We, like many mainstream American citizens, share a feeling of mystery concerning the underlying basis for the apparently, large populist following of a repugnant personality such as the former President, Donald J. Trump. In past writing, we. for lack of a more cogent explanation, have suggested that his appeal was based upon the confluence of two factors, the populist eternal grievance and discontent, arguably, due to a less than satisfying life (the causes of which are projected to government, and others) and second, feelings of personally needed redemption, subjectively derived from a reductive perception of his miscreant statements and actions signifying that he was, in their behalf, “showing the middle finger” to the objectionable establishment.
While, to an extent, such conception may warrant a respectable degree of empirical validity, we are of the view that an alternate societal explanation may deserve a greater degree of verisimilitude. Viz., the desire for the personal security derived from a communally designated and accepted niche (“branding”), in the “group think,” of their social milieu.
It seems inconceivable to presume that such a substantial portion of the American population would, rationally and pragmatically, choose to be in his corner. It is reasonably predictable that, if asked, few if any of Trump’s plethora of sycophants would, candidly express personal approval of his serial acts of adultery with porn stars and prostitutes, his serial mendacity, his treasonous friendship with autocratic leaders of countries known to be enemies of America, tactical opposition to “truth,” his opposition to governmental assistance to the needy, his denigration of military service, specifically, his designation of wartime, captured, wounded and killed American servicemen as “losers” or “suckers,” his large tax cuts and self-interested acts of favoritism towards the rich, his opposition to labor unions and to health and safety regulations regarding labor, food, water and medicine, his illegal and unprincipled use of the Presidential office to deceitfully garner unconstitutional profit, his opposition to free trade economic policies, the latter subjects, resulting in increased employment and cheaper prices; all of which are matters of vital interest to the classic populist; as well as the demonstrated inventory of ubiquitous unprofessional and criminal acts to the extreme extent of treason against the United States.
There exists no conceivable possibility of a confluence of political or economic theory since, as shown, neither Trump nor his cultish followers have, empirically demonstrated the slightest degree of interest or motivation by political or economic theory and any doctrinaire mind-set. Trump’s own reductive persona is guided by no stimulus other than his neurotic egocentricity; his MAGA adherents are motivated by personally perceived grievance and mutual alliance.
Our contextual presumption is that his large coordinated following is due to empirically derived, or inherited adherence to nuanced social expectations, i.e., “branding.”
Regarding those individuals who lack the contemplative inclination or capacity to have developed a stable and referable self-image (in our view, accumulatively derived from inter-personal interaction), the assigned, or established, personal identity of the brand-identified MAGA cult populist appears to express itself in the coordinate, acceptable “group-think,” choices; personal identity and acceptance is existentially dependent upon conformity with the group’s joint endorsement of Donald J. Trump.
During our childhood in the Borough of Brooklyn, New York, it was no less than the commission of mortal sin to be branded a Yankee (Bronx) fan, rather than a booster of the Brooklyn Dodgers. We are identifiably known (‘branded”) by our personal choices. Is one, predictably, a drinker of coffee or tea? “Coke” or “Pepsi?” Do you favor savory or sweet menu choices? Vanilla or Chocolate? baseball or football, or both? Do you favor government authority or unrestricted liberty? Your publicly expressed position on issues of immigration, police, global warming, gun control, racial relations, formal education, the death penalty, women’s rights, environmental concerns, sports, labor unions, agricultural parity, military superiority, charity, arts and education, vaccination church and state, voting equity, racial and religious equality, work ethic, economic disparities, gender issues, marijuana use are singularly identified by your publicly assigned and accepted branding, whether or not consistent with your differentiated personal view. In such context, there is perceived to be, too much at personal stake to campaign or vote in accordance with a held, divergent opinion. The less taxing (and less principled), easiest and pragmatic route is to express your support to the candidate consistent with the group’s perception of your compliant brand.
Supporting a person for political office, founded upon one’s neurotic need for group social acceptance, rather than the candidate’s individual attributes, is a sad reflection of one’s equivocal self-image and, as well, an unhealthy exercise of existential irresponsibility respecting our precious and uniquely free, yet vulnerable, Democratic Republic.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 