The Supreme Stickiness of Trump's Supporter Base

TRUMP BITS:

(a) In the Ring / On the Stage

     "I'm a total act", Trump told Anthony Scaramucci, "and I don't understand why people don't get it".

[Insights from BS Day & A Wedderburn, 2022,

'Wrestlemania! Summit Diplomacy and Foreign Policy Performance after Trump', 

International Studies Quarterly, <doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac019>].

     "Trump gravitated towards wrestling throughout his business career. Indeed, in a life marked by vacillation and inconstancy toward everyone except himself, the recurring presence of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) is a striking anomaly. Trump's resorts frequently hosted WWE events, Trump himself regularly lent his celebrity to WWE promotions, and he even performed in prominent wrestling storylines. The association not only survived Trump's political ascendancy but thrived during his time in office. In 2016, WWE's majority owners Vince and Linda McMahon ― contemporary pro-wrestling's de facto ruling family ― donated seven million dollars to Trump's presidential campaign (AP 2016). This outlay was presumably offset by Linda's 2017 appointment as the head of the Small Business Administration, a post she left in April 2019 to take up the chair of America First Action, a 'super PAC' dedicated to Trump's reelection ..." 

FOUR KEY TERMS IN PRO-WRESTLING

1. and 2.  heat  and  heel.

     "To play the heel is to play the antagonist, and the success with which a wrestler plays this role can be measured by the amount of rambunctious disapproval or censure, known as heat, that he or she is able to provoke in his or her audience. This means trash-talk outside the ring and seeking advantage at all costs within it, including by skulduggery or cheating if necessary. It means being relentlessly untrustworthy to the point of sociopathy, breaking the rules when to do so promises victory, and appealing to them when in need of their protection. When all else fails, it means being a bad loser, decrying any defeat as an injustice or a stitch-up ... 

     Heat is the centripetal force that pulls all eyes inward, toward the ring's squared circle and the drama that occurs within and around it ...

     That Trump can effectively and reliably induce other's outrage in this way is clearly a large part of his appeal for those who perceive him to be on their side ― "
 

     "My whole life has been heat. I like heat, in a certain way." (Trump 2018).

3.  kayfabe.

     "Refers to the pretension of authenticity that underpins wrestling performance ...

     Some journalistic pieces exploring Trump's historical association with WWE have picked up on kayfabe as indicative of wrestling's 'fakeness' or 'phoniness'; the assumption being that wrestling fans are 'marks', incapable of recognising the staged nature of the spectacle in front of them. In fact, however, kayfabe is an illusion maintained consciously and collaboratively between wrestlers and their audience: like any theatergoing crowd, wrestling fans are willing temporarily to suspend their disbelief in order to be entertained ...

     Unlike many of his rivals, Trump directly addressed audiences as audiences, inviting them to deride the naturalistic ['normal' or well-mannered] repertoires of his rivals ..."

     "Anybody can 'act presidential'", Trump said at a rally in 2018, walking soberly up and down the stage a couple of times and delivering a few stuffy platitudes by way of proof. "It's a lot easier to 'act presidential' than to do what I do".

4.  cut a promo

     "In wrestling, to cut a promo is to deliver an in-character 'vox pop', usually with the intention of 'trailing' an upcoming bout or developing an emerging 'angle' [or storyline]. A good promo should further a wrestler's own brand, capture the essence of the conflict in which they are consumed, promote any upcoming bouts, belittle any prospective opponent, and assure their fans of certain triumph ...

     ... Trump would assiduously disrupt diplomatic norms with a total disregard for the heat these moves would generate in the foreign policy establishment ... this disregard stemmed from Trump's vision of himself as both protagonist and hero of his own dramatic universe ... a vision that informed his framing of any potential engagement [with a foreign  leader] as a highly personalised contest ..."

     "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times'. Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"

SUMMARY: While many people around the globe view Trump's behaviour on the hustings as grotesque, a considerable proportion of Americans are not offended. They have developed an allegiance to Trump's style because it is a recognisable, non-threatening form of theatricality. His confident delivery of blatant dishonesty is not interpreted as insincerity but as a unique type of authenticity ― to a 'home' audience it is an insider-joke, a unifying 'us versus them' performance that (counter-intuitively) 'says it like it is' without fear of contradiction. Trump simply ignores the judgments of accepted social authorities ('elites') and continues in his scripted melodrama as if no other realities exist.

(b)  "Authentic"  Trump  Vs  'Signalling  Virtue'

       'We're gonna be tough, we're gonna be smart, we're not gonna be so politically correct, 'cause politically correct stuff is killing us.'

 

[Insights from Ori Schwarz, 2023, 'Why did Trump call prayers politically correct: The coevolution of the PC notion, the authenticity ethic, and the role of the sacred in public life', Theory and Society, <doi.org/10.1007/s1186-023-09518-3>].

     "At a press conference on March 18, 2016, after having won the Michigan and Mississippi primaries, then president-candidate Donald Trump was asked by NBC News reporter Peter Alexander: 'using the A-word, the S-word, the D-word, the F-word ― is that presidential? are you embarrassed by that?'

     Trump first remarked that criticism of this kind actually helps his election campaign; but when Alexander added that 'a lot of parents are trying to figure out how to explain some of the language they're hearing on the campaign trail', Trump did not bother defending himself from this accusation. Instead, he attacked Alexander sarcastically, saying:
     'Oh, you're so politically correct, you're so beautiful.

      Oh, look at you. Awwww. Awwww. He's soooooooo...

      Oh, I know, you've never heard a little bad, a little off language.

      I know, you're so perfect. Aren't you perfect? Aren't you just a perfect young man?

      Give me, Give me a break. You know what? 

      It's stuff like that that people in this country are tired of'.

Trump obviously did not like the question posed to him. It is much less obvious why he called it 'politically correct' ..."

     "This dialogue is about rule-breaking. It begins with an accusation: Alexander cited a social rule that prohibits cursing and taboo words and pointed to the obvious fact that Trump had broken it systematically ... Yet ... Trump did not try to reconcile his style with moral rules or sacred ideals ... Rather than excuse himself or engage in a remedial ritual, he derisively attacked his interviewer and his pretension to speak on behalf of society and defend its virtues and sacred values. Trump's strategy was to unmask the selfish, ulterior motives behind the apparently innocent, disinterested question. According to Trump, Alexander only asked the question to show he was a better person than Trump; one who, unlike Trump, is committed to sacred moral rules and their defense; one who, by being appalled by foul language, implies that he is hardly ever exposed to it in his fine milieu. Trump's mocking revealed the fact this (assumedly ingenuine) impression served Alexander's symbolic interests. Uncovering these allegedly hidden motives allowed Trump to completely ignore the literal question, as it was revealed as a mere cover for something else ..."

     "As a populist leader, Trump claimed to represent the common people and cast Alexander as the ... representative ... of the educated elites who tell ordinary people how they should behave and feel, while falsely claiming disinterestedness ...

     Simply put, his powerful message was educated liberals criticise my (and my supporters') style only to feel and seem better than us; to construct themselves as 'so perfect'. In this case at least, the alleged sin of PC is ... the use of these restrictions to put others in their place and thus reproduce and justify symbolic social hierarchies ...

     Trump avoided remedial rituals that would have reaffirmed his commitment to shared ideals, and instead attacked the demand to show deference to these ideals as 'PC' and self-interested."

THREE OTHER SHAMS OF DISINTERESTEDNESS

1. Prayers.

    'In June 2016, in a meeting with evangelical Christian leaders ... Trump said:

    "Some of the people are saying , let's pray for our leaders."

     I said, "You can pray for your leaders, and I agree with that, pray for everyone.

     But what you really have to do is pray to get everyone out to vote for one specific person.

     We can't be politically correct a say we pray for all our leaders because all your leaders      
      are selling Christianity down the tubes and selling evangelicals down the tubes,

      and it is a very bad thing that is happening."

2. Fairness.

    'To better understand what makes prayers politically correct ... look at another surprising object that Trump labelled PC. In a series of remarks ... between December 2019 and March 2020, Trump criticised Fox News for choosing to interview his political rivals.

     "Fox is trying sooo hard to be politically correct."

     "They want to be politically correct, they end up interviewing more Democrats than

       Republicans ... pathetic ..."

     "[Fox is] trying so hard to be very politically correct or fair and balanced, right, is the term.

       But I think they hurt themselves, if you want to know the truth."

     'Trump's rhetoric presented these universalist pretensions as nothing but hypocrisy. Furthermore, inviting your political rivals to present their views on air is presented as just a bad deal, in which an actual good (precious airtime) is sacrificed for a symbolic good, a noble facade, with no real-world returns (such as ratings or political power) ... Instead he framed any pretense of fairness as ... a strategic lie ... and used PC as a codeword ... to defend his own refusal to follow abstract rules or show public deference to such values ...'

3. Politeness.

     '... Trump's PC critique suggests that these gestures are hypocritical and hence morally wrong, unlike open self-interestedness ... in a meeting with North Carolina businessmen on September 23, 2015, Trump discussed the price he may have to pay for his refusal to make conventional statements expressing respect and appreciation of his rivals ...

     "So [Marco Rubio] announces he's gonna run, and they go to Jeb [Bush]. 'What do you think of Marco Rubio?' 'He's my dear friend, he's wonderful, he's a wonderful person, I'm so happy that he's running'. Give me a break! [pause, audience laughter] That's called politicians' speak. Then they go to Marco. 'What do you think of Jeb Bush?' 'Oh! he's great! he's brought me along, he's wonderf...' They hate each other, but they can't say it! They hate each other! ... It really does bother each me when I see them, and I see Jeb, and maybe that's what you want, and maybe that's the kind of people that are going to get elected, to be honest. Maybe they don't want a straight-talker."

SUMMARY:  Trump openly displays his suspicion of any claim to objectivity or neutrality. Not being polite to political competitors, refusing to pray for them, and even using bad language, are "nothing short of demonstrations of a moral backbone". Being abusive and rude become expressions of Trump's emotional sincerity, in radical contrast to the slick platitudes of professional politicians. As unlikely as it may seem, his outspoken opposition to the nuances and norms of democratic society resonate powerfully with his audience of God-fearing (but alienated) Americans.

(c)  'He's nothing but a bullshitter'  (Barak Obama 2016)

       'Don't be so overly dramatic about it ... our press secretary ... gave alternative facts to that ... the point really is ...'   (Kellyanne Conroy 2017)

[Insights from Marco Jacquemet, 2019, '45 As A Bullshit Artist: Straining For Charisma', Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, No. 235, <creativecommons.org>].

     "As the Princeton University philosophy professor Harry Frankfurt put it in a famous essay (2005), to lie presumes a kind of awareness of and interest in the truth ― and the goal is to convince others that the false thing you are saying is in fact true. Trump,more often than not, isn't interested in convincing anyone of anything. He's a bullshitter who simply doesn't care about the veracity of his statements, as long as they boost his image ...
      Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting. Although both the liar and the bullshitter try to get away with something, the bullshitter says things not necessarily with the goal of lying but rather with no concern for their accuracy. This, according to Frankfurt, is the essence of bullshit (BS): it is spoken without any concern for the truth. It can be true or false, but the speaker does not really care ... the bullshitter is indifferent to the truth of what he is saying ...

     What a bullshitter cares about is accomplishing positive image management through speech. The bullshitter's goal is not to convince others of the facts. It is, rather, to shape his listeners' beliefs and attitudes about himself."

     "BS is a performance, and good performances echoed by others not only may give those who repeat them some reflected glory but also produce a multiplying effect that extends the reach of the initial performance, exposing in a viral manner more and more people to it, and consequently amplifying the bullshitter's seduction ...

     This mediatized BS then becomes a test of his audience's loyalty, both in terms of personal loyalty and political loyalty. Vox's commentator Matthew Yglesias suggests that Trump's BS is a loyalty test precisely because it asks his followers and members of his administration to do something nutty: namely, sign on to his outrageous nonsense.

     'Trump not only keeps bullshitting, he tends to demand that his team offer a zealous defense of whatever bullshit he happens to spout on any given day ― putting staffers and legislative allies in the untenable position of defending the indefensible.' (Yglesias 2017).

     But defend him they do. One thing that BS has in common with lying is its ability to create a community willing to believe (or at least perform belief) in the speaker, providing cover to his statements, and live in the world created by his words. In so doing, communities are glued together and people are incited to act, sometimes violently."

(d)   Creating the Chameleon ― Actual Convergence in Real Time

 

[Insights from Maria Stapfner, 2021, 'Just thank God for Donald Trump ― Dialogue practices of populists and their supporters before and after taking office', Journal of Pragmatics, 136, 308-320, <doi.org/15.1016/j.pragma.2021.30.003>].

 "a performative act that brings into being what it purports to represent"

"populist movements can only be successful if a mutual rapport can be built between the populist leader and a group of supporters who actively construct themselves as embodiments of the inherently vague and unspecified concept of 'the people' that the populist addresses" 

     "In other words, populist supporters are not simply a malleable mass of people who are manipulated and misled by a charismatic leader, but are social agents who are actively engaged in the creation and maintenance of populist movements."

The Populist:

"The following qualitative analysis is based on 57 tweets  by Donald Trump and 398 tweets by his supporters ... published 6 months before and 6 months after the leader gained power ...In 14 days of two stratified constructed weeks, Trump posted 57 tweets, of which 38 (an average of 5.4 tweets per day) were posted before, and 19 (an average of 2.7 tweets per day) after his official inauguration on January 20, 2017 ... One of Trumps most successful tweets within the constructed week in the run-up for the election ... was able to generate 6,045 replies, 15,662 retweets, and 39,168 likes:

'I am running against the Washington insiders, just like I did in the Republican Primaries. These are the people that have made U.S a mess!'  (@realDonaldTrump,09.08.2016)

 

The tweet builds on the opposition between Trump, referred to with the first-person pronoun 'I', and the political establishment, referred to as the 'Washington insiders', and subsequently the distance generating demonstrative pronoun 'these' ... 

Trump's primary aim is to convince the US-American people that he is the right man [to be] in the Oval Office, by posting arguments that discredit his opponents while praising his own personality and his decision-making skills ...

92% of all tweets posted before and 83% of all tweets posted after his inauguration contain positive and/or negative ethotic arguments ..."

A CRASH COURSE IN ETHOTIC ARGUMENT

The 'image' that an audience holds of a populist leader is called ethos.

A political speaker aims to 'construct' a positive image of him/her-self while trying at the same time to undermine an opponent or oppositional groups (create a negative other).

The negative form of ethotic argument, also known as ad hominen, has five variants:

(i) abusive, personal attack on opponent's honesty, judgment, perception, intelligence, or morals.

(ii) accusation of inconsistency or contradiction between what opponents says and does.

(iii) questioning impartiality, alleging prejudice or bias.

(iv) counter attacking with same ad hominem arguments.

(v) 'poisoning the well', condemning ideological or ethical background, 'evil origins'.

The Supporters

"Turning to Trump's supporters on Twitter and how they converge with ... their political leader, the following diagram shows that the share of negative ethotic arguments in supporters' tweets increases considerably after Trump's election.

Before the election, about one fourth of supporters' tweets contain no ethotic arguments, as they encourage others to vote for Trump or express their support for Trump without giving any reasons ...

'We voted today for Trump by absentee ballot. Please vote for Trump/Pence too!'  (2016)

One fourth of their tweets is dedicated to praising the ethos of their political leader, claiming  the absolute trustworthiness of their populist 'Messiah' ...

'You are the Sun dispelling the clouds of economic and political darkness! You will. win because light dispels darkness!  (2016)

After the election, supporters focus on Trump's personal moral standards, (e.g. his intransigence and his love for the United States), to maintain their support for a president who was by then already embroiled in a series of investigations. What is more, the ethical standards that supporters attribute to Trump converge with their own ethos ...

'Never in a million years would real conservatives give up. Only weak people lose their faith.' (@[follower]17.05.2017)

Attacking the ethos of Trump-critic interlocutors becomes in fact the main task for followers during Trump's Presidency. Opposing views on Twitter are targeted by all kinds of abusive ad hominem arguments, yet most often based on veracity ...

'DON'T WORRY ABOUT THESE TWEETERS WITH THE FAKE NEWS. I GUESS THEY DON'T WORK SINCE THEY HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO TWEET'. (2017)

on cognition ...

That would be haters of Trump who, individually or collectively, happen to have low IQs. Sadly, that seems to describe many people'. (2017)

and moral standards,

The most embarrassing people on the planet are the cry baby liberals. You're why Trump won ... so please, keep up the ridiculous behaviour'. (2017)

portraying them as incapable of leading a rational debate ... As far as convergence or divergence strategies are concerned, it seems as if Trump supporters adopt the President's preference for eristic [strife or controversy] dialogues in which participants do not aim for a solution or a fact-based argument, but merely want to gain the upper hand within the debate ... [T]he constellation of interlocutors changes after the election, as his followers congregate to defend Trump. As Trump supporters ... perceive the outgroup ... amidst them on Twitter, they converge either as individuals, using 'I', or as a collective, using 'we', and initiate a dialogic confrontation with the opponent on Twitter, addressing interlocutors directly with 'you' or the imperative form. The political leader at the same time becomes distanced as the defendant, referred to by name and/or the third person pronoun 'he' ...

 ...The following tweets provide a final impression of how populist supporters close ranks against anyone one who questions their belief in their political messiah.

'We the People love ❤ President Trump! Don't care about U have 2 say ...' (2017)

'We are standing with him, there is no difference. He is working for us, when are you going to realise you can't stop us.' (2017)

'Just thank God for Donald Trump.' (2017)  ."

Discussion and Conclusion

"... on Twitter, Trump's supporters seem to adopt and thus converge with the [belligerent] dialogue style of their political leader, as the share of negative ethotic arguments significantly increase in the first six months of Trump's presidency...

    Donald Trump himself creates and nourishes a schism based on an utterly divisive populist vision of the United States in which he as the genuine and authentic patriot stands against a corrupt elitist establishment, consisting of all those who oppose him.

    Trump-friendly users, in turn, form a speaker collective by converging around their unconditional, almost dogmatic trust in their political leader, and by 'performing' the concept of 'the people' as the true and adamant Americans who not only fight fight against the 'rigged system', but also against all critical voices in the political discussions at hand. 

... [abusive] ethotic arguments combine in online-dialogues not only to establish a rapport between populist leader and follower, but, maybe even more importantly, serve to perform and deepen the rift between populist supporters and opposing views as intransigent collectives."