It's astonishing to me that-- even extemporaneously-- our new president cannot form cogent thoughts and sentences. Anyone else find this troubling?
Asked by Morning Joe who he talks with consistently about foreign policy, Trump responded, "I'm talking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things."
Trump at the Iowa rally: "People don't know how great you are. People don't know how smart you are. These are the smart people. These are the smart people. These are really the smart people. And they never like to say it. But I say it. And I'm a smart person. These are the smart. We have the smartest people. We have the smartest people. And they know it. And some say it. But they hate to say it. But we have the smartest people."
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
He is smarter than he appears. It would be a mistake to categorize Trump as an idiot. That was Bush. As much as we might want to sling mud in the general vicinity of Trump and jump on every little thing he says--imo, it's better to seek the meaning beneath.
He's a psychopath. A narcissistic manipulator. It's how he won the election. Speaking visually programs peoples' brains into, well, visualizing: which Trump did a lot. It seems *tangible*, then. "We're going to build a wall. A big wall. A massive wall. A wall so big, yada yada yada" When he talked about ISIS, he said stuff like "They're putting people in cages and chopping off peoples' heads." "Look at the crowds. Look at all the people that support me." Along with the repetition and over-confidence, it makes it seem like he knows what he's talking about. It makes it seem like he can create progress and solve problems--and that people support him.
He fostered a culture of threats and fear, because that's what naturally makes people desire strong leadership. This is known in psychology as "cultural tightness"--the desire for strong rules and punishment of deviance, which increases when groups feel they are under threat. Then, he made people think that he was the only one--the only one out of 350 million people--who could possibly save them from those threats.
He rejected the establishment, something that the voting populace wanted. This is the primary thing that the DNC completely fucked up on--like, to a mentally retarded level: not knowing what it is your constituents actually want.
With the level of confidence and charisma he exuded (traits that humans are naturally weak against--we are emotional creatures first, rational creatures second: and we are notoriously weak against charisma and confidence) and all of these other little psychological tricks and pressure points, he took the gold.
What Trump did was harvest the sheep. He just went right into their brain and put what he wanted to put there.
But. Don't be deceived. He's not Bush. He's much more insidious. He plays the brain. He's not being an idiot. He's being a puppet master.
People said he wasn't a politician, so that was a good thing. Except he's even worse than a politician. He's a businessman.
Excellent post penguin. Trump is really dumb in a wonkish sense. He knows less about policy than some of us on here but that doesn't matter.
You are completely right about his emotional literacy. He also has a high level of tactical cunning. He knew the messages people wanted to hear and wanted to believe, he knew how to get publicity, he knew how to create scandals to deflect attention. And as you say, he was great at projecting a confident aura and fear of the other.
Conventional politicians like Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton are FAR more book smart and would have made Trump an irrelevant laughing stock in the 1990s. But that is not what people wanted in this election and Trump knew that.
[quote]Except he's even worse than a politician. He's a businessman.[/quote]
Yes and the centre-left try to convince people with accountants whereas the right have used-car salesmen. Which one works?
@Burnley123: Strategic and tactical cunning is a good phrase for it, mmm. Though, for me--having an innate distrust of corporations and high-value business owners--this tactical cunning leads me to believe that Trump is simply putting on a show.
It's enough to suggest to me that he might not be so unfamiliar with policy as he seems, and that his ultimate goal is the expansion of his own power through that policy. More, if you look at his earlier positions on many issues, his positions do rest more in the center. I believe he was for legalized drugs for instance, in the 80s or 90s. I recall some of his earlier stances surprising me.
@ColdPenguin: Fair points but I think Trump is completely unfamiliar with policy and believes in nothing beyond his own ego. He wanted to be the most powerful man in the world and he set out to do that.
His advisors however, are very familiar with policy and are radical neo-cons (Pence etc) or white nationalists like Steve Bannon. He knows he has to keep both the Conservative right and the nationalists on side and he has little sense of his own policy objectives so in a sense he will be easily manipulated himself. These people will flatter him, make him feel important and pass Bills for him to sign before he F***s off to the next rally. I don't wanna labour this point though because I guess what he will do (which we know will be bad) is far more significant than whatever his personal motivation is.
[quote]Yes and the centre-left try to convince people with accountants whereas the right have used-car salesmen. Which one works?[/quote]
Its an analogy to agree with what you said about emotional/rational appeal. mainstream politicians like Hillary are wonkish technocrats who are big on detail and make a rational appeal; like accountants. The used-car salesman goes for the gut by playing on your hopes and fears. The latter is also a liar, but hey, it works unfortunately.
@Burnley123: Ahhh, we are two ducks in the same pond, then. :D
Also fair points. Alas, I suppose we must only wait for the incoming collison and hope it will serve as a sufficient shock to thr American people and inspire them to tow the line in the opposite direction.
@ColdPenguin: I would like to hope that but it doesn't always work unfortunately. Here in Britain, a lot of left wing people of my Dad's generation thought Thatcher would be a good thing for that very reason. What happened was that she bribed off a section of the working class and crushed our then powerful union movement. These two things that crippled the left's ability to organise an election coalition. Defeat after defeat meant that the Labour party drifted further rightwards until they eventually accepted Tony Blair. Blair did nothing to overturn 18 years of Conservative policies and also led Britain into the Iraq War.
Trump [i]could [/i]be a good shock to the system but the US left needs organisational vehicles to resist. Like us, your unions are weak. Also, in spite of Sanders best efforts the Democrats seem determined to stay neo-liberal light for now. It is more possible that Trump will be so bad that ANY standard right-wing Democrat will be acceptable to everyone.
I really hope I am wrong about ALL of that btw and it in no way means people should stop trying. The neo-liberal centre have no more effective solutions to post crash problems than Trump. Its just that I think the left needs more time to build up strength.
