Trying to Explain the Trump Phenomenon

From the moment Donald Trump entered the race for the 2016 presidential election, the press and TV media have been flummoxed by the type of personal character and tactics he has introduced to American politics.  The fascination has mostly centered around the question of what explains the man’s behavior.  What kind of an American politician could display personal traits, communication language and political tactics that would have eliminated any other candidate, past or present, and expect to win?  Only belatedly some commentators have also started to deal with the really important question of why despite all that Trump succeeded in attracting enough votes to win and has since maintained a solid loyal base of around 30 to 35 percent.  As unique (and I don’t mean this in a positive light) as Trump appears to be, trying to explain his appeal to voters is a lot more important for our political system than his psychological profile and motivations

Prior to the 2016 election, I thought the aggressive and bullying style was Trump’s way to shake republican voters away from established politicians.  While researching for a finance project, I had come across a reference to two ways professionals and businesses use to build reputation.  One is called type reputation and is used by newcomers to a field, who need to signal how well and aggressively they will meet the clients’ needs.  Trump’s abrasive tactics had the purpose to convince conservatives he would be their warrior.  The other type of reputation is behavioral reputation and comes into play once one has established the type reputation.  Behavioral reputation is built on actions that satisfy mainstream standards.  Without using this terminology, some commentators had estimated that, once in the White House, Trump would change his approach to garnering reputation and esteem by reverting to the standard mainstream behavior of previous presidents.  We now know we were all clearly wrong.  So, the question remains what explains the appeal.

Most of the analysis regarding Trump’s appeal is based on survey results that show rising white nationalism, economic insecurity of working-class people and anti-immigrant feelings among conservatives.  If it were the policies only, though, that mattered for people’s choices, was it rational for such voters to prefer Trump – given his offensive, hurtful and inflammatory tactics – over other very conservative and more seasoned candidates, like, say, Ted Cruz?  Trump’s appeal was missed because of our misguided adherence to the belief that rationality drives, or should drive, human decisions, including political choices.

Genes and brains, however, are not made to serve rational behavior.  Instead they are made to serve survival by replication and through adaptability to changing environments.  Morality as well is formed to help humans successfully navigate complex social environments in order to survive.  Similar to cognition, morality is intuitive and innate to our nature.   For cognitive functions, scientists use the terms fast and slow thinking.  Or more generally, system 1 and system 2, respectively.  For morality, Jonathan Haidt* uses the terms Elephant for innate morality (passed on by genes and influenced by the cultural environment) and Rider for reasoned morality.  Faced by various moral choices, we first respond automatically according to our innate morality.  This is the elephant that moves us through moral choices.  Our rider tries to steer our elephant toward more nuanced and reasoned moral choices but not always successfully.  It often works to validate our innate moral choices.  That’s why we talk of confirmation bias.  Therefore, if you wish to change another person’s morality try to talk to the elephant, not to the rider.  It is interesting that these recent advances in our understanding of human behavior had been foretold by the Enlightenment philosopher David Hume who proposed that humans are motivated more by sentiment than reason and rationality.

I think we have a better chance to understand the Trump phenomenon in light of the above arguments.  Trump consistently speaks to the sentiments of conservatives; that is, he addresses their elephant.  Surveys and casual observation show that conservatives hold very strong beliefs about loyalty (to family, social institutions, country), authority and order, and sanctity.  According to Haidt, loyalty, authority, and sanctity are three of the five pillars of Moral Foundations, the other two being care and fairness.  Conservativism coincides with moral innateness (or intuition) that primarily favors loyalty, authority and sanctity; whereas liberalism coincides with moral innateness that primarily favors care and fairness.

Trump never addresses his supporters by appealing to reasoned arguments.  Should he do that, their views about matters of national interest, immigration policy, religious versus secular rights and other issues would cause them to temper their views and be more inclined to consider policies advocated by the less conservative or liberal opponents of Trump.  Instead, by speaking to their elephant, Trump keeps his voters firmly away from the influence of any reasoned rider they may have.

And by speaking exclusively to like-minded people, Trump avoids accountability.  The psychologist Phil Tetlock suggests that accountability comes into play when (a) one knows he/she will be held accountable, (b) the audience’s views are unknown and (c) one believes the audience is well-informed.  These are exactly the conditions – especially the first two – that do not hold in Trump’s rallies.  Hence, Trump has no interest to use reason and arguments as opposed to what we call “raw meat.”

Now, in case those of us who abhor Trump’s methods start to feel too righteous, let’s be reminded that we are as susceptible to our liberal elephant as Trump’s supporters are to their conservative elephant.  Should our own Trump-like warrior emerge to appeal to our innate liberal morality, we could very well descend to the frenzy and hurtful level of Trump’s rally crowds.

Let’s hope this will not happen so that we can continue to fight the politics of divisiveness and misplaced patriotism with reason and humanity.

*Jonathan Haidt, “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion”

Author: George Papaioannou

Distinguished Professor Emeritus (Finance), Hofstra University, USA. Author of Underwriting and the New Issues Market. Former Vice Dean, Zarb School of Business, Hofstra University. Board Director, Jovia Financial Federal Credit Union. View all posts by George Papaioannou