If you’re like me, you encounter Trump supporters less in real life than on social media, but their behavior is by now quite familiar.
Gina Anders knows the feeling well by now. President Trump says or does something that triggers a spasm of outrage. She doesn’t necessarily agree with how he handled the situation. She gets why people are upset.
But Ms. Anders, 46, a Republican from suburban Loudoun County, Va., with a law degree, a business career, and not a stitch of “Make America Great Again” gear in her wardrobe, is moved to defend him anyway.
“All nuance and all complexity — and these are complex issues — are completely lost,” she said, describing “overblown” reactions from the president’s critics, some of whom equated the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children and parents to history’s greatest atrocities.
“It makes me angry at them, which causes me to want to defend him to them more,” Ms. Anders said.
In interviews across the country over the last few days, dozens of Trump voters, as well as pollsters and strategists, described something like a bonding experience with the president that happens each time Republicans have to answer a now-familiar question: “How can you possibly still support this man?” Their resilience suggests a level of unity among Republicans that could help mitigate Mr. Trump’s low overall approval ratings and aid his party’s chances of keeping control of the House of Representatives in November.
It’s an interesting psychological phenomenon, but I honestly think these people cause too much consternation. Their absolute numbers are probably no greater than the Alan Keyes Constant of twenty-eight percent, which is the percentage of the population that will support a Republican politician no matter how clearly “batshit crazy, head-trauma crazy,” they may be.
It’s possible that the Donald Trump Constant is slightly higher than this, and it’s distributed a little differently than George W. Bush’s dead-ender support circa 2005-6. But, these folks are not a threat to push Trump into the majority. That threat comes from the possibility that the Democrats will once again nominate someone who has historically high negative public popularity that can match or nearly match Trump’s own.
Just another day for the “sky is falling” anecdotal idiots in the punditry.
If that woman wants to defend Trump, then she will. Nuance, complexity, Overblown …. bullshit.
She’s just another Trumpista only with an education.
Actually she’s a neo-confederate activist. A small point the reporter failed to mention.
How very convenient for the nice Repub, Ms Anders. It was fine for her Repub “conservatives” (both high and low) to vilify Obama at the highest levels of invective and vitriol, but the demonic left has gone overboard by pointing out that the SS camp guards (also) separated children from parents at the death/work camp depots, never to see each other again—which also appears to be the policy of Der Trumper!
But this hypocrisy is a minor matter. The problem (I take it) from the writer’s point of view is that Ms Anders–while one of Trumper’s 46%–is not supposed to be the sort of voter who ended up as one of Bushco’s 28% dead-enders. She is a “rational” “sensible” “reasonable” etc. Repub, who has not (really) drunk the MAGA kool-aid, yet she is being “forced, forced, forced I tell you!” into defending Der Trumper because of foul-mouthed uncivil Dems denouncing the well meaning Trumper–who is, after all, thoughtfully dealing with all these “nuanced” issues. So Dems are really the ones to blame, surprise, surprise.
And that is the problem. Bushco had its Katrina moment where the scales fell off and the bottom fell out in Junya’s approval rating. One would think that Der Trumper’s Kiddie Koncentration Kamps would be a similar “moment”, but it appears very likely that the Ms Anders of The 46% would not think of abandoning Mein Trumper. Indeed, I will wager that they are digging their heels in on every Trumperian crime and atrocity, just as they (long ago) did with global warming/climate change. Trumper has made a minor (probably phony) retreat on the Kiddie Kamps issue, but he continues to talk to The 46% as though he hasn’t changed a thing, and was right to begin with.
It may very well be that the failed white electorate has further degenerated from the heady days when Bushco’s approval could fall to the 28% of bottom-of-the-barrel braindead deplorables that befoul the electorate. A “Katrina Moment” simply may no longer be possible with the current reactionary white minority who installed Der Trumper via the failed Constitution and now clearly despise democracy. But new polls will be out soon.
Per my memory and the link, the Keyes factor is 27%. Is rounding involved?
This woman’s sentiments, and the high approval rating among republicans can be explained by the fact that, sans the personal idiocy and incompetence, there is nothing, policy-wise, that Trump is doing or is trying to do that would not be done by any other republican. We’d have the tax cut, the gutting of the ACA, the undercutting of the Iran deal, extreme “immigration” policy, etc. The only difference is the racism would still be dog-whistled, and that would be just fine as it has been.
That Trump is an ignorant, hateful, openly racist buffoon only says, to republicans like this, that we need to “give the man a chance” as all they see are the “conservative” policies he’s “working” to implement, and the “unfairness” of those who complain about them as they did with Obama (not that Obama was anywhere near as divisive). They’re so focused on that, that their rank hypocrisy when it comes to their complaints on Obama don’t register, or they don’t care that they are hypocrites. Nothing else matters.
McConnell said not too long ago that this is the best opportunity conservatism has ever had. Insulted as he was by Trump, even he looks past all the idiocy and embarrassment. Which is why, just like their voters, the leadership doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt as dispassionate policy makers. They’re just as bigoted, corrupt and hateful as their Fuehrer is.
Any excuse will serve to mitigate the underlying fear that, yes, we might have made a mistake here.
I’m a little less sanguine. If there is one thing that will define this era in American politics, it is the rise of a unified, block voting, party before country radical right Republican electorate. Expecting a return to the less cohesive, more diverse and issue dependent voting patterns of the past is a fools errand in my opinion. The trend is that being a “Republican” is increasingly their group identity, which is also primarily rural, religious, and white. As you say, these voters are a minority of the population, but unfortunately, due to the archaic nature of our constitution, they have disproportionate power compared to their numbers.
The other disconcerting fact is that the Republican party has aligned itself with the interests of much of the billionaire class, and the corporations they run. Partly this is due to just pure corrupt machine politics as they sell off their votes, but partly this is also an ideological thing as they want to keep government small and out of their business and, if the Republicans have demonstrated one thing, it is their ability to destroy the institutions of our government.
I think these two factors- a unified, cohesive voting block that sees themselves as victims, and the corrupting nature of the interests of big money will continue to be a pretty potent threat to our country. Possibly Trump losses control of these forces, but if so it will just open the door to the next demagogue within the party. The nature of the Republican party is not going to change.
My feeling is that the Republican party has to be thoroughly defeated for us to even have a chance at a return to normalcy, and even if that happens, I think the Democratic party, due its much more diverse nature ideologically and lack of executive control (at least until 2020), will probably be in a much weaker position attempting to govern than the Republicans are now. But honestly, we don’t even want to contemplate the alternative.
This is how I see it as well. About six months ago, Martin had a post concerning the different voting patterns in 2016 in the rural midwest where he unpacked the significance of Hillary losing certain districts 80-20 that Obama lost 60-40. Add in the South, where it has been this way for a long time, and we have a situation where rural whites nationwide are voting as an ethnic block. I don’t know if this has been studied, but I imagine that 80-20 represents a scenario with very little elasticity. This type of imbalance creates a very strong impetus to conformity, so I would not be surprised if the pattern repeats itself going forward over the long-term. At 60-40, people on the margins shifting allegiances with the political winds, but 80-20 points to a scenario in which Democratic arguments will be perceived
as coming from outside, and agreement seen as betrayal of one’s own group, so persuasion will be impossible.
My feeling is that the Republican party has to be thoroughly defeated for us to even have a chance at a return to normalcy, and even if that happens, I think the Democratic party, due its much more diverse nature ideologically and lack of executive control (at least until 2020), will probably be in a much weaker position attempting to govern than the Republicans are now.
Part of the problem is people like Steny Hoyer, Mark Warner and Joe Manchin are tool of big business and the oligarchs.
So the media has found another Trump supporter to explain why they still support him after his racism and incompetence has become apparent to any informed person. This time it’s an educated and financially secure white woman.
Well, no matter what Becky says, the true reason is ALWAYS the same.
“His racism forgives all other sins”.
.
It is to laugh, these Cletus safaris. B/c they always find Boss Hogg. Turns out (via Digby) Gary Legum dug into this Anders woman’s history and she’s …. (drum roll) a longtime Tea Party activist. Yeah, she’s just a “plain old Republican” my ass. Persuadable, my ass.
https://twitter.com/GaryLegum/status/1010575304086171650
Text: He blocked me but maybe @jwpetersnyt would like to know that Gina Anders, the Republican businesswoman he interviewed who still likes Trump, is not your ordinary suburban GOP voter! Come along to a couple of links I found in 5 seconds on Google! 1/x
. . . just love this format (“Cletus safaris” captures it nicely) so much? It’s beyond stupid, completely unenlightening, and, as here, they so often get tooken by some rightwing extremist party activist posing as Everyman. Yet they keep recycling it.
Then, when this objection’s raised, Peters defends the practice (and, evidently, blocks the objectors?). Fingering himself as part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
The fµ¢king NYT, committed to dignifying these humanoid polyps, and to the pretense that this is all genteel. I’ve edited the excerpt to propose a slightly more responsible alternative.
The New York Times is simply failing at journalism:
courtesy of Brian Beutler
Holy shit. Yeah, of course she campaigned for Ron Paul’s 2012 Presidential campaign.
Hey, we have a community member here who has been beating the Ron Paul drum for years and years and years. What is his name again??
I’m offended at such an insinuation, and like the NYT reporter Jeremy Peters (see his quote below in response to this criticism), I don’t recognize any overlap in their supporters or what they stand for:
That is fucking incredibly politically dense of Peters. Shit, he might as well write “PLEASE YELL AT ME ONLINE FOR LYING TO YOU.”
The Times should take all of their reporters off exchanges with readers on Twitter. They are establishing a record of defensiveness which is a self-parody of The Cultural Problem At The New York Times.
Reminder: one of the things that helped sink Hillary’s likeability and personal approval ratings is that the Fucking New York Times paid a radical conservative a lot of money for oppo research on Clinton in 2016. That put FTFNYT in the position of laundering factually evasive bullshit of the Fox News variety on the august pages of their formerly great newspaper.
I dunno, it’s doing a lot of exposing how their mindsets work. He’s also set to release a book in 2019 titled “Insurgency: The Inside Story of the Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party”. This can mean several things. One, we have another reporter on a beat he doesn’t understand or care to understand, and because it’s been his beat on The Paper of Record he therefore implicitly believes he understands The Right because he covers them; a tautology if I’ve ever seen one. Two, he thinks he understands them but is just plain ignorant. Three, he’s lying and trolling his readers. I think there is a lot to be said behind door number 3.
The only reporter for NYT or WaPo who actually understands The Right is Dave Weigel.
No Door #4? Because I’d chose all of the above. The Sulzbergers are part of the oligarchy. They certainly love the GOP tax scam. It’s hilarious that anyone thought they were ever liberal or that they were ever going to seriously hold any GOP president, much less Trump, to account.
As I was saying, Dave continues to know who he’s covering. From today’s WaPo on Michael Grimm’s race:
I don’t worry so much about the Trump base as I think about the reference to the ‘bonding’ or the idea that they feel compelled to defend him without taking a clear-eyed look at who and what he is and just what his policies are doing. If she can’t stand to see him personally bashed then perhaps she should pay more attention to the actual policies he’s dumped into her life.
What does worry me is a growing sense that we’re running into a Clintonesque assumption that America couldn’t possibly vote the Rep Congress back in and surely the electorate will come to its senses and vote the Dems into power this Fall. That Hillary assumption is still at the top of my list of dangers we face.
Just as the Rep need to do the work of checking out just what the Rep have given them for work product, the Dems need to individually use every single opportunity to bring the Congress back.
It’s that segment of the population whose hatred of liberals is so extreme it will allow them to back Adolf Hitler. As for a possible Dem presidential candidate, I’m really impressed with Rep. Swalwell. I’d like to see him pushed forward.
My worry isn’t about the Trumpistas. It’s about whether Democrats will turn out in the midterms. If we do, it will be a route. If we don’t, we deserve more of this hell.
I plan to turn out in November if my cancer is put in remission. Fortunately, I live in Washington State and get to vote by mail. Still, I worry that too many Americans have lost their humanity–something that used to define Americans.
Rout.
There must be some way to create a viral phenomenon that results in 90%+ turnout.
The immediate problem is not 2020; it’s really hard to imagine Trump will be sane enough to realistically run again much less get re-elected in two years’ time. I think the party Establishment is pretty fed up with him anyway.
The immediate problem is taking back Congress so as to stop the GOP’s long-term campaign of rampant destruction of American democracy and, eventually the economy (if these trade wars continue and the social safety net is utterly shredded).
By the way, I thought the hardline crazies percentage was 27% not 27%. Not that it matter that much.
I thought they were fed up w/ him in 2016 and he still beat them like a rug.
*(“Banana Republican Party”, my nomination to replace outdated and inaccurate misnomer “GOP”)
These Cletus safaris are like a less entertaining version of “Jerry Springer”. If you watch long enough, you’ll notice the same people playing different roles.
So what is your argument?
Is it that 28% are few enough to sweep away from the table with a clear conscience? If so, then that is the majoritarian argument, and 50% minus epsilon are few enough to sweep away from the table.
Is it that they are wrong? If so, then that is the ideological argument, and if they are wrong, it does not matter now few or how many they may be: they must be excluded from the public discourse because they are wrong, and the rest is modalities.
Is it that 28% are too few to punch above their weight and seize power despite being outnumbered? If so, then that is the pragmatic argument, and history shows it to be wrong with respect to the actual value of 28% — not clear exactly where the threshold is, but it is lower than that.
All of these are completely different arguments and being confused among alternatives of this kind is, I suggest, not one of ours, it is one of theirs. This can be demonstrated by turning the tables and asking them the same three questions about us: is it A, or is it B, or is it C? Their answer is “yes”.
Argument from majority is not, in fact, ethical.
But it is how things are. And the alternatives are worse.
Your first point is tremendously important, and not at all widely understood.
Yeah, I see what you’re saying. The Russians should have submitted to the Nazis, acquiesced in being led to the slaughter. After all, there were more Russians, and you can’t allow majoritarian thinking to get in the way of letting the minority run roughshod over decency and human rights.
Yep, I get what you’re saying.
Idiot.
Yes, we think we’re the majority. But we’re also IN THE RIGHT. We’re not the ones putting children in concentration camps. Little detail I think you skipped over. Maybe think it over sometime?