I started this article in July with the genuine hope of putting myself in the mind of a Trump supporter, to understand their motivation. I have failed miserably. It’s mid-September now, and I am still suffering from writer’s block. Despite buying a MAGA hat, wearing it in public, visiting conservative websites, and watching Fox News, I still can’t get into the mindset of a Trump supporter. Especially after the recent Trump-Harris debate.
It’s a pity because, as a history student – I would never dare to call myself a « historian » – and as an intelligence analyst, I’ve always tried to put myself in others’ shoes, to understand their motivations, and to apply a rational filter to decisions that might seem senseless, inconceivable, or even childish.
In politics, I was taught that the majority of foreign actors act rationally, even if we might think they are simply crazy or disconnected from reality. Two examples: First, Kim Jong Un’s obsession with nuclear weapons. Beyond what might be seen as a deep fascination of a small, uncharismatic man dominating the world, Kim’s obsession with nuclear weapons has a very significant rational side: the bomb allows him to deter external and internal threats and helps him to « be someone » on the global stage. Have you heard of Malawi? Probably not. Yet Malawi and North Korea have similar dimensions and populations. One matters on the global stage, the other does not. That says it all.
The second example is Iran under the Ayatollahs. I’ve lost count of the number of supposedly serious books from primarily right-wing American think tanks that argue that Iranian leaders are raving lunatics who want to dominate the world and only understand threats and hard lines. They are depicted as completely irrational beings who harbor a sacred fire driving them to annihilate the West at any cost. This is a reductive and simplistic view that fails to capture the complexity of their religious and political project. Like Kim Jong Un, Iran’s nuclear program is mainly aimed at giving the Ayatollahs prestige and political weight, allowing them to preserve the regime and maintain Iranian influence on the international stage.
Returning to Trump supporters, and more broadly to those who will vote for Trump in November, it is estimated that around 60 to 70 million people will vote for the former president. What are they looking for in him, what do they see in him? There must be rational explanations. I am trying.
At the core, many Americans are lifelong Republicans or Democrats; regardless of the candidate, their vote goes to the party. These people are steadfast supporters, often across generations. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that some Americans will not vote for a woman as president. Moreover, a Black woman. Moreover, a multiracial woman. The reality also includes, in all democracies, extreme-right supporters, racists, misogynists, xenophobic citizens: in short, all those Hillary Clinton lumped into a « basket of deplorables. » It’s a powerful image, certainly, but ultimately quite reductive.
Excluding Republicans by birth and the deplorables, there are still millions of individuals who will make the « rational » choice to vote for Trump, with all the contradictions that this may entail in their minds. Who are they and what are they looking for?
Many Trump supporters adhere to his policies, notably his stance on immigration, his protectionist economic policies leading him to impose high tariffs on imports – without a thorough analysis of the actual consequences, but that’s another story – and his appointment of conservative judges to various courts. These policy examples greatly differentiate him from his Democratic opponents. In conservative, protectionist, and isolationist circles, Trump’s listed policies are highly valued.
Economically, his promises of tax cuts for the wealthy resonate with many voters; it is essential to understand the American mentality, which differs significantly from ours. In the United States, even the most impoverished have hope of one day reaching the top of the pyramid – the famous myth of the self-made man. Their logic is as follows: if the government is generous with the poor and demanding with the rich, these policies will turn against me when it’s my turn to swim in money. I am simplifying, but this perspective is very real and differs greatly from the more progressive view of Quebecers and Canadians in general.
Beyond economic policies and promises, other factors boost Trump’s candidacy. First, many voters have a very cynical view of politics and believe that the « elites » are disconnected from their reality. Trump tells them he is like them (!), that he will drain the swamp, fire the incompetent, and take on those who exploit the system. He stands out in an environment where political correctness prevails. He represents change, no matter how radical. Second, the media played a significant role in his first election and continues to do so. Trump sells; it’s as simple as that. This gives him a media position without any equivalent in modern political history. Trump garners millions of dollars for his media presence but actually benefits from a true bonanza in advertising, both from media that support him – like Fox News – and those that despise him deeply: CNN, The New York Times, and others.
Certain Trump policies and his dominance over the media and society in general ensure that he secures millions of votes.
Another aspect to consider is that there will be a percentage of voters who will vote for Trump because they associate Harris with the duplicity of the Democrats who, until the disastrous debate on June 27, insisted that President Biden was fit to lead the most powerful country in the world. This lie, perpetuated by the Democrats and much of the left-leaning media, was exposed during the infamous debate. If the Democrats lie about something as obvious and important as Biden’s fitness to serve, what else are they lying about? As a follow-up, some voters will not believe a word of Harris’s « new » political centrism, as demonstrated during her debate against Trump, and believe that if she is elected, she will revert to her old ways and govern as a committed progressive.
Beyond all these considerations, and I will say this as clearly as possible, the problem with Trump is that he is a highly narcissistic individual who LIES AS EASILY AS HE BREATHES. How can one trust him? How can one not see that he can lie to us too? How can one not see that Trump is there for Trump, and not for the American people? That he despises democracy, the institutions, and the « checks and balances » that were so dear to the Founding Fathers? He demands personal loyalty from everyone and admires dictators. Trump is, in a certain sense, a real danger to democracy. How can one miss this obvious fact right before our eyes? It deeply confounds me.
Can one go to a polling station and vote for a candidate while holding one’s nose? Personally, I cannot, and fortunately, as a Canadian, I will not have to. Beyond all the arguments that might someday lead me to vote for a candidate like Trump, for me, Trump is an aberration. He is a pathological liar, a deceitful individual, a misogynist, a racist, a divisive character, and a narcissist who despises democracy. Character matters. Regardless of other factors like success, wealth, or appearance, a person’s character is the basis on which they should be judged. No argument about his policies will change my mind on this. In 2016, I could understand why one might be tempted by change. Not anymore. The gap is too wide between my view of politics and that of those who vote for Trump. Some of my American friends will vote for Trump, and that’s their right. Although I don’t understand why, good people will vote for Trump.
I sincerely hope that in November, a majority of Americans will choose a candidate who, despite her weaknesses, seeks to unite rather than divide.
Eric,
Reading your post prompted me to consider another French take on American elections. Alexis de Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’ predates yours by a few hundred years but despite the passage of time, it uncovers some similarities. Two things spring to mind. The first was his view of election time in the US. Tocqueville said that when an election is coming in the US, it feels like the river of democracy is about to burst its banks – ‘The entire nation falls into a feverish state; the election is then the daily text of the newspapers, the subject of particular conversations, the goal of all reasoning, the object of all thoughts, the sole interest of the present’…imagine if X was around in Tocqueville’s day… Once the election happens, the river subsides and life goes on. Despite all the sound and fury of the election, things will return to ‘normal’. The second, and perhaps more prescient observation, was that in David Runciman’s words, America had a faith in the future that outpaced every other nation. This led to the moral hazard that Americans ‘did not feel they were necessarily responsible for their mistakes because they lived in a society so bustling, so dynamic, where things were changing so fast, that even their mistakes would soon be washed away by progress’. That was, for Tocqueville, the glory of American democracy but also the risk. Given we now see Trump 2.0, you’d have to admit that Tocqueville may have been on to something.
As usual, an engaging post mon ami. Thanks for putting it out there.
Kind regards
Chip