Trump and His Voters: They Like the Lie

For almost a decade, our world has been shaped and distorted by the lies of Donald Trump. He slithered his way into the White House eight years ago and was expelled four years later by popular demand. Yet like a monster in a horror film, he was not dispatched for good. He defied norms and the Constitution and attacked American democracy. He failed in his underhanded effort to overturn the election, but he succeeded in persuading millions of our fellow citizens to believe the baseless conspiracy theory that he had been swindled out of victory by a nefarious cabal of Deep State actors, the Democrats, the media, and other evildoers. That was quite the accomplishment. During his presidency, according to the Washington Post, Trump had made at least 30,573 false or misleading statements. (And the newspaper did not fact-check all of his utterances.) Yet he still maintained the trust of a large chunk of Americans.

Trump is unparalleled in the annals of deception. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a New York University historian who studies authoritarianism, recently told me, “Trump is one of the most successful propagandists in history. He managed to convince tens of millions that he won a national election working not in a domesticated media system or a one-party state but in a fully pluralist media environment in a democracy. No one has ever done that on that scale. Also look at what he’s accomplished with the perception of January 6.”

As we approach yet another judgment day for Trump, like many of you, I remained puzzled by Trump’s ability to maintain his standing as a champion for so many Americans, despite his obvious lies and profoundly low and mean-spirited character. He’s a con man whose deceptions and hypocrisies are easy to detect (including his consequential lies about the pandemic and the assault on the US Capitol he incited). The question won’t fade: How does he get away with it?

Not long ago, I came across an academic study that sought to answer this question. In 2018, Oliver Hahl of the Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business and Minjae Kim and Ezra Zuckerman Sivan of the MIT Sloan School of Management published an article in the American Sociological Review titled “The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth About Political Illegitimacy.” As they put it, they were looking to explain “a puzzling pattern that has been discussed widely since the 2016 U.S. presidential election…[H]ow can a constituency of voters find a candidate ‘authentically appealing’ (i.e., view him positively as authentic) even though he is a ‘lying demagogue’ (someone who deliberately tells lies and appeals to non-normative private prejudices)?” In short, how to understand Trump’s popular support.

This trio noted that during the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton “was harmed by the perception that she was inauthentic.” Fairly or not, many voters saw her as motivated by self-interest and not honest. But, they write, Trump was “perceived by his supporters as appealingly authentic despite abundant evidence that (1) he was at least as sensitive to private self-interest as Clinton, with no corresponding record of public service; (2) he was considerably more prone to falsehood than Clinton; and (3) he deliberately flouted many norms that had been taken for granted for many years and were widely endorsed.”

After reviewing existing literature on populist demagogues and conducting a couple of studies, these three academics derived an explanation. Here it is (without the citations):

We argue that a particular set of social and political conditions must be in place for the lying demagogue to appear authentically appealing to his constituency. In short, if that constituency feels its interests are not being served by a political establishment that purports to represent it fairly, a lying demagogue can appear as a distinctively authentic champion of its interests. As first noted by [political scientist Seymour Martin] Lipset, such a “crisis of legitimacy” can emerge under at least two conditions: (1) when one or more social groups are experiencing what we call a “representation crisis” because the political establishment does not appear to govern on its behalf; and (2) when an incumbent group is experiencing a “power-devaluation crisis” because the political establishment is favoring new social groups over established groups. These scenarios broadly reflect the basis for populist ideologies that promote a “politics of resentment,” whereby the aggrieved constituency comes to believe that the establishment’s claim to represent the interests of the “real people” belies an ulterior agenda they feel powerless to stop. As such, a candidate who engages in lying demagoguery can be perceived as bravely speaking a deep and otherwise suppressed truth. By flagrantly violating norms on which the establishment insists, and thereby earning the opprobrium of this establishment, the candidate appears highly committed to the interests of her constituency. By contrast, an earnest opposition candidate seems less authentic.

I would shorten their conclusion to this: Trump voters like the lying. Or, the lying is the point.

Trump’s boldly false proclamations—about himself, about his rivals and critics, about the world—are not a bug. They’re a feature. They demonstrate he is sticking it to the other side. To the elites, the media, the establishment, the government, academia, Hollywood, the libs, the woke crowd, the minorities, the...whoever it is his supporters resent, despise, or disregard. So if he lies about legal migrants eating pets, or about Kamala Harris being “low IQ,” not really Black, and a communist, or about schools performing gender-affirming operations on kids without their parents’ consent, or about doctors in Democratic states killing babies after they’re born, or about criminal gangs of foreign thugs conquering cities and towns across the Midwest, or about the US economy being a hellscape, or about his majestic accomplishments as president, or about evil Democrats purposefully bringing undocumented people (and criminals) into the United States to destroy the nation, or that you can’t cross the street these days without being mugged, raped, or killed, it doesn’t matter.

Certainly, some of Trump’s supporters buy his bunk. But I suspect many don’t care whether it’s true or not. For them, it’s truthy, in that it corresponds to what they feel and what they think may be true.

His wild assertions, narcissistic boasts, and offensive insults need not be factual. Trump’s ability to say whatever the hell he wants is not for his cultish followers only telling it like it is. It is a sign of strength. It’s his way of giving the finger to them. Trump is demonstrating that he does not play by the rules of the establishment that these people perceive (for an assortment of reasons) as the enemy. That’s the same reason they are not put off by—or even embrace—his crudeness, mean-spiritedness, bigotry, misogyny, and racism.

Trump’s lying and indecency are evidence to them that he will do whatever it takes to be their hero. And some Trumpers probably envy his ability to say whatever he wishes and escape the usual consequences. Trump can pull all this off because millions want him to be able to pull it off. His lies are not merely a personal flaw. His manifold deceits and their acceptance by tens of millions are a sign that our politics, maybe our nation, is broken. How broken will be determined by what happens on Tuesday and in the days and weeks afterward.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

As previously announced, there will be Zoom get-together of Our Land readers on Sunday, November 3, at 7 p.m. ET. This will obviously be our last such huddle before Election Day. By now, you know the drill: These Zoom sessions are only open to folks who subscribe to the premium edition of Our Land. (You can do that here.) On the day of the event, premium subscribers will receive a Zoom invitation. Click on that at the appointed hour, and our well-trained Our Land bouncers will let you in. Until then, keep calm and carry on. As always, we give thanks to our premium subscribers. Without their financial support, this newsletter would cease to be. I encourage all our readers to join this loyal band so Our Land can continue to go strong after Election Day, no matter what happens.

I didn’t think in the final days of this bizarre campaign that we would have to worry about our public health system being taken over by a wacko. But we now know this is a possibility, and it’s emblematic of what could happen throughout government if Trump prevails. On Thursday, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the champion anti-vaxxer and proponent of much quackery and conspiracy theories, said that Trump promised him control of public health agencies should he become president. This would include the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Agriculture, and other parts of the federal government. That evening, Trump also declared he would place Kennedy in charge of “women’s health.”

Kennedy has claimed that no vaccine is safe and effective. So would this mean bringing back measles, polio, and other diseases? And imagine this: There’s another pandemic, and Kennedy leads the government’s response. The Washington Post has reported that Kennedy is already assembling a team of possible appointments for a second Trump administration. His list includes Michael Caputo, who was an HHS spokesperson during Trump’s presidency. Caputo, who accused HHS scientists of “sedition,” took medical leave and left the department in September 2020 after he claimed Joe Biden would steal the election and called on Trump supporters to prepare for an armed insurrection.

People should vote as if their life depended on it. It just might. And if you’re not convinced that Kennedy is bonkers, read this. (By the way, I managed to get Kennedy on the phone this week to ask what he thought of the racist joke about Puerto Rico that was told at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally, where Kennedy was a headliner. He declined to slam the remark and only said it was “unfortunate.”)

On Tuesday, I covered the speech Kamala Harris delivered at the Ellipse near the White House. It was a poignant scene: Harris declaring it would be dangerous to return to power a “petty tyrant” near the spot where Trump nearly four years ago incited the insurrectionist attack on the US Capitol. This moment reminded me that it’s quite a privilege to have a job in which I’m paid to witness history under construction.

There are three days to go, and you’re anxious:

So many dumbass remarks were said at Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally on Sunday that the judges considered offering an ensemble award to the GOP presidential nominee and his entire cast. There was much idiocy beyond the racist jokes from podcaster-comedian Tony Hinchcliffe that targeted Puerto Ricans, Blacks, Jews, and Palestinians. David Rem, a local MAGA activist, decried Harris as “the Antichrist.” Grant Cardone, a businessman, referred to Harris’ advisers as “pimp handlers” (as if she’s a prostitute). Trump adviser Stephen Miller proclaimed, “America is for Americans”—which happened to be a slogan for the Ku Klux Klan. And Tucker Carlson described Harris as a “Samoan-Malaysian low-IQ former California prosecutor.” It was a hatefest that accurately placed on display the dark heart and corrupted soul of Trump’s cult. With many Puerto Ricans in swing states, it could end up a decisive factor in a Harris victory.

Naturally, as the Harris campaign and the media responded in shock to this divisive ugliness, Trump’s allies ran into the breach to defend Dear Leader and his surrogates. Notable among these suck-ups was right-wing commentator Matt Walsh. Noting that Hinchcliffe was a “pretty equal-opportunity offender,” he huffed: “Were they offensive jokes? I mean, yeah, if you’re a whiny little baby, they’re offensive to you. If those jokes are offensive to you, you’re just a whiny, pathetic, ridiculous, sad sack of a human being...You’re just a ridiculous person and your opinion doesn’t matter.”

Racist, shooting-down, insult comedy is protected speech, and some people enjoy this sort of degrading humor. But this was not a performance at a comedy club show or an appearance on an edgy and raunchy podcast. It was an event to promote a candidate who is running, supposedly, to be president of all of America. Why should there be any racism or antisemitism present, as jokes or not? Walsh’s eff-you defense was another indication of what’s deeply wrong with MAGA. Its adherents believe that being offended by racism is worse than racism.

MAGA-ish manosphere influencer Jordan Peterson offered his own bizarre defense of Trump, hailing Trump’s supposed personal probity:

Where there is smoke, there is fire. Or so goes the cliché. This is sometimes but not always true. The converse may be something more reliable. Where there is absolutely no smoke, even though many hawk-eyed observers are not only watching but wishing for it to appear, there is perhaps truly no fire. Zero scandal within the Trump family is reminiscent for me of the zero wars of the Trump presidency. It’s something easy to take for granted, given its too easily invisible nonexistence, as it’s hard to be grateful for a problem you just don’t have. But it is a relief and another indication that the bombastic Donald J. has at least properly ruled his own roost. This is also no easy matter, as we have seen in the appalling family scandals of the Biden White House.

“Zero scandal within the Trump family,” as Trump has “ruled his own roost”? This is pure propaganda. Did Peterson miss Trump’s criminal conviction for falsifying business records to cover up his hush-money payments to a porn star with whom he allegedly had an affair? That was a rather hot fire of a scandal. There’s plenty more: Trump’s indictment for allegedly swiping top-secret documents, his indictment for trying to overthrow the 2020 election, the New York court ruling that he committed business fraud. And the list of scandals go on, including Trump University (a $25 million settlement), the Trump Foundation (a $2 million restitution payment), and assorted personal imbroglios.

As for the “zero wars” of the Trump presidency, Peterson was BSing about that, too. Earlier this year Trump declared, “I had no wars. I’m the only president in 72 years, I didn’t have any wars.” The Washington Post fact-checked his assertion:

At least 65 active duty troops died in hostile action in Trump’s presidency, the records show, as he ramped up commitments in Iraq and Syria to fight the ISIS terrorist group while also launching airstrikes on Syria as punishment for a chemical weapons attack. (During the [recent] town hall, Trump bragged, “We beat ISIS, knocked them out.”) Trump also escalated hostilities with Iran, including the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. Trump said at the time the strike was carried out in accordance with the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution of 2001.

Peterson, wrong on Trump scandals, wrong on Trump wars. On his website, Peterson declares, “When you have something to say, silence is a lie.” But sometimes he should just stick to silence.

On Tuesday night, Joe Biden, referring to Hinchcliffe’s racist jokes, said, “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters.” Or did he say “supporters’?” That is, was he calling Trump’s backers “garbage” or referring to the “garbage” Trump’s surrogates were swilling? MAGA-ites jumped on the comment and shouted foul, thinking they could turn this quip into a big to-do, reminiscent of the fuss triggered in 2016 when Hillary Clinton called some Trump fans “deplorables.” This erupted into a dumb controversy

Naturally, Trump got into the act:

Joe Biden finally said what he and Kamala really think of our supporters. He called them garbage. And they mean it—even though without question my supporters are far higher quality than Crooked Joe or Lyin’ Kamala. My response to Joe and Kamala is very simple. You can’t lead America if you don’t love Americans. And you can’t be president if you hate the American people.

Given that Trump has called Harris’ supporters “scum” and referred to his opponents as “evil” and “the enemy from within,” he was being hyper-hypocritical—which, the judges note, is far from shocking or noteworthy. Yet since this is the last DCotW before the election, they believe it’s appropriate to put aside the mercy rule and (dis)honor the man who could have placed first every single week of this grueling campaign. For lying stupidly about loving America, Trump wins bigly.