Hacker News Reader

Comment by krapp | Hacker News Reader

I think it's slightly more subtle than that ... he's playing to a feeling amongst certain demographics that their share of America's political, cultural and economic "birthright" has been stolen from them by "globalists" and their foreign allies, and that this need to be pushed back against to return the US to some (apocryphal and mythical) golden age.

He's not trying to negotiate as an equal but assert his dominance. He's turning over the tables of the moneychangers and running at the world with a sourge... or at least in his head and the hearts of some of his supporters, he is.

View on HN

I find this sort of comment very frustrating. Indeed there is some truth in it, but my frustration stems from a complete lack of any indication of the degree to which it is true, or the degree to which Trump supporters believe these things. There is no really good way of knowing what individual people are thinking in their minds, yet an alien reading forum comments might conclude we've mastered mind-reading technology.

> he's playing to a feeling

Implying any difference of political opinion is based on emotion, rather than logic or a simple difference of opinion. Sometime in the last 10 years or so did we decide The One True Proper Way To Run The World, but it wasn't reported in newspapers?

> that their share of America's political, cultural and economic "birthright"

They think certain things are a "birthright", as opposed to thinking (correctly or incorrectly) that it is something they have earned?

> has been stolen from them by "globalists" and their foreign allies

Why is globalists in quotes? In objective reality, is there not a fairly clear distinction between those who are more nationalist in their preferred approach to managing the world's affairs, and those who are more collective/globalist?

> and that this need to be pushed back against to return the US to some (apocryphal and mythical) golden age.

Must the motivation be returning to a "golden age"? I see the debate over nationalism vs globalism as little different than capitalism vs socialism. The US tends to be somewhat more towards the capitalist end of the spectrum, which yields some good results and some bad, I don't agree with the notion that any of that necessarily "belongs" or must necessarily be shared with the overall world. Demanding "charity" is extremely offensive to me. To be clear, I believe charity is very important and by my morality I essentially consider it a near obligation if things have worked out very well for you in life, but I simultaneously believe that it should be absolutely voluntary.

> He's not trying to negotiate as an equal but assert his dominance

This sounds lovely at first glance, until you put a little thought into it. Isn't this precisely how one should negotiate? Would you have us believe it is an accepted and widely practiced norm to negotiate in a manner that does not accentuate your strengths, in order to best achieve an agreement most beneficial to your goals?

> or at least in his head and the hearts of some of his supporters, he is.

Speculation on my part, but this seems fairly inline with the popular notion that Trump lacks or has lost his mental faculties, and his supporters are all motivated purely by uninformed emotions. Again, is an informed, logical, difference of opinion impossible?

>Implying any difference of political opinion is based on emotion, rather than logic or a simple difference of opinion.

No, it's implying that Trump's rhetoric has been primarily based on emotion rather than logic. If you can provide an argument that Trump's behavior has been primarily based on logic, I would like to read it. I have read his tweets and listened to his speeches though, and found plenty of evidence to the contrary.

>Why is globalists in quotes? In objective reality, is there not a fairly clear distinction between those who are more nationalist in their preferred approach to managing the world's affairs, and those who are more collective/globalist?

Because I find the term "globalist" to be invoked more often as a specter or bogeyman than to explicitly describe a particular and definite set of political principles - like "leftist" or "feminist", its use seems to have become so diluted and diffuse as to have lost any practical meaning.

>Must the motivation be returning to a "golden age"?

That is the primary motivation behind populism like Trump's, and what is "Make America Great Again" if not a hearkening back to some point in the past when America was "great", to which it must return? Otherwise, it would be "Make America Great," or "Make America Greater" or "Keep America Great."

>Isn't this precisely how one should negotiate?

I was being imprecise. He's arrogant, narcissistic and belligerent, insulting his allies and goading his enemies, and he works against his own purposes because the dominance he's trying to assert is one that doesn't exist. The world is not scared of him, nor does it appear to be intimidated by him.

>Again, is an informed, logical, difference of opinion impossible?

I did say some. You're talking about one camp, and I'm talking about another.

I would have loved for this last election to have been an intellectual debate about capitalism vs. collectivism, and the benefits and costs of progressivism and globalism. Unfortunately, it wasn't. We got "Crooked Hillary" and "Crazy Bernie" and "Build the Wall" and lots and lots of heat but very little light.

I can only assume that people who voted for Trump on some intellectual or rational political basis can only have done so because he was the only option afforded to them... but I do assert that the reason that became the case was his appeal to emotion, almost in spite of intellect. Those people should be more disappointed in him than anyone.

Hmmm, on one hand what you've written seems perfectly reasonable, but on the other hand I remain triggered. Perhaps breaking up your sentences into constituent parts was not as illustrative as I thought.

Let's see if I can figure out why I'm still triggered. For productivity, I will try to steelman your words.

- "No, it's implying that Trump's rhetoric has been primarily based on emotion rather than logic." - Agreed.

- "Because I find the term "globalist" to be invoked more often as a specter or bogeyman than to explicitly describe a particular and definite set of political principles - like "leftist" or "feminist"" - I see the point, yet at the same time, I wonder if you sincerely acknowledge that there is a genuine spectrum between nationalist and globalist preference. To me it seems obvious and no less controversial than capitalist vs socialist.

- "That is the primary motivation behind populism like Trump's, and what is "Make America Great Again" if not a hearkening back to some point in the past when America was "great", to which it must return? Otherwise, it would be "Make America Great," or "Make America Greater" or "Keep America Great."" - Here I disagree. Now, there's no doubt this statement, and the schtick around it is deliberately vague in order to nicely fit into a wide variety of world views (some racist I imagine). But where I (seem to) disagree with you is I don't detect a belief that it could be anything but a return to ~the good ole slave owning days. America, and the whole world, has changed drastically in the last few decades, there are all sorts of completely unoffensive things that it would be beneficial to return to. I wonder if this is psychologically similar to the "racist dog whistle" some people hear everywhere.

- "I was being imprecise. He's arrogant, narcissistic and belligerent, insulting his allies and goading his enemies, and he works against his own purposes because the dominance he's trying to assert is one that doesn't exist. The world is not scared of him, nor does it appear to be intimidated by him." - here I mostly disagree (other than the belligerent & insulting part), but I suspect this one would be irreconcilable.

If you're wondering why I go through the effort to write the above nonsense, it's because I agree with your next statement:

> I would have loved for this last election to have been an intellectual debate about capitalism vs. collectivism, and the benefits and costs of progressivism and globalism. Unfortunately, it wasn't. We got "Crooked Hillary" and "Crazy Bernie" and "Build the Wall" and lots and lots of heat but very little light.

I have a feeling if we don't identify what the root causes (ie: your words, which I suspect seem perfectly appropriate and accurate to you, "trigger" me in a psychological manner that isn't a simple disagreement, and undoubtedly this occurs on the other side of the spectrum) of the incredible political polarization, this problem is going to get MUCH worse before it gets better. A Trump can likely only get elected in this type of environment (see: https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/), and if the same environment exists two years from now, it vastly improves his chances for reelection.

That's his populist position that gets him the cheering crowds, but his trade position is based on his complete misunderstanding of how international trade works, how tariffs are a tax on US consumption, and his misconception that trade is a zero sum game, that for every "winner" there is a "loser".

Ford isn't going to import the Focus from China, because of Trump's misguided policies. They will sell the production elsewhere. The US is deprived of an efficient small car, but it hasn't gained any employment, production or anything else.

Harley Davison will move production of motorcycles to be sold in the EU to the EU and elsewhere. This deprives the US of manufacturing and the associated jobs. It doesn't deprive the EU of Harley Davisons.

> America's political, cultural and economic "birthright" has been stolen from them

Hasn’t it? Imagine if the trillion+ spent in Iraq+Afghanistan had instead been invested in infrastructure in the US.

> He's not trying to negotiate as an equal

What makes you think that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com