Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status

[ZiprHead]

Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds

Ever since Donald J. Trump began his improbable political rise, many pundits have credited his appeal among white, Christian and male voters to “economic anxiety.” Hobbled by unemployment and locked out of the recovery, those voters turned out in force to send Mr. Trump, and a message, to Washington.

Or so that narrative goes.

A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.

“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”

 

[RavenSky]

“It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”

In other words: racism and classism

It took the media this long to figure it out?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The piece is actually from April of 2018, but it’s nothing new. This piece nailed it back in December of 2016: The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class:

To many white Trump voters, the problem wasn’t her economic stance, but the larger vision—a multi-ethnic social democracy—that it was a part of.
...
Many liberals—including those who supported Clinton enthusiastically, those who supported her only grudgingly, and even those who didn’t vote—share a vision for America’s future. Call it “pluralist social democracy.” In other words, most left-of-center people would like the U.S. to move toward a more European-style system of universal health care, subsidized education and childcare, and greater support for those born in poverty or displaced by globalization; that’s social democracy. But unlike in many European countries, they also want to see these values combined with a distinctly American flavor of pluralism: support for immigration reform, criminal-justice reform, and a celebration of America’s multiethnic culture.

After the election, some people called for an end to “identity politics” that promotes niche cultural issues over economic policy. But any reasonable working-class platform requires the advancement of policies that may disproportionately help non-whites. For example, hundreds of thousands of black men stay out of the labor force after being released from prison sentences for non-violent crimes. For them and their families, criminal justice reform is essential economic reform, even if poor whites see it as a distraction from the “real” issues that bedevil the working class, like trade policy.

The long-term future of the U.S. involves rising diversity, rising inequality, and rising redistribution. The combination of these forces makes for an unstable and unpredictable system. Income stagnation and inequality encourage policies to redistribute wealth from a rich few to the anxious multitudes. But when that multitude includes minorities who are seen as benefiting disproportionately from those redistribution policies, the white majority can turn resentful. (This may be one reason why the most successful social democracies, as in Scandinavia, were initially almost all white.) Nobody has really figured out how to be an effective messenger for pluralist social democracy, except, perhaps, for one of the few American adults who is legally barred from running for the U.S. presidency in the future.
...
So, the country is wobbling between two extremely different futures: pluralist social democracy on the one hand, and white nativist protectionism on the other. The election’s bizarre schism, with Clinton winning the popular vote and Trump winning the electoral college, is a sign of how razor-thin the margin between those dramatically opposed futures is.

Rising diversity isn’t going away. Income inequality isn’t going away. Support for redistribution isn’t going away. For liberals, pluralist social democracy is the project of the future, and any alternative falls somewhere between xenophobic and amoral. But what if the vast majority of white voters who voted for Trump aren’t interested in any version of that future, no matter who the messenger is?

 

[Patooka]

Maybe..you never owned the United States and what it represents isn't a monopoly you own? When freedom is having a say in how people can go and get fucked, I forfeit the right to complain what defines "people". They are enemies of the state!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Maybe..you never owned the United States and what it represents isn't a monopoly you own?

Unfortunately, a large percentage of primarily white people feel they do "own" it and that's part of the problem. We call them "Republicans."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The piece is actually from April of 2018, but it’s nothing new. This piece nailed it back in December of 2016: The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class:

To many white Trump voters, the problem wasn’t her economic stance, but the larger vision—a multi-ethnic social democracy—that it was a part of.
...
Many liberals—including those who supported Clinton enthusiastically, those who supported her only grudgingly, and even those who didn’t vote—share a vision for America’s future. Call it “pluralist social democracy.” In other words, most left-of-center people would like the U.S. to move toward a more European-style system of universal health care, subsidized education and childcare, and greater support for those born in poverty or displaced by globalization; that’s social democracy. But unlike in many European countries, they also want to see these values combined with a distinctly American flavor of pluralism: support for immigration reform, criminal-justice reform, and a celebration of America’s multiethnic culture.

After the election, some people called for an end to “identity politics” that promotes niche cultural issues over economic policy. But any reasonable working-class platform requires the advancement of policies that may disproportionately help non-whites. For example, hundreds of thousands of black men stay out of the labor force after being released from prison sentences for non-violent crimes. For them and their families, criminal justice reform is essential economic reform, even if poor whites see it as a distraction from the “real” issues that bedevil the working class, like trade policy.

Here's the thing. That first paragraph need not be inconsistent with the second. It isn't racial identity politics when policies focus on matters (such as poverty) that happen to disproportionately help non-whites. It is racial identity politics when those policies don't actually focus on those matters, but instead on race. Focus on helping the poor isn't racial identity politics. Focus on helping the black poor is.

And here's the other thing. Democrats and "Progressives" so constantly focus on race that it creates self fulfilling prophecies, putting pressure on white poor voters to focus on their race, driving and reinforcing the racist mindsets complained about. Sometimes race really is the issue, but not always, and making it always the issue only serves to divide people. When the narrative is constantly on race, many white people are going to battle for the team they have been assigned by that narrative.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The piece is actually from April of 2018, but it’s nothing new. This piece nailed it back in December of 2016: The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class:

To many white Trump voters, the problem wasn’t her economic stance, but the larger vision—a multi-ethnic social democracy—that it was a part of.
...
Many liberals—including those who supported Clinton enthusiastically, those who supported her only grudgingly, and even those who didn’t vote—share a vision for America’s future. Call it “pluralist social democracy.” In other words, most left-of-center people would like the U.S. to move toward a more European-style system of universal health care, subsidized education and childcare, and greater support for those born in poverty or displaced by globalization; that’s social democracy. But unlike in many European countries, they also want to see these values combined with a distinctly American flavor of pluralism: support for immigration reform, criminal-justice reform, and a celebration of America’s multiethnic culture.

After the election, some people called for an end to “identity politics” that promotes niche cultural issues over economic policy. But any reasonable working-class platform requires the advancement of policies that may disproportionately help non-whites. For example, hundreds of thousands of black men stay out of the labor force after being released from prison sentences for non-violent crimes. For them and their families, criminal justice reform is essential economic reform, even if poor whites see it as a distraction from the “real” issues that bedevil the working class, like trade policy.

Here's the thing. That first paragraph need not be inconsistent with the second. It isn't racial identity politics when policies focus on matters (such as poverty) that happen to disproportionately help non-whites. It is racial identity politics when those policies don't actually focus on those matters, but instead on race. Focus on helping the poor isn't racial identity politics. Focus on helping the black poor is.

No Democrats that I have ever known of focus only on helping "the black poor," or, as that implies, specifically excluding the white poor, so that must mean any Republicans who think that is the case are being lied to by other Republicans.

And here's the other thing. Democrats and "Progressives" so constantly focus on race that it creates self fulfilling prophecies

You mean, as opposed to how Trump constantly focused on race and every Trump supporter constantly focused on race and how idiots like my KKK marine/police cousin constantly focuses on how "white supremacy" just means a focus on whites and is not meant to exclude anyone else?

Sometimes race really is the issue

And nearly every time it's Republican propaganda instructing its adherents to think that race really is the issue.

,When the narrative is constantly on race

From the perspective of the right who are constantly reinforcing that narrative. As of April 30th (last month), Fox news has been the dominant "news" channel for white America for 34 Consecutive Months as the Most-Watched Cable Network:

FNC is finishing the month of April as the most-watched network among total viewers in both total day and prime time, per Nielsen.

The network has been the most-watched across the 6 a.m. – 6 a.m. daypart for 34 consecutive months now (1.4 million total viewers), and No. 1 in total prime time audience for three consecutive months (2.4 million total viewers).

For the 208th month in a row (not a typo), Fox News also beat CNN and MSNBC in total viewers across both dayparts.

That's nearly two decades. So, where is this mythical focus on race by progressives being seen that so impacts conservatives? They're not watching CNN or the Maddow Report for their news, so who are you talking about?

many white people are going to battle for the team they have been assigned by that narrative.

So, when the media reports, say, another black unarmed kid being killed by a white police officer, that's somehow focusing on race to the exclusion of what? All of the white unarmed kids being killed by black police officers?