Thursday, July 05, 2018

Trump is a personality cult

If you want proof that Donald Trump has become a cult of personality look no further than this story in the LA Times:

Workers in this town may become victims of Trump's trade war, but they're behind him 'no matter what'

Jimmie Coffer, a machine programmer at the nation’s largest nail-making plant, voted for Donald Trump partly because he was confident he would bring manufacturing jobs back to America. 
So the 39-year-old factory worker was shocked last month when 60 of his co-workers were laid off after the Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on the steel his company imports from Mexico. Now, as his bosses cut back hours and warn they may have to let 200 more workers go in the coming weeks, he worries he may lose his job as a result of the president’s policies. 
But Coffer is still gung-ho about Trump. 
“I support him 100%,” he said last week. “In fact, I’d like to shake his hand. He’s doing a great job.”
So... Donald Trump is enacting policies that have the exact opposite effect of what they were supposed to have; instead of promoting manufacturing in the U.S., Trump's tariffs are actually pounding the last nail into its coffin.  And yet, the victims of this economic destruction still support Trump "no matter what".  Simply because he's Trump and not Obama.  That is the very definition of a personality cult.

I try to be respectful of other people's point of view, but I am having a really hard time marshaling any sympathy for people like Coffer.  Anyone who follows a person "no matter what", even to their own manifest financial ruin, deserves what they get.

I wonder... when Coffer and all of his friends and neighbors are out of work and have depleted their life savings and are living on the street (because, you know, the social safety net is an evil liberal conspiracy), will they still be following Trump "no matter what"?  Is there really no price too high to pay to have a white guy in the oval office?

[UPDATE]: Just now stumbled across this:
Conservative radio show host Joe Walsh said Thursday that he’s “pretty damn sad” some of his callers dismiss President Trump’s “lying” because he’s “their guy.” 
“On my radio show earlier this [week], I asked Trump supporters if they were ok with Trump lying so much,” Walsh said in a tweet. “I told them that I wasn't.”  
“The consensus? The vast majority of callers said they're ok with all Trump's lying because he's ‘their guy,’ ” Walsh continued. “Their response left me pretty damn sad.”
To which I say:  I'm pretty damn sad about it too, Joe.  Now, how about taking some personal responsibility for the world you and your fellow conservative talk show hosts have helped to create?

9 comments:

Luke said...

Surely this kind of loyalty-in-the-teeth-of-the-evidence has happened many times before. In Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels note that loyalty is a much bigger factor in voting than anything which an intellectual would understand as 'rationality'. (I would argue that 'rationality' is usually a kind of loyalty, but this loyalty is suppressed. Intellectuals like to feel independent.)

I would like to see "the gospel of evidence, experiment and reason" used to tackle this matter. The fact that we don't have an intricate understanding of how this stuff works (and affects 'us' as well as 'them') is to our shame. Is it really just that the social sciences are immature in comparison to the hard/​life sciences which is responsible for so little EE&R in this domain? Or might part of the problem be a deep unwillingness to face facts about human nature? That's what some have found:

>> Our basic thesis—that we are strategically blind to key aspects of our motives—has been around in some form or another for millennia. It’s been put forward not only by poets, playwrights, and philosophers, but also by countless wise old souls, at least when you catch them in private and in the right sort of mood. And yet the thesis still seems to us neglected in scholarly writings; you can read a mountain of books and still miss it. (The Elephant in the Brain, ix)

Maybe EE&R has to go meta one or more levels to address the situation. Who are the best thinkers and experimenters in this domain and what are they currently thinking and doing?

Ron said...

> I would like to see "the gospel of evidence, experiment and reason" used to tackle this matter.

EE&R is not going to help much if people decide that they want Armageddon. EE&R only tells you what is true or false, not what is good and bad.

But OK, let's see how far we can get. You believe in God. Let us consider the hypothesis, accepted by many, that Donald Trump has been ordained by God. How would you go about determining whether or not this is true?

Luke said...

> EE&R is not going to help much if people decide that they want Armageddon.

If this is not the first time humans have wanted Armageddon, we might learn something about what produces yearning for Armageddon and what breaks that yearning. Oh, there's also this for those who claim to revere the Bible:

>> Woe to you who desire the day of the LORD!
>>     Why would you have the day of the LORD?
>> It is darkness, and not light,
>>     as if a man fled from a lion,
>>     and a bear met him,
>> or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall,
>>     and a serpent bit him.
>> Is not the day of the LORD darkness, and not light,
>>     and gloom with no brightness in it?
>> (Amos 5:18–20)

> EE&R only tells you what is true or false, not what is good and bad.

To my knowledge, every single time I have used that term with you, I have assumed the strictest fact/​value dichotomy.

> Let us consider the hypothesis, accepted by many, that Donald Trump has been ordained by God. How would you go about determining whether or not this is true?

Paul wrote the following during the reign of Nero:

>> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Romans 13:1–2)

So according to that, God made Obama President as well. There is benefit to people claiming to respect the Bible; it can be used against them. Some will claim that the Bible can be interpreted in infinitely varied ways to say anything or its opposite; I have never found this to be true in practice.

BTW, I only cite the scripture as a starter for how I'd probably engage the people you're talking about; inevitably it would be a dialogue. The key with all people, in my experience, is to find the heart of their position and attack that, rather than nibble away at apparent contradictions around the periphery. I find observing Christians' responses to scripture to often be rather revealing—Hebrews 4:12–13-style. Sometimes it works with atheists, too (e.g. saying prediction and miracle power give zero information about God per Deut 12:32–13:5).

Ron said...

> If this is not the first time humans have wanted Armageddon, we might learn something about what produces yearning for Armageddon and what breaks that yearning.

Fair enough. But I think the answer to that is pretty clear: humans are easily deceived because the ability to be deceived had survival value in our ancestral environment. The tribe as a whole has better reproductive fitness if some of its members can be convinced that glory awaits them in the afterlife and that therefore they should go fight the enemy.

> So according to that, God made Obama President as well.

Yeah, you'd think so. But I'll give you long odds against your being able to find a lot of Trumpeteers who would agree. Hypocrisy is not exactly in short supply over there.

> inevitably it would be a dialogue

No, I don't think so. I think Trump's supporters are beyond reason. That's part of what it means to be a personality cult. They cannot be reasoned with any more than ISIS or the North Koreans can be reasoned with (as I think Trump is about to learn the hard way). They can't be reasoned with because their dear leader has explicitly disavowed reason. In fact, he has not just disavowed it, he has *vilified* it, because Trump's political survival depends on people who will not think for themselves, but instead will follow him "no matter what".

Luke said...

> But I think the answer to that is pretty clear: humans are easily deceived because the ability to be deceived had survival value in our ancestral environment. The tribe as a whole has better reproductive fitness if some of its members can be convinced that glory awaits them in the afterlife and that therefore they should go fight the enemy.

That level of analysis seems rather unhelpful for pursuing a future where people desire Armageddon less and are convinced out of desiring it more quickly. I would also like to see how your explanation here could actually be science—that is, how do we do EE&R on it? If you cannot point to people actively doing EE&R in this area and yet you think it is a really big deal, shouldn't that concern you?

> Hypocrisy is not exactly in short supply over there.

I would like to know whether EE&R supports any asymmetrical application of this characterization—e.g. to the Right more than the Left. (see for example Hillary's "both a public and a private position") To the extent that it's an "us" problem more than a "them" problem, the route forward would seem to be rather different. To the extent that it's a "them" problem, can we establish a common rationality that allows each side to tug on the other? (Even Hitler found it necessary to use a lot of logic to support what he did—it was far from the use of raw, irrational/​arational power.)

> I think Trump's supporters are beyond reason.

Some on the Right are undoubtedly "beyond reason", just as some on the Left are. But can you say that most/all are "beyond reason" without rigorous application of EE&R? To the extent that you or people like you merely tried to impose your values on them, I would reject that as an invalid application of EE&R.

> They can't be reasoned with because their dear leader has explicitly disavowed reason.

Whether there is a method to Trump's madness (other than feeding his egoism) is definitely debatable IMO. But if we want to suggest that e.g. Trump's supporters want to maintain their social superiority to immigrants/​blacks/​whomever, we must remember that Hillary needed to establish her superiority over the "basket of deplorables". If the most important thing is to ensure that you're in a group superior to some other group, that seems to infect pretty much everyone.

I'll end by saying that the declaration of any human to be "beyond reason" is an immediate justification for dehumanizing him/her or imposing your own values on him/her by how much ever force is required. It is a refusal to find any sort of common ground whatsoever. I would challenge you to check just how much confidence EE&R gives you that the nation can survive when so many on each side declare the other to be "beyond reason". Maybe we could all do a better job in understanding each other without polluting that understanding with suspicion. And maybe those who claim that they're smarter and better need to do more of that, proportionally.

Ron said...

@Luke:

> I'll end by saying that the declaration of any human to be "beyond reason" is an immediate justification for dehumanizing him/her or imposing your own values on him/her by how much ever force is required.

Yes, you're absolutely right about that. Sometimes force is required. Hitler could not be reasoned with. Force was required. I don't think ISIS and Boko Haram can be reasoned with. And yes, I think some of Trump's supporters are in the same category, and for the exact same reason: they all believe that they and they alone have been ordained by God.

My values are that people should be free to live and speak and worship as they choose, but not to impose their beliefs on others. I think all people should be treated equally under the law regardless of their gender identity, sexual preferences, skin color, or personal beliefs. I think children ought not to be separated from their parents at the whim of a narcissistic autocrat. And yes, I think those are values worth fighting for if that's what it takes.

Luke said...

> Yes, you're absolutely right about that. Sometimes force is required. Hitler could not be reasoned with. Force was required. I don't think ISIS and Boko Haram can be reasoned with. And yes, I think some of Trump's supporters are in the same category, and for the exact same reason: they all believe that they and they alone have been ordained by God.

How big is that group and how were they driven to where they currently are? Again, I see zero EE&R.

> My values are that people should be free to live and speak and worship as they choose, but not to impose their beliefs on others. I think all people should be treated equally under the law regardless of their gender identity, sexual preferences, skin color, or personal beliefs.

It is impossible not to impose beliefs on people; society/​culture is the collective imposition of norms/​beliefs. People feel righteous while they do that imposing, too. So is this just power vs. power? Is it a naked contest of will and ability to back it up with force? (An alternative is that there is a kind of 'reason' or 'rationality' which can operate in the value domain. One particularly famous intellectual used the term 'Wertrationalität'.)

> I think children ought not to be separated from their parents at the whim of a narcissistic autocrat.

I agree.

Ron said...

> I see zero EE&R.

Then you're not paying attention. The OP included a link to an LA Times article. That's an example of the first E in EE&R. The rest of the post was an argument based on that article. That's an example of the R in EE&R. (There's no 2nd E in this case because it's very hard to do experiments in the socio-political domain.)

> It is impossible not to impose beliefs on people

I disagree. Civilization requires people to *behave* in certain ways, but I don't see any reason to make demands on what people *believe*. I don't care if someone believes in God or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as they behave reasonably.

Luke said...

> > > Yes, you're absolutely right about that. Sometimes force is required. Hitler could not be reasoned with. Force was required. I don't think ISIS and Boko Haram can be reasoned with. And yes, I think some of Trump's supporters are in the same category, and for the exact same reason: they all believe that they and they alone have been ordained by God.

> > How big is that group and how were they driven to where they currently are? Again, I see zero EE&R.

> Then you're not paying attention. The OP included a link to an LA Times article. That's an example of the first E in EE&R. The rest of the post was an argument based on that article. That's an example of the R in EE&R. (There's no 2nd E in this case because it's very hard to do experiments in the socio-political domain.)

Did I need to specify that I see zero EE&R of the size of that group? You have declared some proportion of Americans as having "disavowed reason". Or in my own words, people "beyond reason". Well, what is that proportion, per EE&R? If you actually have no idea, and if you take into account that newspapers like sensationalism, then what does EE&R say is the most prudent course of action?

> > It is impossible not to impose beliefs on people

> I disagree. Civilization requires people to *behave* in certain ways, but I don't see any reason to make demands on what people *believe*. I don't care if someone believes in God or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as they behave reasonably.

When you teach children to "say thank you", it is behavioral formation which is only later codified as belief. Or consider "say the magic word". Surely you aren't suggesting that we carry out behavioral formation without ever giving children the corresponding formal description of what it was they were made to do or not do? I will assume you know that full-on systems of religion are very different from what I was addressing with "impose beliefs".