Are people consulting the canon of Anglo-American literature (let alone the canons of western lit) for guidance? I have a sneaking suspicion they are not.

Whom the hero is might depend on context, might it not? Robin Hood was certainly not a hero to everyone; presumably the poor to whom he distributed the wealth he liberated from the rich thought him a hero. The rich? Not so much. If a dictator protects the estates of the rich and suppresses the poor, might the rich think the dictator a hero? Yes.

To whom is Trump a hero?

Trump has done absolutely nothing material for the poor, or for the dispossessed white working classes. What Trump did was galvanize a significant number of white working class people who were looking for somebody to blame for their bad situation. If Trump is a hero to the "white trash" in the rust belt and elsewhere, it is because he directed them toward a target they could heartily hate -- Hillary Clinton. (I can understand how working class people could dislike Hilary. I'm at least a solid liberal if not a democratic socialist, and I didn't like her much, either.)

Trump is also a hero to the very well off; he is one of them (even if his own wealth is exaggerated, he certainly is in the top 5%) because he supports the privileges of wealth--the privileges of economic power.

There are hundreds, thousands of Americans, British, Germans, Russians, and other rich sons of bitches who have behaved far worse than Donald Trump. Some of the Russian Romanov Tzars were grotesquely cruel and vicious. There were plenty of British grandees whose behavior was thoroughly contemptible by any standard, any time. Ditto for the rich German, Turk, Saudi, Indian, Chinese, Hottentot, and Aztec panjandrums all.

We just didn't expect run of the mill New York real estate entrepreneurs to be quite so... unsavory. But why shouldn't we? What is not to loathe about New York real estate dealings?

Hey mods there are several threads on Trump on the front page. Recommend removing the Trump thread from the lounge-only section.

Fair point. Closed lounge Trump.

Edit: I guess now that you meant putting general Trump in politics to get posters to post in there rather than start new topics. That's under discussion in the mod forum. The main point is we don't want a proliferation of Trump threads. They tend to degenerate into low quality regardless of the good intentions of the OP writers.

Yes, I think the general Trump thread should be in politics to avoid multiple threads on Trump

I can see Robin Hood as a hero, because he took money from the rich and gave to the poor, as opposed to keeping the money himself. Especially if the wealthy of that time did not justly earn their wealth but came into it in an arbitrary fashion, like through inheritance, much like Trump obtained his wealth as well.

I was just thinking though if I was writing a novel, and came up with a fictional character like Trump, I would be thinking of Trump as a villain because he is so selfish and self-centered. That's why it's hard for me to comprehend how he is president.

I agree that Trump has simply appealed to white supremacists and have given them a false target to blame for their problems, which is an old tactic that authoritarians use. Why poor white people support politicians who harm them, simply because they believe those policies will harm colored people even more, is one of life's mysteries that I doubt I'll ever understand.

So, how is it that Trump, a person who seems only interested in promoting himself, is supported by about a third of the American population? Is it that they don't comprehend good and evil? Or, is it that they are mistaken, believing that Trump is an individual who is engaged in self-sacrifice and is subservient to others? Trump cares so little about the suffering of others, after the 9/11 attacks, he bragged that he now had the tallest building in New York. It just seems odd to me that a person could even have the level of support Trump does have, given the fact he would be considered a villain by the standards of classic western literature. — LD Saunders

I see at least three camps of Trump supporters:

1) pragmatists, who don't like his personal behaviour but very much like most of the policies he is implementing. A demon who implements the right policy is better than a saint who implements the wrong one.

2) The polemicists- who demonize those who disagree with them politically. They are the first to believe idle rumors and conspiracy theories about people on the opposite side, and last to believe anything bad about the people they support. Lot's of people are delighted that "Trump is just like us".

3) The rationalizers - they supported Trump over "Crooked Hillary", and once a decision is made - they are psychologically disposed to continually rationalize their prior choice. Like the alleged frustrated democrats who haven't accepted the results of the 2016 election; they behave as if the election is still in progress and they must continually to rationalize their choice. You continually hear, "but Hillary...." as part of their rationalization.

Relativist: I agree with you that those are some valid points and there are definitely large segments of the American public that fall into each of those categories you mentioned. It still seems bizarre to me that people are signing up for what has long been considered immoral behavior In their leader. Although, most Americans dislike Trump and most Americans did not vote for him. But, I have seen a rise in Trump support after he was elected, sort of similar to Germany having an increase in anti-Semitism after Hitler took over. People in a nation, for whatever causal reason, seem to adopt the beliefs and mannerisms of their political leaders. Not everyone, but a fair number seem to.

So, how is it that Trump, a person who seems only interested in promoting himself, is supported by about a third of the American population? Is it that they don't comprehend good and evil? — LD Saunders

I think that asking this indicates that one is out of touch. I think one has to have a finger on the pulse of the people to understand.

However, the leftist champaigne socialists are more interested in isolating themselves in echo chambers and bubbles, looking down their nose at the masses and unwilling to take the thinking of the masses seriously or work to understand it.

I am not saying you or anyone here is in that category- I don't know your politics. However, it certainly is an issue that the left is way, way out of touch with the masses- and increasingly so. You can't understand Trump without understanding the masses. And a lot of those masses are religious. But look how religious people are treated, for example. People want to silence us and make sure we can't speak- rather than simply hear us out and hear our side. That's how it is with the right. The left controls the media, the institutions, academia, etc. and increasingly you have the right being silenced. However, it doesn't negate the existence of the silent majority and one simply cannot understand Trump without understanding the silent majority. That means people going outside of leftist bubbles and becoming engaged with the people.

I have seen a rise in Trump support after he was elected, sort of similar to Germany having an increase in anti-Semitism after Hitler took over. — LD Saunders

I don't think leaders change the points of view of the public, they just make it seem more reasonable to express their views.

Seems like Trump is part of a wider global or at least Western trend, in which 'average' people are trying to gain some control over the direction of their countries within the context of an increasingly globalized, neoliberal world order. Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs + mass immigration + increased automation + cultural shifts have combined to create a sense of disorientation and alienation for the masses.

To be fair I think these larger issues should be factored in as contributing causes rather than simply dismissing everything other than racism and xenophobia in a reductionist way, although these also play a role in scapegoating the 'other' both within (elites who benefited a great deal from previous arrangements) and without. Once Trump is gone these issues will linger on and need to be addressed; the fact that they weren't handled proactively by previous leadership - at least not well enough - is part of the reason for Trump's ascendancy in the first place.

IMO as always. Too easy to lay the entirety of the blame for our disturbing situation on dumb, uneducated, racist Trump worshipers, as if things were running smoothly and all was well until he showed up. That wasn't the case, and we should start talking honestly about possible ways to alleviate the suffering of our nation's less fortunate citizens moving forward.

I'd also add the unpopular opinion that if you are a middle or lower class, patriotic, religiously inclined white person then the alternative to an imperfect (to state it mildly) Republican Party under Trump's leadership is not ideal. Think about it. You have been made the enemy, the 'other' in a Schmittian way, for progressives whose overall worldview is radically opposed to yours in almost every essential aspect.

That 'lesser of two evils' position helps explain why, I think, so many white people whose economic interests would seem to align with the Dems choose to vote against those interests by supporting free market Republicans. The cultural issues outweigh the economic ones. And outside of Bernie Sanders I don't think the Dems have hammered home that more class-oriented economic message very well. This shift away from working class whites started with Clinton if not earlier. Listen to them rattle of the groups they represent: blacks, Latinos, women, young people...

So I'd ask, Why should those maligned lower and middle class white citizens vote for a party that's made it very clear they're not welcome under the Democratic Party's umbrella? Or is this an exaggeration? Perhaps I'm mistaken but calculating shifting demographic trends seems to be the preferred tactic of Dems. Probably a winning strategy in the not-too-distant future. Trump cultivates those right-wing resentments while Dems do so among traditionally marginalized racial (and other) groups. We're pretty much fucked.

There really were no free-market Republicans. This was merely dog whistle politics. The GOP slogans of "smaller government" never once brought about an actually smaller government. "Smaller government" was simply code for --- "we'll cut off welfare, which will hurt colored people." Poor white people in the USA have often gone along with policies that hurt them, simply because they liked the idea of hurting colored people in the process. The same with slogans like "law and order," which was code for, "we'll lock up colored people."

Since Trump is now out in the open with white-nationalism being the party platform of the GOP, the dog-whistles have gone silent, and now we have blatant white-nationalism as a matter of policy. From the pardoning of a racist sheriff in Arizona, which was a high-five to the Nazis in Virginia, and an assault against the judicial branch of government, to the racist symbolic border wall, to the myths about lazy Hispanic immigrants stealing our jobs. If they're so lazy, then how can they be stealing jobs?

America First was the slogan of Americans who supported Hitler before our entry into WWII, and it is not a coincidence that this is now the slogan of Trump and the GOP.

There really were no free-market Republicans. This was merely dog whistle politics. The GOP slogans of "smaller government" never once brought about an actually smaller government. "Smaller government" was simply code for --- "we'll cut off welfare, which will hurt colored people." Poor white people in the USA have often gone along with policies that hurt them, simply because they liked the idea of hurting colored people in the process. The same with slogans like "law and order," which was code for, "we'll lock up colored people."

Since Trump is now out in the open with white-nationalism being the party platform of the GOP, the dog-whistles have gone silent, and now we have blatant white-nationalism as a matter of policy. From the pardoning of a racist sheriff in Arizona, which was a high-five to the Nazis in Virginia, and an assault against the judicial branch of government, to the racist symbolic border wall, to the myths about lazy Hispanic immigrants stealing our jobs. If they're so lazy, then how can they be stealing jobs?

America First was the slogan of Americans who supported Hitler before our entry into WWII, and it is not a coincidence that this is now the slogan of Trump and the GOP. — LD Saunders

I agree with this post.

I don't believe that the reason why so many people voted for Trump was that they thought that he was a traditional literary hero. (Is that why anyone votes for particular politicians?) They voted for him because he seemed to represent their interests and addressed issues that they cared about. (Their nation, their history, their traditions and their identity.) Issues that the other candidates ignored.

Erik stated it very well:

"Seems like Trump is part of a wider global or at least Western trend, in which 'average' people are trying to gain some control over the direction of their countries within the context of an increasingly globalized, neoliberal world order. Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs + mass immigration + increased automation + cultural shifts have combined to create a sense of disorientation and alienation for the masses."

I couldn't agree more, that's what's defining the new contemporary politics all over the Western world. (With close analogues elsewhere.) It's called "democracy".

Seems like Trump is part of a wider global or at least Western trend, in which 'average' people are trying to gain some control over the direction of their countries within the context of an increasingly globalized, neoliberal world order. Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs + mass immigration + increased automation + cultural shifts have combined to create a sense of disorientation and alienation for the masses.

To be fair I think these larger issues should be factored in as contributing causes rather than simply dismissing everything other than racism and xenophobia in a reductionist way, although these also play a role in scapegoating the 'other' both within (elites who benefited a great deal from previous arrangements) and without. Once Trump is gone these issues will linger on and need to be addressed; the fact that they weren't handled proactively by previous leadership - at least not well enough - is part of the reason for Trump's ascendancy in the first place.

IMO as always. Too easy to lay the entirety of the blame for our disturbing situation on dumb, uneducated, racist Trump worshipers, as if things were running smoothly and all was well until he showed up. That wasn't the case, and we should start talking honestly about possible ways to alleviate the suffering of our nation's less fortunate citizens moving forward. — Erik

I'd also add the unpopular opinion that if you are a middle or lower class, patriotic, religiously inclined white person then the alternative to an imperfect (to state it mildly) Republican Party under Trump's leadership is not ideal. Think about it. You have been made the enemy, the 'other' in a Schmittian way, for progressives whose overall worldview is radically opposed to yours in almost every essential aspect.

That 'lesser of two evils' position helps explain why, I think, so many white people whose economic interests would seem to align with the Dems choose to vote against those interests by supporting free market Republicans. The cultural issues outweigh the economic ones. And outside of Bernie Sanders I don't think the Dems have hammered home that more class-oriented economic message very well. This shift away from working class whites started with Clinton if not earlier. Listen to them rattle of the groups they represent: blacks, Latinos, women, young people...

So I'd ask, Why should those maligned lower and middle class white citizens vote for a party that's made it very clear they're not welcome under the Democratic Party's umbrella? Or is this an exaggeration? Perhaps I'm mistaken but calculating shifting demographic trends seems to be the preferred tactic of Dems. Probably a winning strategy in the not-too-distant future. Trump cultivates those right-wing resentments while Dems do so among traditionally marginalized racial (and other) groups. We're pretty much fucked. — Erik

You make really good points.

Ehh...Trump and Hillary... I detest them both.

There really were no free-market Republicans. This was merely dog whistle politics. The GOP slogans of "smaller government" never once brought about an actually smaller government. "Smaller government" was simply code for --- "we'll cut off welfare, which will hurt colored people." Poor white people in the USA have often gone along with policies that hurt them, simply because they liked the idea of hurting colored people in the process. The same with slogans like "law and order," which was code for, "we'll lock up colored people." — LD Saunders

I'd concede that these things are often used as covers for racism, or at least overlap with racist tendencies, but I also think you may be overstating the case. The underlying assumption seems to be that literally anyone - at least in the United States - who expresses reservations about socialist economic policies, or the large administrative welfare state more generally, is ipso facto a racist. As much as I dislike the Hayek/Friedman sort of free market fundamentalism, I do think people can have genuine disagreements over the nature and scope of government, over which policy is more conducive to a thriving economy, etc. that are not related to racism. At the very least I don't rule out that possibility and assume horrible things about a person's character based on their political and economic views. (unless of course they're unapologetic Nazis)

If it is true that these economically conservative positions are always held insincerely to conceal racism, then it would seem to follow that they wouldn't have advocates in countries with racially homogeneous populations, be they white or non-white. I don't believe that's the case but I'm willing to look at relevant data if you can direct me towards it. I just don't see the necessary connection you apparently do. Moreover, you'd have to explain cases of POC living within the US who prefer that small government, individual freedom and responsibility narrative. They're out there and I don't think they'd classify themselves as white supremacists.

Finally, and out of curiosity, what part of the United States do you live in? I've lived mainly among whites and Latinos my entire life and have met only a handful of self-described white supremacists. Seems dangerous to broaden out the notion of "white supremacist" to include anyone who finds Trump preferable to alternatives, or who finds traditional Republican policies (even if not perfectly enacted) to be more congenial to their worldview. The fact that some (or even many) Trump supporters also hold white nationalist views does not mean that all of them do. We may vehemently disagree with people who hold these economic/political positions and think they've been misled, but this implied racism seems extremely uncharitable.

Trump's rhetoric is often careless, he's a compulsive liar who's full of himself, etc. but I don't think he's an aspiring Hitler. He's no Jesus either, of course. And I genuinely don't think the supporters of Trump that I know - including family and many Mexican-Americans - are white nationalists/supremacists. There are some out there but to tarnish all of them with these serious accusations seems incredibly dogmatic and unfair. To re-emphasize the main point of my earlier posts, I think there's more to Trump's victory than can be explained solely by racism, even if that may have been a contributing factor.