Is it the egg hatching the chicken, the tail wagging the dog or just a return to our roots?

While this linked article might not definitively answer any of those questions, it does take a stab at understanding the Trump phenomena and it's roots. The questions are mine, the quotes that follow from the article

1. Where does authoritarianism develop, is it ingrained or nurtured?
These theorists study what they call authoritarianism: not the dictators themselves, but rather the psychological profile of people who, under the right conditions, will desire certain kinds of extreme policies and will seek strongman leaders to implement them...
...If you were to read every word these theorists ever wrote on authoritarians, and then try to design a hypothetical candidate to match their predictions of what would appeal to authoritarian voters, the result would look a lot like Donald Trump.

2. How do you get an accurate measure of something so nebulous?
As Hetherington explained, "There are certain things that you just can't ask people directly. You can't ask people, 'Do you not like black people?' You can't ask people if they're bigots."
For a long time, no one had a solution for this, and the field of study languished.
In 1992, Feldman convinced the National Election Study, a large survey of American voters conducted in each national election year, to include his four authoritarianism questions. Ever since, political scientists who study authoritarianism have accumulated a wealth of data on who exhibits those tendencies and on how they align with everything from demographic profiles to policy preferences.

3. What goes into the making of an authoritarian mindset?
People do not support extreme policies and strongman leaders just out of an affirmative desire for authoritarianism, but rather as a response to experiencing certain kinds of threats.

4. Are authoritarians aware that they may have this inclination?
The key thing to understand is that authoritarianism is often latent; people in this 44 percent only vote or otherwise act as authoritarians once triggered by some perceived threat, physical or social. But that latency is part of how, over the past few decades, authoritarians have quietly become a powerful political constituency without anyone realizing it.

5. What does this all mean?
I don't know, that would be why I posted the question.
One conclusion might be that the inclination toward this sort of behavior is ingrained in a large portion of the populace and only requires a few prompts to become overt or it could also be that it's all a bunch of hooey concocted by pointy headed intellectual college types with nothing better to do with their time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2016 05:14AM by RgrF.

I fear we are going to see this election turn into "The Gangs of New York". Little by little violence is creeping into the Trump rallies.

Some day I hope to look back and take pride in that I stood against this movement.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

An analogy I read is that it's wise to ignore Trump's methods because he'll get things done. Something about when a pack of rabid raccoons infest your basement you'll hire the best person for the job without a concern for his many issues. This outsider position is what appeals to them. His credentials are cited as honesty and having no ties to anyone.

I have conservative friends who mostly hate Congress more than any President and in this way they show true insight (IMO.) But they want a messiah or more accurately a boss who will "King" things into oblivion or "fix" everything that's Wrong With America.

Quote
Ombligo
Some day I hope to look back and take pride in that I stood against this movement.

I'd prefer to think that one day we'll look back at this as an aberration, a disruption in the political continuum, one most of us will have thankfully forgotten or even recall ever existed.

Given my batting average with political prognostications and hopes, even I would have to bet the other way. The odds of winning by betting against my political choices are such a sure thing that it would bring tears to the eyes of the hardest of bookies while sending them running thankfully to Jesus.

I think there is a chance this whole thing is becoming exaggerated. There are a lot of people pissed off because they haven't had a raise in 15 years. (Or since Reagan lifted their wallets instead of their boats). Expressing anger is not necessarily a retreat to a goose-stepping totalitarianism.

Quote
Steve G.
I think there is a chance this whole thing is becoming exaggerated. There are a lot of people pissed off because they haven't had a raise in 15 years. (Or since Reagan lifted their wallets instead of their boats). Expressing anger is not necessarily a retreat to a goose-stepping totalitarianism.

Most of the Germans who voted for Hitler in 1933 were not expecting what they got either.


Edit: thanks Rick

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2016 12:09PM by Ombligo.

Quote
Ombligo

Quote
Steve G.
I think there is a chance this whole thing is becoming exaggerated. There are a lot of people pissed off because they haven't had a raise in 15 years. (Or since Reagan lifted their wallets instead of their boats). Expressing anger is not necessarily a retreat to a goose-stepping totalitarianism.

Most of the Germans who voted for Hitler in 1933 were expecting what they got either.

Typo? I would think they weren't expecting what they got.

---

Mr. Lahey: A lot of people, don’t know how to drink. They drink against the grain of the liquor. And when you drink against the grain of the liquor? You lose.

Randy: What the @#$%& are you talking about?

I don't think it's valid to equate Germany of the time and the U.S.. If you take a look back 200 years from the 1930's in the history of each country, you'll find a totally different trajectory.

not to deny that when it comes to supporters, trump will not find himself short-handed

At the rally, Donald couldn't find anyone else to hold it.

Quote
Steve G.
I don't think it's valid to equate Germany of the time and the U.S.. If you take a look back 200 years from the 1930's in the history of each country, you'll find a totally different trajectory.

Chomsky thinks they might have similarities.

[www.rawstory.com]

And the interview-[www.alternet.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2016 03:15PM by Manlove.

The point is, you don't forget. What did that 1922 NYT story say? That Adolph was only wanting to engage people by using simple carrots. He wasn't going to actually carry out the stick.

Quoting Chomsky is the equivalent of quoting Ayn Rand...and just as useful.

I am struck by similarities, but as of now I'm inclined to think that people are becoming too hysterical about Trump. I can't stand him and if I was honest I would admit that I'd like to see him get shingles from head to toe and have to drop out of the race. But people are beginning to freak out beyond what is warranted at this point, acting as if our fate is sealed -- and I think this pleases Trump and his followers, and I think it gives him a bandwagon effect.

---

Quote
Steve G.
There are a lot of people pissed off because they haven't had a raise in 15 years. (Or since Reagan lifted their wallets instead of their boats).

A lot of that is TARP, demise of unions, and recently the cuts in government jobs since 2008. Which party hates unions? Which party is Trump? He sure isn't pro-union across the board (like letting his hotel workers unionize).

---

In tha 360. MRF User Map

BTW, Manlove linked to the OP's article in an earlier thread: [forums.macresource.com]

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
A lot of that is TARP, demise of unions, and recently the cuts in government jobs since 2008.

Government jobs in 2014 (latest data OPM has) are slightly higher than what they were in 2007 (pre financial crisis). In between government employment actually went up by 200k for several years (including both civilian and military).
[www.opm.gov]

The number of union members dropped from 15.7m in 2007 to 14.8m in 2015, while total employment went from 129.8m to 133.8m. Union membership dropped from 12.1% to 11.1% of the workforce.
(All Wage & Salary Workers) [unionstats.gsu.edu]

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.

Quote
Winston

Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
A lot of that is TARP, demise of unions, and recently the cuts in government jobs since 2008.

Government jobs in 2014 (latest data OPM has) are slightly higher than what they were in 2007 (pre financial crisis). In between government employment actually went up by 200k for several years (including both civilian and military).
[www.opm.gov]

Military pay is generally much lower on a yearly salary basis. Those results don't include state government jobs that were cut, or what the salary distribution was for those workers. New workers are usually hired at the lowest wage tiers.

Here are 5 Republican governors who trashed their states in the name of conservatism

---

In tha 360. MRF User Map

Quote
Filliam H. Muffman

Quote
Winston

Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
A lot of that is TARP, demise of unions, and recently the cuts in government jobs since 2008.

Government jobs in 2014 (latest data OPM has) are slightly higher than what they were in 2007 (pre financial crisis). In between government employment actually went up by 200k for several years (including both civilian and military).
[www.opm.gov]

Military pay is generally much lower on a yearly salary basis. Those results don't include state government jobs that were cut, or what the salary distribution was for those workers. New workers are usually hired at the lowest wage tiers.

Here are 5 Republican governors who trashed their states in the name of conservatism

Agreed, does not include state (and local) governments, which are significant. I thought the topic was about the Federal government.

---

------------------------
Be seeing you.