Don’t kid yourself: With help from people and institutions viewed by the voting public as “legitimate,” Donald Trump could win.

Many mistakes of omission have been made as Donald Trump has surged toward the Republican nomination: The Republican party didn’t take him seriously; Democrats laughed; the mainstream media treated him as an entertaining ratings booster; virtually everybody stood by and watched him, but didn’t challenge his outrageous statements.

That was bad enough. But now, as Trump has begun to pile up delegates in primary and caucus states, we’re in a new and much scarier phase. Despite panic on the right and fantasies about a “brokered” convention, Trump is beginning to look inevitable. And with inevitability comes even more danger: the bandwagon effect. All of a sudden, looking at the political landscape, a lot of people—politicians, pundits and groups that will want access and influence if Trump is elected—are going to declare their fidelity. Their political and economic futures depend on being able to say that they were on board with the winner.

Here’s an example: Just last night, Tim Pawlenty [Republican former Governor of Minnesota] appeared on MSNBC. Until Super Tuesday II, Pawlenty was supporting Marco Rubio, who dropped out of the race after a very poor showing. Asked whether he would now be supporting Trump—the front-runner—Pawlenty dodged a bit, but implied that he very well might endorse Trump, precisely because Trump could be the standard-bearer for the Republican ticket. And Pawlenty is a loyal Republican.

This is a dangerous prospect. Why? Because history demonstrates that right-wing authoritarian leaders—like Trump—gain power when legitimate institutions and people begin to support them. The support of the Vatican, for example, is not the only reason that Italy’s Benito Mussolini surged to power, but it was a key ingredient. And now, we may be seeing the beginning of a related phenomenon in our own presidential election: First it was Chris Christie—deeply flawed and unloved as he is, he’s still a legitimate governor and political force. Now, we have the prospect of Pawlenty—bringing with him real credentials from a “nice” state. Who’s next?

Some will endorse Trump out of party loyalty: You know, the old adage about Republicans not falling in love, but falling in line. Others will just give up and get on board after seeing the handwriting on the wall. All of them will earn the dubious distinction of being political enablers–knowing that Trump is wrong for the country, but lacking the courage to stand up against the bully, and fearful of the retaliation that could come their way if they say what needs to be said.

Many endorsements don’t mean much. People like celebrities, but their political views and endorsements don’t carry that much weight. The Ku Klux Klan, American Nazi sympathizers, and other nativist, anti-immigrant groups are already on board. That’s not a surprise. But they’re seen, by most voters, as fringe groups. When mainstream politicians and institutions start throwing their support behind a candidate like Trump, people sit up and take notice:  They bring an aura of legitimacy to a candidacy that could otherwise be seen as an anomaly or an aberration.

And, while the establishment wing of the Republican party pretends to be going ape shit over a Trump takeover, it’s not that much of a stretch to imagine that, in the end, the big dogs will roll over and support Trump.  Fox News—the propaganda wing of the Republican party—has appeared to turn on Trump, but not before enabling him by giving him virtually unlimited air time. And, in the end, Fox too may find a way back to loving Trump—if only as a way ensuring  ratings, profits, and access if Trump wins. Personally, I don’t view Fox as a legitimate news source, but many people do. So, when Fox comes out strong for Trump, it will be another step in sanctioning his rise to power.

Okay, so the New York Times probably won’t succumb. But many other news sources and influential institutions, like churches, perhaps, may. And when that happens, watch out: An America “led” by a legitimized Donald Trump would be an extremely scary place.

The post Trump’s rise: How “legitimate” people and institutions become enablers appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Spending a few minutes on Facebook, or the internet in general, puts one squarely in the crosshairs of three camps: those who think Donald Trump is the greatest thing to happen to politics since Sarah Palin, those who think he is the second coming of Hitler, and the media, who are snacking on popcorn while watching the clicks roll in. Although “the Donald Trump Controversy” is only a few months old, its origins are nothing new. We are witnessing the latest incarnation of the age-old battle between the Id and the Superego.

According to Sigmund Freud, the Id represents the life stage of the infant: singularly oriented toward avoiding pain and gratifying any impulse immediately, by any means necessary. Whether or not you agree with Sigmund Freud’s theory of the Id, it’s not hard to see the resemblance between the description and the “policies” espoused with vigor by Donald Trump. What is harder to understand is the number of people who appear to support these statements. Where is this coming from? Has society gone crazy, or is there a method to the madness?

When it comes to questions of humanity, I’m hard pressed to disagree with Kurt Vonnegut’s assessment that perhaps our brains are too large for our own good. More often than not, the products of our society – technologies, trends, and the like – amount to little more than window dressing on a series of base desires that can either be in balance with, or in opposition to each other. Perhaps we are not so much further along from apes as we’d like to believe. I’m not sure whether that idea is frightening or comforting – perhaps it’s both.

Looking at Donald Trump and his supporters as the Id requires us to look at the Id’s natural opponent, the Superego. If Freud’s Id is the infant, his Superego is the parent: singularly oriented toward social appropriateness and control of base instincts, primarily through regulation and guilt. Today, the Superego is perhaps best exemplified by the trend of “trigger warnings.” Once designed to prepare (not excuse) readers who may be suffering from PTSD, it has morphed into an attempt to eradicate anything that could potentially cause distress or discomfort in any form. To quote a recent article in the Atlantic criticizing the misuse of trigger warnings, words have become “forms of violence that require strict control” (Lukianoff & Haidt).

It’s important to note that although the Id and Superego are naturally in opposition to each other, the one thing they share is that they are both largely unconscious. Lack of reason is a hallmark of unconsciousness; the ideas above are governed by impulse much more than anything that could be described as “thought.” Historically, this type of situation does not usually end well, to put it mildly. Historically, we also know that without dialogue, unconscious processes have no hope of seeing the light of day. Achieving dialogue is like making a meringue – it requires the right ingredients (facts), adjusted to the environment in which the dish is being made (awareness of self and other). Failure to consider either component yields failure.

It appears that two important structures in our society – our political system and our institutions of higher learning – are caught in the grip of unconscious processes. They are getting at least one, and in many cases, both, of the components wrong. To me, this suggests that it is important to take actions that, above all, succeed in the task of achieving dialogue.

Humanity is messy, but predictably so. If advertisers can come to understand the predictability of human desires, and use this knowledge against us, surely those of us who remain dedicated to reason can learn the same, and use it for good? Instead of doubling down on one component of dialogue at the expense of the other, which is what my instinct wants me to do, I am taking “the Donald Trump Controversy” as a personal challenge to overcome barriers to dialogue one person at a time. I encourage you to do the same. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

The post Trump: The Revenge of the Id appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Some people posit that the Republican brain and the Democratic brain complement one another, somewhat like yin and yang. The theory would be that liberal people bring to a society a full measure of empathy, reason, and fairness. Conservatives bring order, structure, and rules. Together there is a harmonious and smooth functioning society.

I’m a little suspicious of this notion, thinking that it is more wish than fact. If it was true, why would American political officials have such difficulty in reaching bi-partisan agreements? Why is the mood in politics angry and the decorum something other than civil? The theory of yin and yang among progressives and conservatives is also based on a tenet of equivalence between progressive and conservative points of view.

Taking a generous perspective on this, we can say that Americans are hell-bent on fairness, making sure that each side of an argument gets ample opportunity to present its case. The problem with this point of view is that it doesn’t allow us to take a critical look at the equivalencies. Are they valid or are they false?

Some false equivalencies are easy to detect. Would it be wise to allow equal time for the argument that 1+1=3 as well as for 1+1=2? Perhaps it would be okay in a philosophy course or higher math class, but not in common discourse. Would it be wise to allow equal time to the theories of evolution and creationism? This is where the rubber begins to meet the road. Those people who consider modern science as part of evidenced-based thinking would say that there is far greater empirical evidence supporting evolution. Put bluntly, evolutionists see thinking as trumping believing. On a different issue, like having the government be the employer of last resort, progressives see how evidence has substantiated this claim; conservatives often deny the data.

According Chris Mooney, author of The Republican Brain, there are times when Democrats let emotion overcome the science. This can be true in cases like purity in food selection or opposition to fracking. Liberals get locked in positions and mimic conservative behavior in not being open to new information.

But by and large it is the Republicans who are more dug in and recalcitrant. We see this time and again when they object to “common sense” solutions to reduce the easy access Americans have to guns. Frequently Republicans think, “You’re out to get me; to take all my guns away,” when progressives say, “No, we just want to make it more difficult for those who are threats to our society to be able to legally secure guns.”

The press frequently sees these two sides as equivalent. Essentially, they are saying that the rights of gun owners are equal to those who went to reduce homicide, suicide, and serious injury by gunfire. But this is a false equivalency. The rights of gun owners are not really under assault. The ambiguous Second Amendment has enough leverage for conservatives that those who have guns will be able to keep them, as well as other people like them for the foreseeable future.

Second, an effort by gun opponents to disarm Americans would be fruitless. Gun owners are not threatened by reasonable restrictions to keep guns from legally falling into the hands of people who would use them to harm others or themselves.

The mainstream media thinks that it is doing a public service by presenting “both sides” of the gun issue in a “fair and balanced” way. But the arguments from those who favor gun control are much more logical and conditioned on empathy. The conservatives’ arguments about the Second Amendment have become a smoke screen to protect gun manufacturers from having sales controlled, or for them to assume a measure of liability for the destructive ways in which guns are used.

There is not the yin and yang of harmony between gun enthusiasts and those favoring gun control. The gun owners to not “protect” the rest of us while those favoring gun control ensure a fair and just society. Progressives do not want to have their primary form of protection to be from someone with a gun. Similarly, conservatives will not subscribe to the progressive idea of fairness and justice.

We have to acknowledge that we are a fractured society. At this particular time and in this particular place, the conservative forces have hamstrung virtually all efforts by progressives to promote a fairer and just society. It’s doubtful that conservatives feel a need to ratchet up the tension any greater than it is because they are currently winning. Progressives would be at fault if they chose to “go to war” with the conservatives, because (a) they would lose such a war, and (b) war is among the least favored instrument of change that there is to progressives.

I don’t know how much research is being done into the “Democratic brain,” but each day we are learning more and more about the Republican brain. Just follow Ben Carson for a few days to see the garden of insights that we gain. For there to be anything approaching a yin and yang between conservatives and progressives, we must first learn a great deal more about ourselves, about those with whom we have conflict, and what methods of conflict resolution can actually work in such a fractured political and cultural world. At this time, I certainly do not know enough, and I’m hard-pressed to find anyone else who is clearly “in the know.” My current goal is to work with other progressives, not to berate Republicans or others with whom I disagree, but to improve my own knowledge of the psychology that defines our political differences. I need to learn much more before I can offer solutions that are really helpful. I’m willing to be “actively patient.”

The post Are Republican and Democratic brains like Yin and Yang? appeared first on Occasional Planet.