The problem isn't to reach convinced Trump voters, it's to peel off enough undecideds and Repubs who genuinely dislike Trump. Some subset of the arguments you mention at the outset seem like the best approach, though not a guaranteed path to victory.
The Trump-lovers aren't the only unreachable group unfortunately. There's also a big group (Susa Collins is the archetype) for whom being a Republican is such a central part of their identity that they can't shift. Even among those who have rejected Trump, only a minority have been willing ot advocate a vote for Harris.
I like this only in the sense that you aren't wrong, even though I wish you were. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that we are dealing with a vast number of people who really do want to burn their playhouse down just because they can.
On what are you basing this sweeping analysis? Have you spoken with a lot of Trump supporters? My sense is that you're right about a small majority and mostly wrong about many, many others. I know some, and the fiscal conservatives think that he'll be better for the economy and not nearly as bad re: political and constitutionally as you and I fear. I know some evangelicals who have finally come to think that he's not a very good person but they hate Harris and Democrats and think that their best chance to get some of what they want lies with Trump and other MAGA folks. I know some Delco people who really think that he's part of a movement to return us to the Reagan years, or what they remember of it, complete with American pride and a popular culture that looks like what they remember it looking like.
This stuff about Trump voters all or mostly wanting him to blow up everything so that they can fight for the scraps of a ruined modernity? It sounds like an amalgamation of theorists like Pat Deneen mixed with some of the (I think few) actual millenarians and survivalists. I truly don't know where you're getting it from.
What I agree about is that Trump voters aren't convinced by any of the things that you mentioned centrists using as ammo against him. When I have tried I've tended to get back whatabout-isms, whatabout Kamala or Biden doing or not doing X, Y, or Z, and more or less indifference to everything else. And yes, for sure I've seen and heard some people glorying in his criminality because they want to stick a thumb in the eye of elite-dominated politics and law and culture, but that's not the same thing as wanting to blow up everything.
I'll get to the people you think are the majority later in this series; they're the people the NYT has been trying to represent as normal Trumpians, e.g., the audience in Detroit. I think they're involved in some complicated self-deceptions. I also don't think they're the majority of his devoted base, and I'd ask you why you think they are--polls or otherwise.
The stick-a-thumb-in-the-eye IS wanting to blow up everything. We're not talking chortling over what Rush Limbaugh said here, we're talking electing an executive in an era where the Supreme Court has more or less endorsed unlimited exercise of executive power. Trump *says* he's not going to just stick a thumb in the eye, but plunge a sword through the heart of the status quo. Why don't you believe him? Or if you do, why do you think some people who are devoted to him don't hear that message for what it plainly is?
My repeated question to you, before I respond, is: on what are you basing your assessment? If you're basing it on the publications and podcasts you consume, and not on talking with a reasonably wide range of Trump voters, then I think that's a significant problem. The NYT has that problem as well. Please don't for a moment think that I'm saying this to brag about how many people I talk with, and that I'm somehow better or smarter because of it. I hate that kind of virtue-signaling. I do, however, happen to have pretty regular contact with a bunch of Trump voters and have had some quite extended conversations (in person and via text) about him. They've sometimes been me exhorting people to pay attention to the kinds of things that you mention. They've sometimes just been me listening to people without trying to change their minds. And I've heard pretty much none of the "burn-it-all-down" thing that you sketch in your initial post. For the most part, the people with whom I've talked extensively just don't believe me that he means or will do the things that alarm both of us. They'll talk to me instead about the corruption of Obama, Clinton, Biden, Harris-- how the first two have earned huge amounts for speeches and books (which is true), and how Biden's son has done this and that-- and when I've pointed out the vastly more serious financial corruption of Trump and his family, I've just gotten no response or else something to the effect that the Trump voters aren't that bothered by it.
I think it's very difficult, and probably impossible, to assess the motivations and thought processes of Trump (and other MAGA) voters without hearing at least some of it from the people themselves. We sit in our offices and make logical inferences from what we have read and heard about (and from) Trump and what we know about his poll standings, and we assume all kinds of things about what this must mean re: his supporters' minds and intentions. Sometimes that might be a valid way of doing analysis, but IMO not in the Trump years.
The argument here you are offering *is* based on "I talk to them and you don't", so I really don't think you are standing somewhere else--you're reading the vibes by the people you're proximate to, and I'm reading the vibes by the people I'm least proximate to, which is the people who go to his rallies and are his most performatively and visibly devoted base. Unless you and I really have a much different sociality than I've thought, the Trump people you're speaking to are pretty close to the Trump people I used to speak to and don't any longer: people who are in my extended social networks. Beyond that, I would guess that experientially you and I have the same trading cards, which is whatever anecdotal encounters we've had beyond our immediate social worlds. And beyond that still is the wide world of social media, the public sphere and so on.
When I get around to my subsequent entry on the people you've got most in mind, I intend to make a basic point that you are questioning already, which is "we have to hear from the people themselves". I never disagree with that as s starting place--in fact, I think historians and ethnographers take it more seriously than other social scientists--but at the same time the idea that what people themselves say *about* themselves stands as an accurate representation of their motives, thinking and causalities is something that all social sciences doubt in their own fashion. How we doubt it and what we do to explore our doubts varies methodologically and epistemologically, but the only time a social scientist stands pat on "what people say is the sum total of what they really think and the sum explanation of what they really do" is the moment when a social scientist has a prior reason to want to affirm what is said as the last word.
BTW, does that mean that *I* understand Trump voters' motivations? No. I don't. I find it completely baffling that so many intelligent and capable/competent people can seem impervious to what I'm fairly sure are facts and the disastrous consequences that have ensued, historically, in a number of situations where people ignored such facts and red flags. But just because I find it hard to comprehend, I don't then attribute to a majority or even a plurality of Trump voters the nihilism or quasi-millenarianism that you do. Not without hard evidence, at least.
The problem isn't to reach convinced Trump voters, it's to peel off enough undecideds and Repubs who genuinely dislike Trump. Some subset of the arguments you mention at the outset seem like the best approach, though not a guaranteed path to victory.
The Trump-lovers aren't the only unreachable group unfortunately. There's also a big group (Susa Collins is the archetype) for whom being a Republican is such a central part of their identity that they can't shift. Even among those who have rejected Trump, only a minority have been willing ot advocate a vote for Harris.
I like this only in the sense that you aren't wrong, even though I wish you were. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that we are dealing with a vast number of people who really do want to burn their playhouse down just because they can.
On what are you basing this sweeping analysis? Have you spoken with a lot of Trump supporters? My sense is that you're right about a small majority and mostly wrong about many, many others. I know some, and the fiscal conservatives think that he'll be better for the economy and not nearly as bad re: political and constitutionally as you and I fear. I know some evangelicals who have finally come to think that he's not a very good person but they hate Harris and Democrats and think that their best chance to get some of what they want lies with Trump and other MAGA folks. I know some Delco people who really think that he's part of a movement to return us to the Reagan years, or what they remember of it, complete with American pride and a popular culture that looks like what they remember it looking like.
This stuff about Trump voters all or mostly wanting him to blow up everything so that they can fight for the scraps of a ruined modernity? It sounds like an amalgamation of theorists like Pat Deneen mixed with some of the (I think few) actual millenarians and survivalists. I truly don't know where you're getting it from.
What I agree about is that Trump voters aren't convinced by any of the things that you mentioned centrists using as ammo against him. When I have tried I've tended to get back whatabout-isms, whatabout Kamala or Biden doing or not doing X, Y, or Z, and more or less indifference to everything else. And yes, for sure I've seen and heard some people glorying in his criminality because they want to stick a thumb in the eye of elite-dominated politics and law and culture, but that's not the same thing as wanting to blow up everything.
I'll get to the people you think are the majority later in this series; they're the people the NYT has been trying to represent as normal Trumpians, e.g., the audience in Detroit. I think they're involved in some complicated self-deceptions. I also don't think they're the majority of his devoted base, and I'd ask you why you think they are--polls or otherwise.
The stick-a-thumb-in-the-eye IS wanting to blow up everything. We're not talking chortling over what Rush Limbaugh said here, we're talking electing an executive in an era where the Supreme Court has more or less endorsed unlimited exercise of executive power. Trump *says* he's not going to just stick a thumb in the eye, but plunge a sword through the heart of the status quo. Why don't you believe him? Or if you do, why do you think some people who are devoted to him don't hear that message for what it plainly is?
My repeated question to you, before I respond, is: on what are you basing your assessment? If you're basing it on the publications and podcasts you consume, and not on talking with a reasonably wide range of Trump voters, then I think that's a significant problem. The NYT has that problem as well. Please don't for a moment think that I'm saying this to brag about how many people I talk with, and that I'm somehow better or smarter because of it. I hate that kind of virtue-signaling. I do, however, happen to have pretty regular contact with a bunch of Trump voters and have had some quite extended conversations (in person and via text) about him. They've sometimes been me exhorting people to pay attention to the kinds of things that you mention. They've sometimes just been me listening to people without trying to change their minds. And I've heard pretty much none of the "burn-it-all-down" thing that you sketch in your initial post. For the most part, the people with whom I've talked extensively just don't believe me that he means or will do the things that alarm both of us. They'll talk to me instead about the corruption of Obama, Clinton, Biden, Harris-- how the first two have earned huge amounts for speeches and books (which is true), and how Biden's son has done this and that-- and when I've pointed out the vastly more serious financial corruption of Trump and his family, I've just gotten no response or else something to the effect that the Trump voters aren't that bothered by it.
I think it's very difficult, and probably impossible, to assess the motivations and thought processes of Trump (and other MAGA) voters without hearing at least some of it from the people themselves. We sit in our offices and make logical inferences from what we have read and heard about (and from) Trump and what we know about his poll standings, and we assume all kinds of things about what this must mean re: his supporters' minds and intentions. Sometimes that might be a valid way of doing analysis, but IMO not in the Trump years.
The argument here you are offering *is* based on "I talk to them and you don't", so I really don't think you are standing somewhere else--you're reading the vibes by the people you're proximate to, and I'm reading the vibes by the people I'm least proximate to, which is the people who go to his rallies and are his most performatively and visibly devoted base. Unless you and I really have a much different sociality than I've thought, the Trump people you're speaking to are pretty close to the Trump people I used to speak to and don't any longer: people who are in my extended social networks. Beyond that, I would guess that experientially you and I have the same trading cards, which is whatever anecdotal encounters we've had beyond our immediate social worlds. And beyond that still is the wide world of social media, the public sphere and so on.
When I get around to my subsequent entry on the people you've got most in mind, I intend to make a basic point that you are questioning already, which is "we have to hear from the people themselves". I never disagree with that as s starting place--in fact, I think historians and ethnographers take it more seriously than other social scientists--but at the same time the idea that what people themselves say *about* themselves stands as an accurate representation of their motives, thinking and causalities is something that all social sciences doubt in their own fashion. How we doubt it and what we do to explore our doubts varies methodologically and epistemologically, but the only time a social scientist stands pat on "what people say is the sum total of what they really think and the sum explanation of what they really do" is the moment when a social scientist has a prior reason to want to affirm what is said as the last word.
BTW, does that mean that *I* understand Trump voters' motivations? No. I don't. I find it completely baffling that so many intelligent and capable/competent people can seem impervious to what I'm fairly sure are facts and the disastrous consequences that have ensued, historically, in a number of situations where people ignored such facts and red flags. But just because I find it hard to comprehend, I don't then attribute to a majority or even a plurality of Trump voters the nihilism or quasi-millenarianism that you do. Not without hard evidence, at least.
So what's your alternative interpretation besides "People are people, go figure"?