Emilie’s Reviews > Trump & Me > Status Update

He almost points out what we will later see in his politics, that he is in some ways unconservative. maybe what makes him both shocking and appealing is that he does openly state what the liberal hegemony attempts to gloss over? e.g. relying on a poorly educated population to vote for him, just like he brags about his wealth inviting us to examine money in politics.

I realise not a crazy new take but its interesting that its visible as a trait even here

What do you mean by unconservative?
I think it may be a bit harsh to say that the liberal hegemony depends on poorly educated population, it may undermine the fact that we aren't dealing with liberal ideas but with populism and slight hints of fascism combined with neoliberalism, maybe

Agree w Rodrigo re: politics, he goes between republican, democrat, independent in terms of formal ties, the connecting line between them is populism

I was thinking though that, when this is written, his potential mass appeal isn’t taken seriously by anyone but, knowing what happened, you can see all the signs there. Seems like when you’re in history class at school and everyone’s going “well it was obvious it was going to happen”, id love to sit in a class room in 50 years time & see what we think then

Yeah, tbh I think people read too much into that "poorly educated" quote. Like if you want the few minutes of him talking around it, it's clearly a joke. He's reading a poll that's really favorable to him, and then listing all the demographics he's winning. Like the crowd laughs and applauds, but that's because it's almost like yet another joke it a comedy set- by itself it isn't that good, but it's been set up by the preceding jokes/stories he's telling. I'd have to go back and check, but I think he also talks about religious voters, African Americans, etc.- it's just that those parts don't get taken out of context.

The thing is, at the end of the day, Trump only did slightly more poorly than other Republicans among voters with university degrees. Most well-educated conservatives still supported him. Plus, people with the least education are actually Democratic leaning.

Also yeah, he does shift between "modes" of politics. I remember seeing a poll that said that more Americans before the election thought Trump was more moderate than Clinton.

I do think it's coherent though- it's basically always "I will help you, I will not help (or hurt!) them." So I will help you get what you deserve (expand Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) but I will not help them get things they do not (access to the US, welfare for the poor and undeserving, gender affirming treatments). This just cuts neatly across the American political spectrum because it incorporates major progressive (expanding care for the elderly) and conservative (stronger borders, limited welfare for the young) values.

It's a really appealing mix for a lot of people, I think. Lots of people worldwide see themselves as deserving things, but other people as not deserving them.

Interesting about people thinking he was more moderate than Clinton - I don’t think there’s a problem in the fact that he makes a delineation between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ groups but in how he reconciles those groups with his own showmanship & “wealth”

I like how a lot of USA politics is based around showmanship with what you mention of the jokes of the poorly educated and his shifting in the speeches, that's also why he strikes as such a populist leader right because his show is that he displays in his theater all of the spectrum at the same time

I'm not sure I follow- to me, it's definitely a problem that he makes these distinctions. It's basic populism- you and I are the virtuous ingroup, they are the horrible/stupid outgroup.

Like this was obviously a thing before him in American politics, but there'd been a thirty year period where it wasn't normally openly done. Trump smashed away that barrier. I think his personal characteristics mattered for this- he was a massive celebrity, which helped him get and keep attention- but the message mattered more than the messenger, imo.

But I feel like with trump it there is no message just messenger, there is no truth, just his figure right? That's what I meant before by slight hints of fascism because (eventhough presidential elections are always personalist) he becomes the subject of political truth regardless of what he says. I would go to the other side I feel like there isn't massage anymore. Kind of

!!! Singer actually reports on Trump saying, after an opaque phone call, that you should make things as complicated and unintelligible as possible

He also draws attention to his phrases like “off the record but you can use it” - it makes no sense!

Yeah, I think you're partially right. For some people, there's a folk hero Trump (or demon Trump!) Who speaks only truth and righteousness. But that's not all his supporters. It's hard to tell what exact percentage it is, but I think the diehard group is at like 30 percent of Republicans.

For the rest, many of them LIKE Trump a lot, but he isn't irreplaceable. They absolutely care about what he says, even if they'll often be blinded by their like for him and ignore the negative bits. This is the group that was open to supporting other candidates, even if they like Trump a lot. But if Trump came out very consistently with a position they didn't share, he'd lose them after a while.

It's tricky, because Trump will purposefully try to be multiple things. So he'll go out with a gay pride flag then meet with evangelical leaders. People can pick and choose what they like, and always find justification for their support for him.

But I think it shouldn't be discounted that a lot of his main points were pretty popular among Republicans before he ran, just not well represented among elite Republicans (anti Washington, extreme anti China, isolationist, against free trade, protect Social Security and Medicare).

Thinking a little bit more about this: Trump is very good at getting his followers to change their minds about things they don't have strong opinions on, but I've never really been convinced that he, by himself can fundamentally change many people's opinions on things they're knowledgeable about/firmly believe in. At least not for most people. Of course Trump+ 5 hours a day of Fox News for five years is a different story...

I am responding to the point about being unconservative but now I'm so far behind the conversation haha

Regarding populism; yes of course he is a populist and that is as you say a fundamental thread which connects his politics. Saying "I love the poorly educated" is profoundly populist (I love the average person not the elite) but it also openly accepts that the average person is uneducated. Being populist doesn't determine if you are radical/progressive or if you are conservative.

What I was trying to convey is that trump perfectly symbolises a departure from what I see as one of the standard divides between radicalism and conservatism.

Wealth inequality, poor education etc have been perpetuated by the political and social frameworks of the US, whether republican or democrat (hence my sloppy use of liberal hegemony - all I meant was that even those who see themselves as "progressive" are complicit). Both political parties use large moral blanket terms and ideologies to sweep away any details and nuance. To the left equality/fairness, the dream of realising your potential, live your best life (while not confronting a framework that makes this definitionally impossible - capitalism, climate change, patriarchy, racism etc).To the right (what I relate to classical conservatism) an appeal to family values, religion, slow societal change, patriarchy, markets etc.
(Stealing from Rodrigo) he provides a message but the message is really just that he is the one saying it, there is no one overarching context for his truth.
Trump skips ideology and goes straight to the sensational , but he is fundamentally departing from traditional conservatism. While old conservatives may have been wealthy, womanisers, racists etc., they hid these traits under a veneer of greater moral authority, appealing to conservative values.
Trump's behaviour is openly in contrast to this traditional view of morality ("I fuck porn stars") - sexual promiscuity, spending sprees, etc. Later his politics call for the upheaval of the political order, sweet talking Russia, economic isolationism, even supporting welfare spending to some extent.

In telegraphing his wealth, in drawing attention to the state of American education and the fact that he doesn't mind it, does he not fundamentally depart from the modus operandi of conservatives? A conventional republican might say that education has lost its way, we need to ensure we are teaching children the right things. This is essential, equipping the workforce with skills for social mobility and allowing them to compete in the free market. We should make sure we bring everyone with us, etc. Trump cuts through all of this without appealing to any ideological framework.

I realise I have somewhat overstepped a small quote but those are the lines along which I was thinking.

Sorry that’s such a long winded answer

Wait but the reason why trump is populist isn't because he appeals to the average person nor the uneducated one, as you say being populist isn't determined by the socioeconomical perspective of your speech but it isn't either by the people to which that speech is aimed, being populist is about the message and the messenger.

I think that what you mean by skipping ideology is the show of populism, but he can't skip ideology, no one can, and even less someone who has neoliberal policies. He appeals to a lot of ideological frameworks but the truth is still there, it is him, his monetarism and his neoliberalism, he is still in the framework of ideology, but may more complex to spot it, populism doesn't mean skip of ideology.

On populism I really don't think we disagree...
Trying to define the word populism or conservatism I'm aware is a slippery slope to essentialism and a very boring discussion so I wont go there, but I would say that "being populist is about x" is perhaps limiting, especially as you say populism is not a new thing in the US - I was not arguing that, in fact I didn't even bring up populism with respect to trump my whole point was about him not being conventionally conservative ;).
However I agree that framing it in terms of message and messenger is nice, especially when looking at the construction of discontent within populism. I wasn't saying that "I love the poorly educated" was populist because it was directed at the poorly educated. I was saying that identifying oneself with a group and claiming to speak for them implicitly identifies an elite that are to blame i.e. "I hate the well educated" as the inverse and sets up what I see a typically populist stance of we the people against them the elite, giving expression to a set of grievances.

With respect to Ideology of course he can't operate outside of ideology, that is firstly impossible - you cant escape the symbolic framework in which you operate - and secondly he relies on ideology e.g. neoliberalism to sell his ideas. What he skips is a solid conservative ideological justification for his views and behaviour. In being said by him the message is necessarily good, he need not provide reasons why, his message has no moral context - he doesn't refer back to God, tradition etc there is no authoritative conservative moral framework in which his views are couched. As Zizek says if anything he is a postmodernist, continually relying on a fuzzy moral relativism, on the feeling that what he says isn't quite what he really means, and figures like Burney Sanders are the sloppy moral absolutists (I'm paraphrasing).
All I was trying to say is that this moral ambiguity and lack of an overarching ideological justification is a-typical of conservatism.

Side point: what other republican president would be able to get away with what he does. When he says I could walk down a street and shoot someone and they’d still vote for me, he’s is more than right . He doesn’t rely on the moral superiority of his position. It doesn’t undermine his place in politics to be corrupt or irreligious or sexually promiscuous.

Populism and conservatism have specific traits that can be pointed down to it's analysis, it's true that there are some grey areas but trump isn't in any of them. One of the main traits of being populist is indeed not having a clear ideological framework in the speech, populism is part of an strategy that attempts to catch every political idea to absorb a big voting ground (that's why populism is a specific thing from party democracy). That's why I said that eventhough you didn't specifically bring it up you where talking about it with the concept of skipping ideology.

Also, feel like the implicitness of the dychotomy between the group one adresses to and the "one against" is a bit of a fallacy, that duality is established in the speech but it isn't implicit per se. The combinations that can happen when one adresses a certain group are what end up creating new ways of practicing politics, and the combination between a poor base and a certain bureocratic elite (a national one for example) has already been done in technified democracies for example (or Spanish fascism is also an interesting combination of sectors that today wouldn't necessarily work together), so eventhough I agree with you in the sense that one one adresses a group another one comes to it's antagonism I don't believe that one can say that it's implicit in the dressing of set group.

The other thing is he doesn't skip the conservative ideal, his stances against ways of self expresion and identity are quite clear (people and identity must keep how they are I. E atacks against "woke" ideology) , he goes beyond by exacerbating the individual which may overshadow his conservative takes and even in some sense atack the traditional ones that which you are talking about, but that isn't something against conservadurism itself but rather a contemporary reformulation of it under the frame of neoliberalism. It's true that he relies on a kind of moral relativism but that is still framed in a very explicit conservative ideology, the difference with past candidates is that he preforms way more the spectacle of presidential politics.
I would definetly say that he doesn't have moral ambiguity, there are things that you wouldn't hear him say "I would love trans people to have the same rights as me". He has clear boundaries but they are hidden in his theatrical performance, he is just an exacerbated conservative neoliberal actor.

On the side point, we like to belive that he would, what you've said is a bit conflictive, he doesn't do it, he says, it and it's a crutial part of the preformance, maybe you are right no other president could have gotten away with that but that is because the main part of America that supports him (to quote Shirley Jackson) hasn't seen a good play in their lifes

What I mean by the part of America that supports him is that he has managed to mobilize a rather politically inactive sector of the population (or at least not as active and present as now) through his charisma and certain way of being present in media

Uuuuuuh the Shirley jackson quote is hot af

Also don’t mind me I’m just watching the comment section like it’s Wimbledon and loving it

The Shirley Jackson quote is great ahaha - you enjoying the front seats ? I’m sweating over here 😅😅

I thought my comments were long but I guess not 😅