Having talked to some Trump supporters, and generally speaking I live around some, I really hope that HRC, the DNC, and pretty much anyone else they’ve got in their camp do NOT get too complacent about beating the Donald, because there is a big dynamic going on here in the race, which is the rise of alternate media and the alternate reality it creates. Here, let me give you an example:
www.forbes.com/… Romney beats Truman!
You could write this one off as Steve Forbes being Steve Forbes, in an alternate universe, cherry picking facts to fit his worldview, and the result of the election would bear you out. You also can make a case that most of his “facts” are distortions or fabrications. But there is a much more disturbing trend that this is evidence of: People are now living and working based on separate interpretations of facts. They’re not just working off separate facts, they’re working off separate INTERPRETATIONS of facts, creating an entire world view and reality, complete with heroes, villains, and story lines. This is highly dangerous. After all, in most people’s minds, if something is a “fact,” it can’t be argued.
I work in China. I’m teaching at a high school. I see the effect this creates in people’s minds. For example, history in China is taught through a Marxist lens. When teaching World War I to 9th graders, the book essentially described World War I as a brawl between capitalist powers trying to vie for the #1 spot. From my perspective, ethnic tensions, nationalism and militarism also played key roles, as well as the temperament of the rulers themselves. Nationalism and militarism only got one paragraph out of 5 pages of explanation. The effect this creates is to drill in student’s minds is that wars are fought strictly for money. When I explained the reasons the U.S. entered the war, they were completely floored by Woodrow Wilson, the 14 points, the Zimmerman telegram, and the debate over the League of Nations; after all, didn’t the U.S. enter just for the money?
Does that mean the Marxist view is all lies? No! The book had tables of the number of colonies each country had, how much of the world population was under imperialist sway, etc.. It detailed the economy of each country, Britain reliant on cotton imports, etc. You couldn’t dispute the numbers and facts, it’s just emphasis and interpretation paint different pictures. However, the presentation looks objective enough that the average student is going to accept it.
The Right-Left spectrum has been disrupted. Trump supporters and many right wingers now operate in a different world. They are still tethered to some form of facts. There was an Orlando shooter. He was Muslim. He had an AR-15 (or whatever, I’m no gun expert, so fill in what it actually is here). How do they interpret this?
#1. Well if someone were at the scene with a gun, it would have been easier to shoot him. If he’s dead, no one can get shot.
#2. Currently in the world, Muslims extremists are the main cause of terrorist attacks, so excluding them would automatically make us safer.
#3. Since point #2 would work so well, clearly the only reason to be against #2 is because you are trying to undermine America.
#4. America is a strong nation. It has a great military and is unique in the world.
#5. Orlando happened, which means that someone must be doing something that undermines America’s power, because we shouldn’t have to have these negative experiences.
Now I know many of you are foaming at the mouth at this breakdown in logic (and it is, don’t get me wrong). But this is essentially much of their thinking, and in many cases, they take these statements to be facts. Emotionally satisfying facts, but that is how Trump rose to power. Can you refute any of the facts logically? I’m sure you can. Can you say, for example #2, just isn’t true? Yeah. Can you refute any of the facts and not leave someone feeling like America isn’t the greatest nation on earth and that Americans deserve security because they are entitled to that status?
His speeches are masterful. If you actually listen to them, reveal the background assumptions his followers have, and he plays them like fiddles. When he said that the President spent more time criticizing him than criticizing the attacker (whereas Trump solidly repudiated the attacker), it further reinforced points #3 and #5 from above. The more the President attacks Trump as divisive, the more he plays into the narrative that he doesn’t care about America.
We are wringing our hands about Trump’s lack of organization and how top Republicans are dumping him. We are painting him as divisive, reckless, and against the American values of equality and inclusiveness. I don’t know if this will work. Why? Half of Americans think a temporary ban on Muslims is okay.
thehill.com/…
Because of a different interpretation of the facts. People are part emotional, part logical. Donald Trump is tapping into it, and he does it all on his own. RNC not needed. I really think President Obama and HRC need to step up their game a bit, and take him extremely seriously. The man creates whole words with one breath, and if they can’t do the same, more and more Americans are going to fall in to a separate world.