Deep Social Thought: Trump=Bitter Clingers+Facebook
I am not a Trump supporter, for many reasons. But the depth and intensity of support that he has attracted is an important social and political phenomenon, that needs to be understood before the deep concerns and anger that he has tapped can be addressed with good policies.
I made a preliminary attempt here. Others have done a much more thorough job. Most notable of these is Walter Russell Mead, on whose idea of Jacksonian Americans I drew upon in my post. His Andrew Jackson, Revenant, is a must read on the subject. So are Charles Murray’s Trump’s America and Angelo Codevilla’s Does Trump Trump?
Then there is Tom Nichols. The Naval War College professor’s theory is–I am being serious here–“Facebook envy.” Specifically, social media has made middle and working class Americans newly and keenly aware that there are people with more stuff than them. This has made them green with envy, and their envy-fueled anger has driven them to support Trump.
I think that is a very fair summary. Read for yourself:
In other words, Trump (and Sanders) have convinced people that the same socioeconomic arrangements that once benefitted them are actually screwing them, mostly on the premise that it’s not benefitting them enough.
No one factor explains Trump, but this underlying resentment is at least in part a result of the Information Age, which is spurring one of the biggest experiments in relative deprivation in human history. People who once had little idea how others outside of their social circle lived now constantly compare themselves not just to their neighbors, but to the wealthy, and even to the super-wealthy. They are not just keeping up with the Joneses next door, but via the Internet and cable they’re keeping up with the Reeds down the street, the Browns in the next town, the Smiths in the next state, and the Kardashians all the way across the country.
As one wag on Twitter put it, call it the “HGTV Effect.”
This is only possible because of new technology.
There are two parts to this theory. That the Trump phenomenon is driven by envy, and that this envy is a new phenomenon that was impossible in the era before Facebook.
This would be news to Rousseau, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Veblen, and Weber, just to name a few. Each of these wrote when literacy was rather limited, and newspapers and pamphlets represented the cutting edge of information technology. Yet each of them also devised theories of social relations based on the tendency of humans to compare themselves and their circumstances to those of others; to seek social status; and to measure status by material attainment. Not just absolute material attainment, but in comparison to others. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche explicitly used the French word “resentissment” that Nichols drops in his piece.
And all without Facebook. So the idea that some technological shock was necessary to cause Americans to cast a covetous eye at the wealth and consumption of others is beyond farcical. Concern about relative standing is as old as society.
Then there’s the issue of whether the visceral anger that Trump (and to some degree, Bernie Sanders) have tapped a manifestation of a mortal sin, or whether it is reflects legitimate grievances (which is a different issue as to whether Trump can address these grievances).
In fact, there is a strong basis for those grievances. In attributing Trump’s popularity to the base motives of his supporters Nichols is deeply condescending and insulting.
The grievances stem from two sources, which are somewhat interrelated.
The first is clearly economic. The middle and working classes in the United States have seen their incomes stagnate. The gap in incomes between those with and those without college educations has increased substantially. The expectation of upward mobility that was commonplace in post-WWII America no longer exists for many Americans.
It is remarkable that Nichols quotes and links to Murray, but fails to acknowledge that Murray has documented in detail (in his book Coming Apart) how the white middle class has become increasingly marginalized, and has experienced decline in several important socioeconomic dimensions.
Just what has driven these developments is the subject of intense controversy among economists. There is no consensus, which should not be surprising because it is unlikely that any major social development can be attributed to even a small number of causes, and because explaining complex phenomena is inherently difficult. But the data do clearly demonstrate that the phenomenon exists. What Trump is tapping into is therefore a legitimate-if somewhat inchoate–movement that reflects deep social forces, not the temper tantrum of people who don’t know how good they have it, and whose worst instincts have been awakened by Facebook.
The second major source is deep disillusionment with the “elites,” combined with the mixture of dismissiveness and condescension with with the elites have responded to the dissatisfaction of the hoi polloi. Codevilla in particular has eviscerated “the Ruling Class.” Thomas Sowell’s scathing criticism of “the Anointed”, which long predates the Trump phenomenon is good on this subject as well.
The gravamen of this criticism is quite simple. American governing elites have amassed a remarkable record of failure in foreign policy and economics. Iraq and the Great Financial Crisis are just the two most conspicuous examples. Yet, the elite has made out better than OK, and there has been virtually no accountability for these failures. That rankles deeply.
Furthermore, the elites–in both parties–often appear to have more globalist loyalties, than local ones. Jacksonians are nationalists, which is why Trump’s slogan of “make America great again” resonates deeply. This also explains why many Americans are perfectly content to extirpate ISIS, with few reservations about the inevitable collateral damage, but have no interest whatsoever in getting engaged in allegedly idealistic ventures in Syria–especially since the elite has shown no competence whatsoever in bringing these ventures to a successful conclusion (cf. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan).
What’s more, the elite doesn’t get it. The GOP establishment’s response to Trump (and Cruz, who draws from the same well) proves this. Rather than trying to understand, and to come to grips with, the widespread discontent, the establishment has circled the wagons and doubled down on the condescension. The Nichols article is one example. So is National Review’s shrieking anti-Trump jeremiad.
And then they express shock and surprise that Trump only seems to get stronger. They don’t realize that even though they aim their insults at Trump, they hit the Jacksonians instead. And as Mead rightly pointed out, honor is deeply important to Jacksonians, and insults to their honor trigger their formidable combative instincts.
I still doubt (as I did last year) that Jacksonians can be part of a winning political coalition. I still believe that although their passions and beliefs are attractive to many, they repel many others. I also continue to doubt that the remedies that Trump proposes (especially on economic issues like protectionism) will ameliorate the ills that have galvanized his followers.
But I do not doubt at all that superficial, condescending, and insulting analyses of what drives Trump supporters will only strengthen Trump–even if they are written by a five time Jeopardy Champion. Saying that a large swathe of Americans with legitimate grievances, and legitimate critiques of their “betters,” are nothing but bitter clingers whose baser instincts were catalyzed by too much time on Facebook is not just deeply insulting. It is a sure fire way to strengthen Trump, not cut him down to size.
Those who disagree with Trump’s policies need to understand and engage the forces he has tapped. They need to persuade and attract, not insult and repel. If Trump becomes the Republican nominee, let alone president, it will be because his opponents fail in this task.
Very insightful. I have recently read contradictory reports on American productivity. The US improved competitiveness clearly show productivity has increased, while pure economic measures indicate the opposite. Then a concerned author wrote how automation can increase jobs. All this against the backdrop of globalists wanting to reduce crossborder business costs i.e. open borders, which destroys the incentive to be productive. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Comment by Johann Theron — February 17, 2016 @ 1:00 am
Our Jeopardy answer is
Tom Nichols
John Doe for $200
Who is an idiot at the Naval War College that talks incessantly about winning a paltry $60k on Jeopardy?
Correct
Comment by pahoben — February 17, 2016 @ 5:08 am
Nichol’s analysis is infuriating. Many people do not access facebook and are not envious of the Kardashians but in fact see a large swath of their countrymen being trivialized by the elites. His analysis, as you so well point out, does only that by the usual inappopriate characterization of main street America.
I personally don’t see any reversal of the ongoing trivialization of the US middle/working class without return of manufacturing jobs to the US. At the technological limit I guess labor costs could approach zero for all products with a regress of machines producing machines and only at that time will cheap labor in China be trivialized.
Comment by pahoben — February 17, 2016 @ 7:14 am
I guess in accordance with Darwinian doctrine the country that procreates the most will in fact be the victor.
Comment by pahoben — February 17, 2016 @ 7:21 am
Murray is not alone. The recent study highlighting the rising death rates of white men was another reflection of the same phenomenon.
To your point: elite should be more clearly defined. The current American elite are affluent (both by birth and by station), educated at elite institutions, and cycle between government, quasi-governmental organizations, non-profits/advocacy, and corporate employment. Notionally, it is meritocratic, although a suspicious number seem to come from distinguished families. I’m not sure the admission to the elite universities that is the bedrock to this group’s credibility is as it appears. Rather it may reflect the ample resources, well placed connections, and institutional knowledge of parents who can steer their protege correctly through the process. As a whole, they do not take risk. There is always a amply paid consulting position waiting. Power does not come from entrepreneurship but rather government positions (or a few years at a large financial institution working in a role with no obvious value besides the political.) In general, major media organizations are composed of this group and are highly sympathetic to it. Timothy Geithner is the perfect embodiment of this group.
Americans are completely correct to be angry at this elite. As an aggregate group, their leadership has failed repeatedly and yet no price is paid. MF Global is perhaps the greatest example of this pattern. Both Sanders and Trump point the finger at this group, albeit in different ways with Sanders obviously preferring to attack business and Trump the government. But both are ultimately fighting the same hydra. It’s hard to see how this ends besides that an appropriate tribune of the people emerges and implements a reformation, replacing the current elite with a new group. I suppose one can be ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Trump or Sanders but if it is not them, then it will be someone else and I can only pray it is not Warren.
The bafflement of well educated ‘thought leaders’ at the mandate from heaven is perhaps the most surprising thing in all this.
Comment by Anon — February 17, 2016 @ 8:06 pm
Well before Facebook, as the SWP writes, “…This would be news to Rousseau, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Veblen, and Weber…”
The hoi polloi may not have read these fine authors. But they watched “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” in which Robin Leach described those lives of champagne dreams to folks on a beer budget. This, after they watched “Dallas’ or “Dynasty”. Compare yourself to the super-wealthy? Just tune in every week. Regardless of the medium, ’twas ever thus.
Extraordinarily shallow, this Nichols.
Comment by Richard Whitney — February 17, 2016 @ 8:59 pm
The current American elite are affluent (both by birth and by station), educated at elite institutions, and cycle between government, quasi-governmental organizations, non-profits/advocacy, and corporate employment. Notionally, it is meritocratic, although a suspicious number seem to come from distinguished families. I’m not sure the admission to the elite universities that is the bedrock to this group’s credibility is as it appears. Rather it may reflect the ample resources, well placed connections, and institutional knowledge of parents who can steer their protege correctly through the process. As a whole, they do not take risk. There is always a amply paid consulting position waiting. Power does not come from entrepreneurship but rather government positions (or a few years at a large financial institution working in a role with no obvious value besides the political.) In general, major media organizations are composed of this group and are highly sympathetic to it.
Americans are completely correct to be angry at this elite. As an aggregate group, their leadership has failed repeatedly and yet no price is paid.
I do believe you’ve just described France. That’s one hell of a model for America to have adopted!
Comment by Tim Newman — February 18, 2016 @ 6:47 am
Great points. I agree with Charles Murray’s analysis, but I do think Tom Nichols is onto something.
This Jacksonian/Populist streak has been with us for a long time, all the way back to the middle of the 20th Century.
Look at the similarities with George Wallace’s AIP run in 1968–disaffected white working class blaming Washington DC and blacks, now white working class blaming Washington DC and illegal immigrants. Look at Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot in 1992–disaffected white working class blaming Washington DC and NAFTA, now white working class blaming Washington DC and NAFTA. The angst has been there for a long time, but it now has reached a critical mass. George Wallace in 1968 got 13.5% of the vote. Pat Buchanan in 1992 got 23% of the Republican primary vote, and Ross Perot got 18.9% of the general election vote.
Today, Trump is polling at 34% of the Republican primary vote. If you add in Ted Cruz, the two are polling at over 50% of the Republican primary vote. However, I do not think Ted Cruz and Trump represent exactly the same groups.
What I am getting is I think Tom Nichols is right that the forces of social media have made the Jacksonian/Populist wave more powerful. Facebook and Twitter pick the scabs on the beaten down white working class (and non-working class) Charles Murray talks about. It makes it easier to play the blame game. All the pamphleteers in the world do not have the kind of reach a Facebook meme has today. The same was said of cable news and the 24-hour news cycle a few years ago. Each generation of media has more reach, and Mobile phones and social media are the latest, and most powerful accelerants to the fires of discontent.
I would add, I think what we see with perceived race relations, perceived and real reversal of gains among blacks are due to the same socio-econmic forces which have caused the problems with lower-class whites. They are two sides of the same coin. Murray’s article talks about the loss of job prospects due to the builder hiring illegal aliens, and how the anger manifests itself in the poor white person. The result is to blame the system. However the same thing impacts the poor black, and the result is to blame white society. The only difference I see here is poor blacks have advocates who direct anger towards a blame center, while poor whites, prior to Trump, did not have this.
The same socio-economic factors which give us Trump and anti-immigrant xenophobia give us Black Lives Matter and the reparations movement.
Comment by Mark — February 18, 2016 @ 7:49 am
The hoi polloi would have to arm themselves with pitchforks made in China and imported under a free trade agreement so some element of poetic justice in that.
Good observation Anon-how could they think it otherwise but in fact completely clueless.
Comment by pahoben — February 18, 2016 @ 8:45 am
@Mark
You are fundamentally mistaken in equating race based issues with economic issues related to migration that impact US labor without regard to race. Economic issues of this type have absolutely nothing to do with xenophobia. I can’t imagine a less xenophobic person than myself and I am opposed to free and open migration simply because of the impact it has on US labor and the long term impact I know it will have on the US.
Comment by pahoben — February 18, 2016 @ 9:17 am
@Tim: As another Anglophone in France, I LOL’d at that.
But at least in France there isn’t a financial obstacle to going to an elite university.
Comment by HibernoFrog — February 18, 2016 @ 11:19 am
But at least in France there isn’t a financial obstacle to going to an elite university.
That’s true, but I think the Grand Ecoles in France are a bit like Oxbridge in the UK: the bright but poor can go, but so can the well-connected dimwits.
Actually, the problem I have with the product of the Grand Ecoles is not that they are stupid but that they think they are a lot cleverer than they are and believe everyone else is stupid.
Comment by Tim Newman — February 19, 2016 @ 6:18 am
Trump knows how to sell. No other politician does. The rest of them bloviate.
Comment by pointsnfigures — February 24, 2016 @ 9:48 pm