All Voting is Personal: The Politics of Humiliation and Racism
The argument re the politics of humiliation goes something like this:
People who support Trump are not drawn to his policies. They support him because they hate the people who hate his policies more than they favor him….
Trump is the stick they poke in the eye of ‘progressives’ and people perceived as liberal ‘elites’ and elitists.
In short, for them, politics is personal….
The Politics of Humiliation
by Dave Trott
October 08, 2020
“Everyone is struggling to understand the rise of populism in politics.
When Donald Trump is so obviously awful, how can his base still support him with all the evidence against him?
Trump understands this effect – he said: “I could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and I wouldn’t lose a single vote.”
Democrats keep repeating how awful he is, and how stupid his followers are.
They humiliate his supporters and expect them to admit they are thick and ignorant.
Then they wonder why this argument doesn’t persuade them to change their vote.
The blue collars may not like Trump, but they hate being humiliated by people who think they are superior.
Michael Sandel, lecturer on political philosophy at Harvard, has written a book called The Tyranny of Merit.
His point is the myth of a meritocracy is what’s brought us to this point.
The myth that anyone with a college degree is more intelligent, more hard-working, better informed than anyone without.
This leads to the politics of humiliation, and it also breeds a massive backlash.
In America the smug, educated left-wing bred the indignant Trump supporters.
After the USSR fell, the West humiliated Russia as losers, which lead to the rise of Putin the “strong man”, who would restore Russian pride.
After World War One, the Armistice was a chance to reconcile both sides.
But the treaty of Versailles put all the blame on Germany, humiliating and bankrupting them.
This lead directly to the rise of Hitler, to “restore German pride”.
Intellectual arrogance is so assured of its own rightness, no other opinion is possible.
So the other side are treated as deluded fools.
Consequently a backlash is created.
As Nelson Mandela said: “There is nobody more dangerous than one who has been humiliated.”
It’s important for us to know the seductive danger of intellectual superiority.
Our target market will often be people who are not like us.
At university, we learn our purpose is to educate the world to a woke agenda.
It’s a noble quest and anything else is ignorant and stupid.
We bring this into advertising and believe that is the whole purpose of our job.
We believe everyone is like us and must see the correctness of our opinion.
But 60% of the UK doesn’t have a university degree.
They’ve never been to university, so they may not (gasp) think like us.
This disparity between those making the advertising and those viewing it results in advertising like the Gillette commercial on “toxic masculinity”.
Where a brand of razor decided to lecture all men on how they should behave.
How did this marketing by humiliation work out?
Gillette had to cancel the advertising, wasting millions of dollars, and apologise.
Patronising arrogance led to Kylie Jenner stopping a riot by handing a policeman a Pepsi.
Pepsi had to cancel the advertising, again wasting millions of dollars, and apologise.
As Sandel says, “The Tyranny of Merit” leads to the intellectual smugness of thinking the sole job of advertising is to propagate a woke agenda.
Believing that every right-thinking person must think exactly like us.
Those who don’t think like us are wrong and therefore not worth considering.
They can safely be ignored.
Even if they are the target market.
Hillary’s basket of deplorables and Comey’s letter about emails put Trump in the White House…”
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/politics-humiliation/1696278
David Alan Trott (born October 16, 1960) is a retired American politician who served as a United States Representative for Michigan’s 11th congressional district. He is a member of the Republican Party.
—–Wikipedia
This is an interesting and somewhat compelling analysis of the abiding support for Trump.
However, the avoidance and evasive texture of this commentary is palpable in that the failure to mention or acknowledge racism as a component of the unshakable support of Trump renders the explanation inaccurate.
It is tantamount to an abject denial of the impact and influence of racism on the political and social attitudes and behaviors of nearly 40% of the American population and almost 50% of the electorate.
Tip O’Neill of Massachusetts declared that “all politics is local”.
By now, in the era of Trump and the pandemic, a time when voter turnout and participation will be at an all-time high, it should be apparent that “all voting is personal”.
Koshersalaami
10/31/2020 @ 10:42 pm
“At University, we learn our purpose is to educate the world to a woke agenda. It’s a noble quest and anything else is ignorant and stupid.”
When I see the term “woke” I assume that race is either the whole topic or a lot of the topic. Some of “woke” has to do with feminism. Greenheron says that the Republican agenda is mainly about male dominance. Hillary and Obama are different flavors of what is ultimately the same nightmare to these guys.
The idea that these guys are angry for being called on their bullshit that they aren’t aware is bullshit I’d say is quite accurate. That’s the author’s focus. Racism is a huge piece of what the bullshit is about, but what the bullshit is about isn’t what interests Trott. That he takes as a given. Stated a little differently, these guys are angry for being called on their racism and sexism and homophobia.
Trott’s question is different, and I get this because it’s often my question: What do we do about these guys not being woke? Most of my writing on the topic is in large part my answer to his question.
I share his assessment of humiliation but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here and here I part ways with him. That’s what’s going on in other places, emphatically including Palestine, but humiliation of what is mostly a dominant population isn’t feasible. These guys are not embarrassed at all, nor do they feel any shame. What they feel is a challenge to their sense of entitlement. Some of them may pretend they’re a persecuted/threatened minority, a pretense that has become prevalent in a lot of fundamentalist Christian congregations (aka the Religious Right), but that’s just to increase their appearance of entitlement – after all, everyone else persecuted seems to be entitled, so why shouldn’t they be?
Even though I don’t think that humiliation is what’s going on here, I do think that he’s right that looking down our noses at them is counterproductive. It doesn’t bring about change, it just pisses them off. Trump is their revenge for being pissed off. Trump gives their being pissed off legitimacy, and they are pissed off enough for them to forgive Trump anything because he gives them legitimacy.
I don’t need to be told they’re racists. I know they’re racists. And sexists. And homophobes. And so, I’d say given what I’m reading here, does Trott.
He’s not asking what the problem is, which is what a discussion of racism would be. That’s a given. He’s asking what to do about it, and also what not to do about it.
Biden is addressing the same issue. Biden says that even if you don’t vote for me, I’ll still be your President. I’m responsible to you whether you’re on my side politically or not because you’re an American and taking care of Americans will be my job.
Ron Powell
11/01/2020 @ 10:27 am
@Koshersalaami;
Trott’s use of the term, ‘woke’, is the cultural equivalent of Pat Boone singing “Tutti Frutti”.
Trott is a Republican who is attempting to explain, not justify, the ‘Trump phenomenon’ re Trump’s followers…
He doesn’t mention or acknowledge racism because it would require an admission of complicity on the part of the cadre of Republican enablers such as himself…
What to do about a problem requires a comprehensive and accurate articulation of what the problem is.
“What they feel is a challenge to their sense of entitlement.”
This observation is apt and insightful. It also encompasses the notion of “white privilege” as an unspoken element of the entitlement being challenged….
Don’t forget that Trott is one of the 1%. I can’t be convinced that: “Racism is a huge piece of what the bullshit is about, but what the bullshit is about isn’t what interests Trott. That he takes as a given.”
Stating it “a little differently” turns the entire message on its ear…
When you state it “a little differently”, you are no longer reacting and responding to what the author has to say. You are reacting and responding to your own interpretation and restatement…
Trott did not acknowledge or mention racism in this piece.
In order to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the thrust of his assertion, he should have done so…
Koshersalaami
11/02/2020 @ 1:09 am
I wasn’t aware he was Republican. That throws what he says into a different light
Ron Powell
11/02/2020 @ 7:15 am
@Koshersalaami;
I don’t know how or why you missed that fact…
A thumbnail description of his political affiliation and career from Wikipedia is in the post, directly following the text of his essay….