Finding the words to describe what we just saw on national television is going to take me a while. Where do you begin? With the insane gibberish about immigrants eating pets someplace in Ohio? With Trump begging his idol Victor Orban to replace JD Vance as his running mate? With his not-ready-for-prime-time permanently angry teeth-baring scare-face? With his inability to string even five words together without careening off into what he now says is criminals from 168 countries coming into our country so those countries can reduce their crime rates?
Did you see how he responded to the moderators saying that domestic pets were not being killed and eaten? "But I saw it on tv!". Good God. That's where he gets his information? Pathetic.
While watching the debate I'm thinking how did this man ever get to be president of these great United States, and could actually be elected again? Here is one tweet I saw that explains it all: jen
@newyorknoshoes
as funny as this is at times. i also just feel so sick to my stomach knowing that so many people are watching this hearing everything trump is saying and thinking yassss <3 he’s so smart <3 we need him <3
A typical cult reply. Reminds me of the journalist telling a MAGA faithful that a judge had found no evidence to support Trump’s claim that the last election was stolen. The woman eyed the journalist and asked, where did you hear that? On the judge’s docket, he said. Where did you see that, where did you hear that…scary responses.
Great Debate and there is no question that Kamala won! On top of all of it, Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala with a photo of her cat! By the way, my cats are safe from being eaten in Ohio or any other state!🤣 I can't believe he said that!
Thanks for a great analysis! Let's see if there is a bump in the polls!
You captured Trump’s ranting insanity well, Lucian. Kamala Harris, on the other hand was smart, empathetic and forward looking. She emphasized our common bonds as Americans, the importance of preserving our democracy, and the vital nature of America’s role as an upholder of freedom in the world.
In short, she was presidential.
Trump was simply bitter, sour, glowering, and unhinged.
She has used her time as VP to great effect, I think. She was Presidential as it is possible for a Candidate to be, and I think she will be a very good, possibly great President. And she was having fun eviscerating the Tub of Lard, the entire 90 minutes
It seems to me that arguing with a former prosecutor and attorney general when your main game is mindless bullying is more or less a losing proposition. As Michael Steele just said, she spanked his ass, and not in the way he would have liked it. Watch it again on mute. He looks terrified.
Kamala dominated the debate from the point she strides over to Trump, who was timidly approaching the podium, and firmly grasped his hand and forced him into a handshake he didn't appear to want. If witnessing this massacre doesn't change any undecided minds there's really no hope for any of us. I'll prefer to remain hopeful.
It was perhaps a good tactic tonight but I'd be repulsed to take the hand of a slimey criminal traitorous psychopath like that. Drumpf would probably rather have bitten her hand than take it -- maybe that was something the Harris campaign hoped would happen (except that she'd then have to get rabies shots).
My political analyst friend, Darrell Lucus, described what happened tonight as “a massacre,” with Trump as the massacree. Very satisfying, from my point of view.
True, but the only question that matters is how the debate affected undecided voters in swing states. The Washington Post asked people in swing states, "Who won the debate?" That is a stupid, stupid question. Harris and the toddler are not running for best debater; they are running for president. What counts is the EFFECT that the debate had, not who won it.
Furthermore, “Who won the debate?” generally means who put on the better show, not who made the better arguments for his or her positions. Remember when a debate meant an exchange of ideas?
Point well-taken, Henry. I waited too long to get my phone set up and had to listen to the audio with no visual. Thank god the show carried the night, because KH's restrained disdain, visible to everyone but me, was crucial. Her presentation seemed uninspired to my ear and the moderators seemed to let djt get away with filibustering all but the most brazen lies. Every analysis I've heard—NPR, BBC, MSNBC, Democracy Now!, and Taylor Swift—has given KH the contest on points. Only Lucian fully explains why. (When I have time I plan to watch an archived video.)
I suspect that when the moderators appeared to let him get away with his nonsensical ranting, not answering the questions and interrupting that it was their equivalent of the denied "open mike" to allow folks to see how angry and bat-shit crazy he is.
Just heard that over all djt got five minutes more time than KH. Somebody observed that that probably could not have made KH's camp happier—confirming your point.
Thanks, MsryPat. You inspired me to capture a link and watch as far as the abortion back and forth. The rest will have to wait till evening, but now I see what you and everybody else are responding to. Huge diff between the full visual and audio-only. Can't wait to see the rest.
I think what counts are two things: (1) that the persuadable voters out there saw Trump acting like a lying, delusional, shouting maniac -- every inch the angry, obnoxious old man who can't get anybody to play cards with him at the senior center -- while Harris, who owned Trump from the second she walked onto the stage, was calm, reasonable, authoritative, and good-humored while drilling into him as if he were a perp on the witness stand; and (2) that Harris, Walz, and all of us on their side just got a MASSIVE shot in the arm that will help to propel us through the rest of the election season. Harris/Walz are very likely to see a significant surge in donations and volunteer activity, because success breeds success. For my part, I'm taking the win, feeling very good today, and working on my latest batch of Blue Wave postcards.
Oh -- per my remark about a surge in volunteer activity, I just checked Blue Wave's site, and they said to check back on Friday because they're temporarily sold out! 👍🏻
Aside for swinging the dozen or so undecided voters, the debate sparks enthusiasm or discouragement. Kamala voters will come out en-masse and vote. So will the trump base and proud boys. But the millions of non-enthused Trumpers might just sit it out. They'll stay home and protect their goldfish from immigrant college boys.
My bad. Just looked up the NYT story about Dr. Bornstein, and, indeed, it said the doc revealed T***p took Propecia, and yes, its side effects can be dramatic, according to a Google search of it, which turned up lawsuits filed by male users whose complaint was its effect on, you guessed it, sexual performance.
Larry, I have been taking finasteride for 20 years. It shrinks the prostate, a good thing especially when it enlarges with age and one has a family history of prostate cancer. As for it causing sexual disjunction, I am happy to report I have encountered no issues.
Since I'm not a man and I'm in my seventies, the side effect that I thought was of even more concern, was dementia. And I'm fairly sure Trump used Propecia far longer than 20 years.
I believe, and Google bears me out, that Rogaine is used to combat hair loss. I do remember that T***p's wacky NYC doctor, the one who put out a letter in 2015 or 2016 saying T***p was in great health, then dropped the Rogaine word and was promptly fired by his hair-challenged patient.
And even if too young to vote in November, they all come with at least one parent and maybe grandparents - who vote and can be persuaded to protect their children's future!
J.D. Vance attempting defend the eating cats and dogs statement was priceless. Someone has got to make a commercial out of that. And when is SNL coming back?
Here is an analysis of the people who vote for Trump that Robert Ritchie posted on Joyce Vance's Substack, September 9, 2024.
The Cult of Opposition: Understanding the Psychology Behind Trump’s Supporters
In modern political discourse, the relationship between leaders and their supporters often reflects a symbiotic exchange—one of mutual benefit. Typically, a leader provides tangible improvements to the supporters’ lives, who in turn offer their allegiance. However, Donald Trump's presidency introduced a paradigm shift that baffled many analysts. A significant portion of Trump’s base does not measure his success by what he does *for* them, but rather by what he does against those they consider adversaries. This phenomenon raises a critical question: why do Trump's supporters define his success not by policy achievements or personal benefit but by his ability to antagonize perceived enemies? In this research paper, we explore the psychology, sociocultural factors, and communication strategies behind this phenomenon, offering a deep dive into the mechanisms that sustain this unwavering loyalty.
The Psychology of "Othering"
At the heart of this dynamic lies a fundamental psychological concept known as *othering.* Othering refers to the process of creating a division between "us" and "them," where "them" are people deemed different or antagonistic to one's own group. Social identity theory posits that individuals derive part of their self-worth from their membership in groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When Trump attacks certain groups—be they immigrants, Democrats, or marginalized communities—his supporters feel that their in-group (conservative, predominantly white Americans) is being validated. The "other," typically those outside their cultural or political bubble, becomes a target of scorn and aggression. By constantly positioning himself against these groups, Trump reassures his supporters that they are on the winning side of a cultural war.
This is where the success metrics diverge from typical political calculations. Success, in the eyes of Trump's supporters, is not rooted in economic growth or policy achievements, but in the symbolic victories won over those they disdain. Trump’s antagonistic rhetoric serves as a rallying cry for a base that measures success by how effectively he torments the "other."
Fear as a Unifying Emotion
The divisiveness Trump exploits is not built solely on disdain for others but on deep-rooted fear. Research has shown that political conservatism often correlates with heightened fear responses (Hibbing, Smith, & Alford, 2014). These fears manifest in concerns over demographic changes, perceived threats to cultural identity, and economic anxiety—particularly in the wake of globalization and immigration. For Trump’s base, he offers not only validation of their fears but also an outlet for their anxiety: the vilification of outsiders.
By acting against these outsiders—whether through harsh immigration policies, vilification of the media, or incendiary tweets targeting "leftist elites"—Trump provides a sense of catharsis to his supporters. It’s not about building bridges or creating new opportunities; it’s about protecting their identity and keeping perceived threats at bay. In their minds, Trump’s success is defined by his defense of the status quo against forces of change.
The Appeal of a Strongman
This dynamic is exacerbated by the allure of authoritarian leadership, often characterized by a leader who promises protection and order while silencing dissent. Trump's rhetoric—filled with hyperbole, aggressive language, and dismissive attitudes toward political correctness—resonates deeply with those who feel disempowered by societal changes. Studies have shown that authoritarian personalities are drawn to leaders who project strength and offer simple, binary solutions to complex problems (Feldman, 2003). Trump’s combative style against the "other" fits neatly into this framework.
In this context, Trump is seen as the protector, someone who will go to any length to defend his supporters from external threats. His aggressive behavior—though often condemned by critics—is perceived by his base as a strength. In their eyes, his relentless attacks on groups like the media, the "deep state," or racial minorities are evidence of his success as a leader willing to do whatever it takes to secure their safety and identity.
The Role of Media and Propaganda
An essential factor in maintaining this dynamic is the role of right-wing media in amplifying Trump’s actions *against* others while downplaying or ignoring any lack of substantive achievements. Fox News, Breitbart, and other conservative outlets often frame Trump’s attacks on immigrants, liberals, and the media as necessary battles in a larger cultural war. Through selective reporting, these outlets reinforce the idea that Trump’s presidency is less about improving the lives of his supporters through policy and more about the symbolic victories he achieves through opposition to their perceived enemies.
Trump himself understood the power of media manipulation, often stoking controversy to keep his name in the headlines. As noted by philosopher Hannah Arendt, in authoritarian regimes, propaganda serves to simplify the world into friend versus foe (Arendt, 1951). By keeping the public focused on his skirmishes against the "other," Trump ensured that his base remained engaged and energized, even when his policies provided little material benefit to their lives.
The Social Contract of Aggrievement
This relationship between Trump and his supporters can be understood as a kind of *social contract of aggrievement.* While traditional politicians offer economic benefits, infrastructure improvements, or social programs, Trump offers emotional validation. His base, particularly those who feel marginalized by economic shifts or demographic changes, finds solace in his outward displays of aggression. His ability to provoke outrage in the "other" reassures them that they are still relevant in a world they fear is changing too fast.
Interestingly, this contract does not require Trump to follow through on traditional metrics of success like job creation or healthcare reform. His supporters are not primarily concerned with how he improves their lives directly. Instead, they focus on how he reinforces their worldview—one where they are under constant attack and where Trump is their defender. This emotional satisfaction creates a loyalty that transcends policy, rooted instead in the shared sense of grievance and resentment.
Conclusion: A Loyalty That Transcends
In understanding Trump’s success, it is critical to recognize the unique metrics by which his supporters measure his achievements. His base does not primarily seek economic relief or policy victories; they seek validation of their fears and grievances. By acting *against* the "other," Trump provides emotional and psychological sustenance that traditional political figures often fail to deliver. His success, therefore, lies in his ability to symbolize and enact opposition rather than constructively improve the lives of his supporters. As long as Trump continues to antagonize those perceived as threats, his base will remain loyal, even in the absence of tangible benefits.
In the end, the tormenting of the "others" does more than sustain them—it defines them.
The question is did Trump appeal to these people and these feelings, because that is what he is going for. For my taste, Kamala did a great job, but I feel that this essay hits the nail on the head of who is for Trump, and it is important to understand that they don't care what wild stuff he says as long as he appears to be standing up for them. So, each appealed to their constituencies, but what are the "swing" voters looking for? I cannot imagine. If they are this confused now, how clear will they be after this debate.?
I think this explains the MAGA crowd. I'm not sure it explains the "normal" people with more moderate beliefs who support Trump. Some of them may be just diehard Republicans, but others are a mystery. Or maybe they're just not very smart.
Or maybe they are not normal. Or "normal" has changed. That is indicative of a sick society. I would say the internet is not curing this problem but enhancing it.
"Interestingly, this contract does not require Trump to follow through on traditional metrics of success like job creation or healthcare reform. His supporters are not primarily concerned with how he improves their lives directly. Instead, they focus on how he reinforces their worldview—one where they are under constant attack and where Trump is their defender. This emotional satisfaction creates a loyalty that transcends policy, rooted instead in the shared sense of grievance and resentment." CREEPY. Thanks for this, Linda.
MaryPat, it is not only creepy, but it is so unhealthy. We need to reclaim these people somehow. I am not sure how, but one of the things my Democrats Abroad Project 2025 Bookclub started talking about the other evening was how men under 30 are more likely to vote Republican, whereas Females under 30 are more likely to vote Democratic. So, there is a tidal wave of distance, and my daughter is telling me many of her friends are having a horrid time finding someone to date, and feel like they are just settling for, not excited about who they are with. She knows many of her friends struggle if they date males. So, when I read that the Trumpers are loyal to what he standing for, which they view as them, it is something we need to address as a nation. We are not alone. The USA, Europe, Africa, Asia, Middle East is seeing a rise in recruiting for terrorism be it White or Muslim, and we know gangs are prolific in other parts of the world too. The internet has become a big recruiting tool, and certain websites should just be shut down. Freedom of speech needs regulation too. We will certainly have that under Trump.
I agree Hugh. I was not thinking about that when I saved it. My mistake was in not putting the person's name down. I still think it is worth sharing. It is from this week. As I recall the person who posted it was not claiming credit, and there was no name posted. I cannot find it, but I am endorsing what it says. I do not take credit, and it was not Hubbell who posted it either. I still feel it is valuable and that is why I am sharing it.
Yes. However, we know that males under 30 are increasingly more conservative than they used to be. So, that is Gen-Zers. I would say they are being radicalized and feel that the internet is providing a forum for anti-socialization. I think we need to play catch up with the technology and make some hard and enforced laws around who is allowed to view what content. These dark net types of sites, that are unregulated, should get ratings and not be available to anyone under 21. I would like to say 30, but I see that would never happen. It should be regulated like alcohol is in some states, as something your brain, which does not develop the frontal cortex fully until between 24 and 30, cannot handle. The frontal cortex is responsible for executive functioning, that is delayed gratification and complex decision making.
There are always those who have retarded development, but that means so do his followers, except for those who are just truly young. Those are the ones going out with AR-15s and shooting up schools, etc,... and we need to be making policies to protect them from super immature adults. There are a lot of them, just look at the Republican party.
Endorsement by Orban, election info from Ingraham, Hannity, and the Fox crew, “everyone” pleased that abortion is back to a state issue, cats and dogs at risk of being eaten, etc……..Epistemic closure collapsed into an epistemic black hole of infinite density and a jet spewed more lies as questions fall into the manic maelstrom of Mango Mussolini’s mind. Lucian, you inspire me with words (and are much better at it than me….)
Did you see how he responded to the moderators saying that domestic pets were not being killed and eaten? "But I saw it on tv!". Good God. That's where he gets his information? Pathetic.
While watching the debate I'm thinking how did this man ever get to be president of these great United States, and could actually be elected again? Here is one tweet I saw that explains it all: jen
@newyorknoshoes
as funny as this is at times. i also just feel so sick to my stomach knowing that so many people are watching this hearing everything trump is saying and thinking yassss <3 he’s so smart <3 we need him <3
6:51 PM · Sep 10, 2024
·
1.5M
Views
A typical cult reply. Reminds me of the journalist telling a MAGA faithful that a judge had found no evidence to support Trump’s claim that the last election was stolen. The woman eyed the journalist and asked, where did you hear that? On the judge’s docket, he said. Where did you see that, where did you hear that…scary responses.
Great Debate and there is no question that Kamala won! On top of all of it, Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala with a photo of her cat! By the way, my cats are safe from being eaten in Ohio or any other state!🤣 I can't believe he said that!
Thanks for a great analysis! Let's see if there is a bump in the polls!
Let's GO, Swifties!! (Clap, Clap, clap-clap-clap!)
You captured Trump’s ranting insanity well, Lucian. Kamala Harris, on the other hand was smart, empathetic and forward looking. She emphasized our common bonds as Americans, the importance of preserving our democracy, and the vital nature of America’s role as an upholder of freedom in the world.
In short, she was presidential.
Trump was simply bitter, sour, glowering, and unhinged.
He made George lll look lucid by comparison.
She has used her time as VP to great effect, I think. She was Presidential as it is possible for a Candidate to be, and I think she will be a very good, possibly great President. And she was having fun eviscerating the Tub of Lard, the entire 90 minutes
It seems to me that arguing with a former prosecutor and attorney general when your main game is mindless bullying is more or less a losing proposition. As Michael Steele just said, she spanked his ass, and not in the way he would have liked it. Watch it again on mute. He looks terrified.
Kamala dominated the debate from the point she strides over to Trump, who was timidly approaching the podium, and firmly grasped his hand and forced him into a handshake he didn't appear to want. If witnessing this massacre doesn't change any undecided minds there's really no hope for any of us. I'll prefer to remain hopeful.
I loved that move!
It was perhaps a good tactic tonight but I'd be repulsed to take the hand of a slimey criminal traitorous psychopath like that. Drumpf would probably rather have bitten her hand than take it -- maybe that was something the Harris campaign hoped would happen (except that she'd then have to get rabies shots).
It’s all about the optics…and hand sanitizer!
😂😂
I heard his hands are soft, the softest hands anyone has ever seen.
It's for sure he's never gripped anything but a golf club , certainly never a wrench or a hammer.
Great to see an awesome person take on the cowardly orange traitor and kick his fūkking ass.
🤣🤣🤣‼️
My political analyst friend, Darrell Lucus, described what happened tonight as “a massacre,” with Trump as the massacree. Very satisfying, from my point of view.
True, but the only question that matters is how the debate affected undecided voters in swing states. The Washington Post asked people in swing states, "Who won the debate?" That is a stupid, stupid question. Harris and the toddler are not running for best debater; they are running for president. What counts is the EFFECT that the debate had, not who won it.
Furthermore, “Who won the debate?” generally means who put on the better show, not who made the better arguments for his or her positions. Remember when a debate meant an exchange of ideas?
Not a valid idea in Trump's head, based on results!
Point well-taken, Henry. I waited too long to get my phone set up and had to listen to the audio with no visual. Thank god the show carried the night, because KH's restrained disdain, visible to everyone but me, was crucial. Her presentation seemed uninspired to my ear and the moderators seemed to let djt get away with filibustering all but the most brazen lies. Every analysis I've heard—NPR, BBC, MSNBC, Democracy Now!, and Taylor Swift—has given KH the contest on points. Only Lucian fully explains why. (When I have time I plan to watch an archived video.)
I suspect that when the moderators appeared to let him get away with his nonsensical ranting, not answering the questions and interrupting that it was their equivalent of the denied "open mike" to allow folks to see how angry and bat-shit crazy he is.
Just heard that over all djt got five minutes more time than KH. Somebody observed that that probably could not have made KH's camp happier—confirming your point.
Do! It's TERRIFIC on video!
Thanks, MsryPat. You inspired me to capture a link and watch as far as the abortion back and forth. The rest will have to wait till evening, but now I see what you and everybody else are responding to. Huge diff between the full visual and audio-only. Can't wait to see the rest.
I think what counts are two things: (1) that the persuadable voters out there saw Trump acting like a lying, delusional, shouting maniac -- every inch the angry, obnoxious old man who can't get anybody to play cards with him at the senior center -- while Harris, who owned Trump from the second she walked onto the stage, was calm, reasonable, authoritative, and good-humored while drilling into him as if he were a perp on the witness stand; and (2) that Harris, Walz, and all of us on their side just got a MASSIVE shot in the arm that will help to propel us through the rest of the election season. Harris/Walz are very likely to see a significant surge in donations and volunteer activity, because success breeds success. For my part, I'm taking the win, feeling very good today, and working on my latest batch of Blue Wave postcards.
https://shop.bluewavepostcards.org
Oh -- per my remark about a surge in volunteer activity, I just checked Blue Wave's site, and they said to check back on Friday because they're temporarily sold out! 👍🏻
Aside for swinging the dozen or so undecided voters, the debate sparks enthusiasm or discouragement. Kamala voters will come out en-masse and vote. So will the trump base and proud boys. But the millions of non-enthused Trumpers might just sit it out. They'll stay home and protect their goldfish from immigrant college boys.
Good point.
As a PMHNP if he was on an inpatient ward he would have been offered oral antipsychotics.
What we probably saw was dementia related psychosis complicated by narcissistic personality disorder.
He was paranoid, delusional, and raging. He was also quite likely “sundowning.”
It is possible we saw amphetamine related psychosis.
His brain dysfunction was on full display.
What's the effect when a geezer mixes Rogaine (we know) and Adderal (many of us suspect)?
I had read that he uses Propecia and the main drug used that is Finasteride. Side effects of long term use for that are not pretty, either.
My bad. Just looked up the NYT story about Dr. Bornstein, and, indeed, it said the doc revealed T***p took Propecia, and yes, its side effects can be dramatic, according to a Google search of it, which turned up lawsuits filed by male users whose complaint was its effect on, you guessed it, sexual performance.
Larry, I have been taking finasteride for 20 years. It shrinks the prostate, a good thing especially when it enlarges with age and one has a family history of prostate cancer. As for it causing sexual disjunction, I am happy to report I have encountered no issues.
Trump definitely displayed “speed rage” though.
Since I'm not a man and I'm in my seventies, the side effect that I thought was of even more concern, was dementia. And I'm fairly sure Trump used Propecia far longer than 20 years.
I honestly don’t know. Rogaine is a blood pressure med but I don’t know if an interaction between rogaibe and adderall.
I believe, and Google bears me out, that Rogaine is used to combat hair loss. I do remember that T***p's wacky NYC doctor, the one who put out a letter in 2015 or 2016 saying T***p was in great health, then dropped the Rogaine word and was promptly fired by his hair-challenged patient.
Rogaine is used to treat male pattern baldness. It is not a blood pressure medication, but it will raise the blood pressure.
Wow! Could we love it even more?!
Thanks for your analysis. The suggestions were very useful for me.
Swift NATION activated
He’s done.
283 million Swift fans on twitterX! That's nearly twice the number of all votes in the last presidential election!
And I bet half of her fans were too young to vote in 2020.
And even if too young to vote in November, they all come with at least one parent and maybe grandparents - who vote and can be persuaded to protect their children's future!
Great analysis and writing, as always! Thank you.
Good evening Lucian, what a show and so much to process that a few spicy tidbits are over looked :
"Muir fact-checked Trump in real time, saying that Springfield’s city manager had said “there was no credible allegation” of such things happening,"
Trumps retort said all we need to know about his grasp of reality. He says "Well, I saw it on TV......."
Victor Orban over and over was more than a hoot also.
Time for bed.
Only 55 days until the election. Kamala Harris commanded the stage tonight, and will become our next president.
J.D. Vance attempting defend the eating cats and dogs statement was priceless. Someone has got to make a commercial out of that. And when is SNL coming back?
Here is an analysis of the people who vote for Trump that Robert Ritchie posted on Joyce Vance's Substack, September 9, 2024.
The Cult of Opposition: Understanding the Psychology Behind Trump’s Supporters
In modern political discourse, the relationship between leaders and their supporters often reflects a symbiotic exchange—one of mutual benefit. Typically, a leader provides tangible improvements to the supporters’ lives, who in turn offer their allegiance. However, Donald Trump's presidency introduced a paradigm shift that baffled many analysts. A significant portion of Trump’s base does not measure his success by what he does *for* them, but rather by what he does against those they consider adversaries. This phenomenon raises a critical question: why do Trump's supporters define his success not by policy achievements or personal benefit but by his ability to antagonize perceived enemies? In this research paper, we explore the psychology, sociocultural factors, and communication strategies behind this phenomenon, offering a deep dive into the mechanisms that sustain this unwavering loyalty.
The Psychology of "Othering"
At the heart of this dynamic lies a fundamental psychological concept known as *othering.* Othering refers to the process of creating a division between "us" and "them," where "them" are people deemed different or antagonistic to one's own group. Social identity theory posits that individuals derive part of their self-worth from their membership in groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When Trump attacks certain groups—be they immigrants, Democrats, or marginalized communities—his supporters feel that their in-group (conservative, predominantly white Americans) is being validated. The "other," typically those outside their cultural or political bubble, becomes a target of scorn and aggression. By constantly positioning himself against these groups, Trump reassures his supporters that they are on the winning side of a cultural war.
This is where the success metrics diverge from typical political calculations. Success, in the eyes of Trump's supporters, is not rooted in economic growth or policy achievements, but in the symbolic victories won over those they disdain. Trump’s antagonistic rhetoric serves as a rallying cry for a base that measures success by how effectively he torments the "other."
Fear as a Unifying Emotion
The divisiveness Trump exploits is not built solely on disdain for others but on deep-rooted fear. Research has shown that political conservatism often correlates with heightened fear responses (Hibbing, Smith, & Alford, 2014). These fears manifest in concerns over demographic changes, perceived threats to cultural identity, and economic anxiety—particularly in the wake of globalization and immigration. For Trump’s base, he offers not only validation of their fears but also an outlet for their anxiety: the vilification of outsiders.
By acting against these outsiders—whether through harsh immigration policies, vilification of the media, or incendiary tweets targeting "leftist elites"—Trump provides a sense of catharsis to his supporters. It’s not about building bridges or creating new opportunities; it’s about protecting their identity and keeping perceived threats at bay. In their minds, Trump’s success is defined by his defense of the status quo against forces of change.
The Appeal of a Strongman
This dynamic is exacerbated by the allure of authoritarian leadership, often characterized by a leader who promises protection and order while silencing dissent. Trump's rhetoric—filled with hyperbole, aggressive language, and dismissive attitudes toward political correctness—resonates deeply with those who feel disempowered by societal changes. Studies have shown that authoritarian personalities are drawn to leaders who project strength and offer simple, binary solutions to complex problems (Feldman, 2003). Trump’s combative style against the "other" fits neatly into this framework.
In this context, Trump is seen as the protector, someone who will go to any length to defend his supporters from external threats. His aggressive behavior—though often condemned by critics—is perceived by his base as a strength. In their eyes, his relentless attacks on groups like the media, the "deep state," or racial minorities are evidence of his success as a leader willing to do whatever it takes to secure their safety and identity.
The Role of Media and Propaganda
An essential factor in maintaining this dynamic is the role of right-wing media in amplifying Trump’s actions *against* others while downplaying or ignoring any lack of substantive achievements. Fox News, Breitbart, and other conservative outlets often frame Trump’s attacks on immigrants, liberals, and the media as necessary battles in a larger cultural war. Through selective reporting, these outlets reinforce the idea that Trump’s presidency is less about improving the lives of his supporters through policy and more about the symbolic victories he achieves through opposition to their perceived enemies.
Trump himself understood the power of media manipulation, often stoking controversy to keep his name in the headlines. As noted by philosopher Hannah Arendt, in authoritarian regimes, propaganda serves to simplify the world into friend versus foe (Arendt, 1951). By keeping the public focused on his skirmishes against the "other," Trump ensured that his base remained engaged and energized, even when his policies provided little material benefit to their lives.
The Social Contract of Aggrievement
This relationship between Trump and his supporters can be understood as a kind of *social contract of aggrievement.* While traditional politicians offer economic benefits, infrastructure improvements, or social programs, Trump offers emotional validation. His base, particularly those who feel marginalized by economic shifts or demographic changes, finds solace in his outward displays of aggression. His ability to provoke outrage in the "other" reassures them that they are still relevant in a world they fear is changing too fast.
Interestingly, this contract does not require Trump to follow through on traditional metrics of success like job creation or healthcare reform. His supporters are not primarily concerned with how he improves their lives directly. Instead, they focus on how he reinforces their worldview—one where they are under constant attack and where Trump is their defender. This emotional satisfaction creates a loyalty that transcends policy, rooted instead in the shared sense of grievance and resentment.
Conclusion: A Loyalty That Transcends
In understanding Trump’s success, it is critical to recognize the unique metrics by which his supporters measure his achievements. His base does not primarily seek economic relief or policy victories; they seek validation of their fears and grievances. By acting *against* the "other," Trump provides emotional and psychological sustenance that traditional political figures often fail to deliver. His success, therefore, lies in his ability to symbolize and enact opposition rather than constructively improve the lives of his supporters. As long as Trump continues to antagonize those perceived as threats, his base will remain loyal, even in the absence of tangible benefits.
In the end, the tormenting of the "others" does more than sustain them—it defines them.
The question is did Trump appeal to these people and these feelings, because that is what he is going for. For my taste, Kamala did a great job, but I feel that this essay hits the nail on the head of who is for Trump, and it is important to understand that they don't care what wild stuff he says as long as he appears to be standing up for them. So, each appealed to their constituencies, but what are the "swing" voters looking for? I cannot imagine. If they are this confused now, how clear will they be after this debate.?
Thanks, Linda. That’s a valuable rendering.
I think this explains the MAGA crowd. I'm not sure it explains the "normal" people with more moderate beliefs who support Trump. Some of them may be just diehard Republicans, but others are a mystery. Or maybe they're just not very smart.
Or maybe they are not normal. Or "normal" has changed. That is indicative of a sick society. I would say the internet is not curing this problem but enhancing it.
Thanks for sharing this. As I recall, this might have been behind a paywall. Democratic political operatives should read this.
"Interestingly, this contract does not require Trump to follow through on traditional metrics of success like job creation or healthcare reform. His supporters are not primarily concerned with how he improves their lives directly. Instead, they focus on how he reinforces their worldview—one where they are under constant attack and where Trump is their defender. This emotional satisfaction creates a loyalty that transcends policy, rooted instead in the shared sense of grievance and resentment." CREEPY. Thanks for this, Linda.
MaryPat, it is not only creepy, but it is so unhealthy. We need to reclaim these people somehow. I am not sure how, but one of the things my Democrats Abroad Project 2025 Bookclub started talking about the other evening was how men under 30 are more likely to vote Republican, whereas Females under 30 are more likely to vote Democratic. So, there is a tidal wave of distance, and my daughter is telling me many of her friends are having a horrid time finding someone to date, and feel like they are just settling for, not excited about who they are with. She knows many of her friends struggle if they date males. So, when I read that the Trumpers are loyal to what he standing for, which they view as them, it is something we need to address as a nation. We are not alone. The USA, Europe, Africa, Asia, Middle East is seeing a rise in recruiting for terrorism be it White or Muslim, and we know gangs are prolific in other parts of the world too. The internet has become a big recruiting tool, and certain websites should just be shut down. Freedom of speech needs regulation too. We will certainly have that under Trump.
We need more than "someone posted". I want to share this; who wrote it, please?
Hi Hugh, It was posted by Robert Ritchie on Joyce Vance's Substack on September 9, 2024.
I agree Hugh. I was not thinking about that when I saved it. My mistake was in not putting the person's name down. I still think it is worth sharing. It is from this week. As I recall the person who posted it was not claiming credit, and there was no name posted. I cannot find it, but I am endorsing what it says. I do not take credit, and it was not Hubbell who posted it either. I still feel it is valuable and that is why I am sharing it.
Drunk Uncle Syndrome, I believe is the technical term!
Yes. However, we know that males under 30 are increasingly more conservative than they used to be. So, that is Gen-Zers. I would say they are being radicalized and feel that the internet is providing a forum for anti-socialization. I think we need to play catch up with the technology and make some hard and enforced laws around who is allowed to view what content. These dark net types of sites, that are unregulated, should get ratings and not be available to anyone under 21. I would like to say 30, but I see that would never happen. It should be regulated like alcohol is in some states, as something your brain, which does not develop the frontal cortex fully until between 24 and 30, cannot handle. The frontal cortex is responsible for executive functioning, that is delayed gratification and complex decision making.
Or maybe 78....Drumpf's frontal cortex just never developed at all, I guess!
There are always those who have retarded development, but that means so do his followers, except for those who are just truly young. Those are the ones going out with AR-15s and shooting up schools, etc,... and we need to be making policies to protect them from super immature adults. There are a lot of them, just look at the Republican party.
"O'Donnell said Trump was looking into the camera and telling people they didn't believe what they believe."
Lucian, if that's not textbook gaslighting, "Game, Set & Match!", please tell us what is, thank you.
Endorsement by Orban, election info from Ingraham, Hannity, and the Fox crew, “everyone” pleased that abortion is back to a state issue, cats and dogs at risk of being eaten, etc……..Epistemic closure collapsed into an epistemic black hole of infinite density and a jet spewed more lies as questions fall into the manic maelstrom of Mango Mussolini’s mind. Lucian, you inspire me with words (and are much better at it than me….)