Why Are 40 Million People Predicted to Vote for Trump?

Why Are 40 Million People Predicted to Vote for Trump?
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.
Reuters

While Donald Trump’s chances to prevail on November 8th seem thankfully slim, roughly 40 million of our fellow citizens will be casting ballots for a narcissistic sociopath, who, per the diagnosis, lacks both a moral compass and the ability to care about others. How could someone whose DNA is bereft of these basic building blocks of a civil society rise in popularity to such a degree? How can a woman with a conscience vote for him? Is it simply disliking or not trusting Hillary, or is there something deeper? What is wrong with these people?

Unpacking the human mind, and its reasons, is not for the faint of heart. There is a vast ocean separating reason from rationale and there is no one universal current, from my experiences, that flows directly between them. Rather, I find understanding the “Why” often entails examining a variety of hypotheses from different perspectives/disciplines (which can have similar constructs yet different names depending on the discipline), and then determining which, if any, apply and to what degree, if at all.

Following are condensed versions of a few of which you may be aware. I will then share an additional incredibly powerful observation that unfortunately has not seen the light of reference since it was defended in a PhD dissertation roughly 40 years ago. Note: this list is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive.

Authoritarianism: a worldview that values order and authority and distrusts outsiders and social change. Not surprisingly, over the last thirty years, there has been a shift of people with this viewpoint to the Republican Party. The above video produced by Ezra Klein is definitely worth a review.

The Dunning Kruger effect: essentially not knowing your knowledge is inaccurate while simultaneously lacking the ability to understand this deficiency. If people are ignorant of their ignorance, studies show there is a good chance they don’t believe there is anything else to know. I am shocked by the utter lack of understanding of basic historical facts, not to mention U.S. foreign policy and monetary and fiscal philosophies, displayed in videos of Trump supporters (and surrogates). Unfortunately, all facts or endorsements presented to people with this condition will fall into deaf minds.

National Institute of Mental Health

Hypersensitivity to Threat: per imaging/fMRI studies, the amygdales, which trigger fear and anxiety, of those who lean right are physically larger and react more to disturbing or threatening inputs. The more crisis and chaos mentally digested, the more fear and loathing produced. It should be underscored that increasing testosterone levels (men produce 20X that of women on a daily basis) have a pronounced effect on amygdala activity. This supports the notion men are more likely to vote conservatively, illustrated by the fivethirtyeight.org data referred to in my prior blog. (Note: I will return to this point in a bit.)

a2ua.com

Terror Management Theory: Humans have developed some interesting ways to deal with the existential terror and anxiety of death: religion, political ideologies, ethnic separatism, and nationalism, each providing structure and meaning to assuage and divert this fear. When reminded of mortality––personal, family, a way of life––by fear mongering, some respond by strongly defending those who share their world view, and aggressively attacking those who might threaten it. Studies show that death references in campaigns increase nationalism and influence voting patterns to the right amongst those who are preconditioned to this reaction.

New York Daily News

High Attentional Engagement: Essentially, being a good showman and entertainer, regardless of the spurious and/or inflammatory nature of the content, can engage and entice a certain portion of the populace. These folks prefer the candidate that can keep them on the edge of their seats over policy and substance.

Suffrage Parade in NYC, 1912 (8 years prior to women having the right to vote)

Suffrage Parade in NYC, 1912 (8 years prior to women having the right to vote)

Toppling of the Patriarchy: Starkly obvious but must be called out. This could be an extension/ roll up of all the mentioned conditions above. The ascendency of women in society, exemplified by having a top-tier educated, overtly experienced and intelligently-threatening woman potentially running the country, is deeply unsettling to many men, and women who have been able to milk the fading status quo. And when things change without your consent/beyond your control, certain parts of the populace get afraid. Very afraid.

What is slightly annoying about all of these conditions is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to wrest people away from their clutches, especially as more than one (or three) probably applies to Uncle Ed in Tennessee. The other common trapping they share is their pernicious capability to justify interpretations, not matter how seemingly ludicrous, of Hillary’s rhetoric and actions, and the larger landscape. Will a vote for Hillary really lead to World War 3, replete with nuclear holocaust? Do people really believe our election process can be intentionally rigged to such a degree that a court would negate the outcomes?

The newcomer to this list is something I am calling the Threatening-Imitator syndrome. A study was done to explore the degree to which a Manager’s style was imitated by their reports. Four styles were identified: Threatening (high in structure, low in caring), Reinforcing-Structured (high in structure, high in caring), Reinforcing-Unstructured (low in structure, high in caring), and Laissez-faire (low on both; this was the control group).

The highest similarity between a Manager’s style and the styles of their subordinates came from the Threatening group. If your Manager was a meanie-pants, there was a good probability you’d start wearing similar versions of his attire (and yes, all members of the Threatening Managers Group were men). This association, by the way, seems like a likely basis for the “Stockholm Syndrome” condition.

A further, fascinating observation is that of all the “contributing variables,” (e.g., length of tenure in the firm, length of relationship between manager and report, etc.) that could influence this syndrome, only one stuck out as having a distinct and direct impact on the Threatening-Imitator dynamic: the perceived ability by the report to leave their position. If they were resigned to the illusory fact they could do nothing to escape their boss, they were most likely an ardent imitator of his style. If they realized they had options, their degree of replication would most likely be considerably smaller, and may not even exist.

Extending this syndrome to society, specifically the reporting structure within couples and families, gets really interesting, especially if you accept tried-and-true role definitions (the man is in charge) and factor in the observation from above that men tend to vote more to the wrong side of the spectrum. For most women, admitting defeat and getting out of a marriage is a monumentally difficult decision to make, particularly in parts of the country where religious influences and lack of income opportunities for women significantly dampen these desires from the get go. And the only way a child can escape is by running away. Over time then, if the man of the house has a Threatening (Threatened?) perspective, there is a good chance it will be adopted by his wife and kids. The power of the patriarch is mighty indeed.

Pew Research Center

Can this situation be improved? I believe so, both through trends and actions. The Caucasian, one male provider demographic, which ironically started to decline in the Reagan years, is sputtering and women’s influence, and options to leave, can only be enhanced with income. The rise of women as heads of households is inexorable and it is accelerating. Marriage rates hit an all-time low last year and are predicted to keep declining. Divorce rates, while down from their peaks in 80s and 90s, are still on an upward trend (and are also being impacted by the drop in marriages).

The percentage of Americans who have a “great deal/quite a lot” of confidence in organized religion has dropped from 68% in 1975 to 42% last year and is expected to keep declining at a significant clip. Public opinion on same-sex marriage is nearing 60%. And I know of many Republican women who are either joining Hillary this election, or simply choosing not to fill in the President’s box. It will be very interesting to see where this bloc goes after the election and this will depend mightily on how the GOP “re-forms” itself.

The one thing we all can do for certain is to make sure our hooligans are raised in environments free of malice toward others (and themselves), fear of the new, with the support to question freely what has been, and the courage and conviction to create a world that benefits all. Our future, while unpublished, can be drafted by us, and transcribed by the youth. Let’s make sure our narrative gets the focus it requires and deserves.

Note: Major thanks to Dr. Bruce Margolis for his patient explanation of his transformative dissertation.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot