups who voted for trump, but am curious about the influence of right wing media – broadcast, cable and social media. Do we have an analysis of voters by the market penetration of Fox and its like?
One of the observations about extremist groups is that the internet has made is easier for individuals with extreme views to find one another and organize online. I wonder whether those who are less extreme are reinforced in their views by a combination of their media environment and the community/worldview it reinforces among their friends, neighbors and church members? Since the abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine, Roger Ailes and his Fox minions have designed an enormously influential and profitable propaganda machine that progressive and mainstream media have been unable to counter effectively.
I think that the combination of factors affecting this election are complex.
The path forward for moderates and progressives will require analysis, reflection and introspection to determine how best to reestablish credibility with persuadable voters that they truly represent their interests. We should pay attention to democratic outliers like Gluesenkamp Perez and her critique of the party.
Thank you Anthony.
I read that essay too, and I thought it simplistic and off the mark.
(Though compassion has a place…)
https://youtu.be/VhmRkUtPra8
There was more going on than just “we don’t like her because ____.
Other analysis has been more useful.
[There is one out there about the unopposed power of the Right-wing press which is quite scary.]