According to the American theory of democracy, voting for President constitutes making a choice between two candidates, each respectively representing alternate philosophies on political, economic or social issues, for desired approval by the larger number of voting citizens. Fundamentally, a true republican democracy may be defined as a government’s policy of rule in accordance with the perceived will as expressed by the greater number of voting citizens. However, the bizarre abnormality of the Trump victory and performance has altered our perceptions and awakened us to an unprecedented, dysfunctional dynamic concerning the elective choices of a great many contemporary voters.
We, and knowledgeably many others, have puzzled and agonized over the millions of Americans who are expected to vote for Trump, despite his well-known incapacity regarding the stewardship of the Nation, both domestically and internationally, his rejection of accepted moral values, his serial mendacity, his lack of empathy towards the unfortunate, his lack of sufficient comprehension or acumen concerning his office, his lack of respect for academic education, gender and racial prejudice, absence of empathy and assistance toward the disabled and needy, his financial dishonesty, disloyalty to his Nation by transacting business with its historic enemies, his lethal malpractice concerning the pandemic, his denial of science, including global warming and the environment in general, and a plethora of other matters, not to overlook his tacit and shocking endorsement of White Christian Nationalism.
Moreover, President Trump has never given evidence of any held political, social or economic position, and it is authoritatively reported that he lacks doctrinaire beliefs on any subject. He is known, to act on and decide issues, ignorantly and impulsively, following the most recent advice proffered by any confident appearing faux savant. The latter being empirically demonstrated, the desire to support him, by elimination, must reside in considerations that are exclusively financial, cultural or sociological.
To digress for the purpose of offering an explanatory analogy, we would initially point to the sociology of small- town America. An assertion that all the residents of such a venue would root for the home team in any sporting contest would be to state the painfully obvious. Such unanimity of support would be solely based upon residence, as compared with any other criteria, such as considerations of proficiency or character. Not to do so, or far worse, to root for the opposing team would constitute unpardonable and, no doubt, unforgettable, residential treason.
Additionally, there exists an amorphous conglomerate of voters, not unlike the inhabitants of the small town, who consistently and loyally, vote for candidates thought to be (tribally) preferred by their group or supportive of its jointly held position. Crucial matters like the character and capability of the candidate is not relevant to their interest, which is solely focused on his perceived position on the specific topic of interest.
Polls taken and authoritative studies conducted, consistently indicate that young white men without college degrees (lower educated whites) tend to support Trump, while white young men with college and advanced degrees are opposed to him. The latter findings may indicate a self-conscious and mutually defensive tribal disrespect for education and academic achievement. It has been noted that it is within the groups of uneducated white young men that are those sharing the sentiments of the repulsive white Christian Nationalists, winked at by Trump, and guilty of many destructive incidents and even homicide.
Rural areas often populated by many inadequately educated and unsophisticated people evincing anti-Big City sentiment, will predictably favor Trump over any opponent. Common vulnerability to tactical demagoguery can lead to the displacement of blame for felt inadequacies and facilitate an identification with a less literate and unsophisticated candidate, regardless of capability and known low character.
We fully expect that anti-abortion and anti-gun regulation people to vote for Donald Trump since his opposition is publicly known to be in favor of a woman’s right to abortion and is a proponent of the prudent regulation of firearms. For similarly unjust and anti-societal reasons, people who privately harbor bias in their heart, will vote for Trump. These groups or tribes of single-issue voters, are willing to ignore or overlook considerations of poor character and incapacity.
A large conglomerate of people who are unrelated but who, in common, are angry and discontented with their life for various and sundry reasons and who uniformly, find it useful to employ the trite, face-saving predilection, to blame “the establishment” (?) for their failures, and who perceive Trump’s unorthodox, unprincipled acts and errant behavior as anti-establishment and thus relatable to their defensive assertions, will vote for him.
Large industrial polluters, in their own mutual pecuniary interest, will vote for Trump, regardless of how poor, unconscionable and embarrassing his performance in office, because he, like they, immorally and psychopathically, values profit above the life and health of citizens and thus opposes governmental health protective regulations.
The foregoing is certainly not presented as a complete accounting but, hopefully, is enough to be sufficiently illustrative of some of the personal motivations to vote for a President like Trump. The point especially to be noted, is that not one of the described criteria of the cited voting groups or interests relates to character or capability, but are instead, mono focused on the candidate’s position on issues with which they are concerned. Like the small towner’s eternal vote for the home team, such voter support is not related to any consideration of the performance record, the poor character of the candidate nor his views.