- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Looking further into the Trump phenomenon, it appears that some of the literature on leadership may help explain the durability of that support despite Trump's increasingly outrageous rhetoric directed at Latinos and Muslims.
From Conger's and Kanungo's "Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings:"
The term charisma often is used in political science and sociology to describe a subset of leaders who "by the force of their personal abilities are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers" (House & Baetz, 1979, p.399). Followers perceive the charismatic leader as one who possesses superhuman qualities and accept unconditionally the leader's mission and directives for action (Willner, 1984).
Trump fits many of the attributes set forth in the paper's framework for such leaders. He is "opposed to the status quo," he is willing to incur "great personal risk" (reputational risk by stating he does not "care" if his remarks are "politically incorrect"), his conduct is "unconventional or counternormative", and strongly articulates his vision.
Because his followers "accept unconditionally" Trump's vision, they automatically assume that his narrow experience in the real estate field makes him the strongest leader, that his description of the problems/challenges affecting the nation (ranging from "political correctness" to immigrants/Muslims) is accurate, and his policy remedies (building a wall along Mexico's border, expelling all undocumented immigrants, establishing a database for Muslims, monitoring Mosques, barring Muslim immigrants/tourists) are appropriate, even as some of those remedies raise profound ethical and constitutional issues. That unconditional support is the reason that Trump commands "brand loyalty" no matter how outrageous or extreme his rhetoric and policy proposals. The unconditional nature of that support undercuts the kind of pragmatic questioning and loss of support one would typically see when a candidate diverges into extreme perspectives and policies. It precludes any serious questioning about the radical shift from his own past political positions.
IMO, it's that phenomenon of unconditional follower loyalty that likely has insulated Trump from political destruction when he maligned John McCain, and then proceeded from there toward increasingly extreme positions. The absence of empirical support for his gloomy perspective, high cost/ineffective outcomes tied to his immigration policies, ethical and unconstitutional issues of his approach toward Muslims, and estimated $10 trillion cost of his tax proposal don't dissuade his supporters. They believe unconditionally in him and whatever ideas he may lay out. For them, reasoned and empirical arguments and objections no longer matter. They have given Trump their full commitment and they will stay with him regardless of where his crusade leads. They have internalized Trump's mission as linked to their own personal welfare.
If failure is the outcome, they will not blame Trump for that outcome. Instead, they will blame his opponents and/or society, particularly the members of society Trump has most vilified. They will see Trump's defeat as proof that the nation is in irreversible decline and that society is corrupt or worse.
All said,Trump's support is comprised of a base of passionate hard-core followers who have unconditionally committed to him. A smaller share of supporters has not offered unconditional support, but they currently see him as preferable to alternatives. Trump continues to try to build the base of unconditional supporters and skillfully points to the durability of support as offering a powerful narrative for others to join his cause.
Finally, in the larger context of Republican Party politics, all of this was avoidable had the RNC Chair had a measure of political courage to deny Trump the opportunity to run for the GOP nomination upon Trump's earlier rhetoric. Instead, fear of an a third party run by Trump and overall timidity, led to the RNC's allowing him to pursue the nomination. Trump's candidacy and the positions he is taking and articulating will shape the GOP brand in a damaging fashion. Other Republicans who lack the charisma to compete with Trump and/or the ability to frame and articulate messages clearly may object to the shifting brand, but their efforts will likely prove futile for the short- and perhaps medium-term. The GOP will face a growing risk that its alienation with Latino voters, women, and Muslims could be enduring, much as its loss of African American support has been enduring. Political timidity has high costs, especially when one allows a charismatic leader to rebrand the Party.
From Conger's and Kanungo's "Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings:"
The term charisma often is used in political science and sociology to describe a subset of leaders who "by the force of their personal abilities are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers" (House & Baetz, 1979, p.399). Followers perceive the charismatic leader as one who possesses superhuman qualities and accept unconditionally the leader's mission and directives for action (Willner, 1984).
Trump fits many of the attributes set forth in the paper's framework for such leaders. He is "opposed to the status quo," he is willing to incur "great personal risk" (reputational risk by stating he does not "care" if his remarks are "politically incorrect"), his conduct is "unconventional or counternormative", and strongly articulates his vision.
Because his followers "accept unconditionally" Trump's vision, they automatically assume that his narrow experience in the real estate field makes him the strongest leader, that his description of the problems/challenges affecting the nation (ranging from "political correctness" to immigrants/Muslims) is accurate, and his policy remedies (building a wall along Mexico's border, expelling all undocumented immigrants, establishing a database for Muslims, monitoring Mosques, barring Muslim immigrants/tourists) are appropriate, even as some of those remedies raise profound ethical and constitutional issues. That unconditional support is the reason that Trump commands "brand loyalty" no matter how outrageous or extreme his rhetoric and policy proposals. The unconditional nature of that support undercuts the kind of pragmatic questioning and loss of support one would typically see when a candidate diverges into extreme perspectives and policies. It precludes any serious questioning about the radical shift from his own past political positions.
IMO, it's that phenomenon of unconditional follower loyalty that likely has insulated Trump from political destruction when he maligned John McCain, and then proceeded from there toward increasingly extreme positions. The absence of empirical support for his gloomy perspective, high cost/ineffective outcomes tied to his immigration policies, ethical and unconstitutional issues of his approach toward Muslims, and estimated $10 trillion cost of his tax proposal don't dissuade his supporters. They believe unconditionally in him and whatever ideas he may lay out. For them, reasoned and empirical arguments and objections no longer matter. They have given Trump their full commitment and they will stay with him regardless of where his crusade leads. They have internalized Trump's mission as linked to their own personal welfare.
If failure is the outcome, they will not blame Trump for that outcome. Instead, they will blame his opponents and/or society, particularly the members of society Trump has most vilified. They will see Trump's defeat as proof that the nation is in irreversible decline and that society is corrupt or worse.
All said,Trump's support is comprised of a base of passionate hard-core followers who have unconditionally committed to him. A smaller share of supporters has not offered unconditional support, but they currently see him as preferable to alternatives. Trump continues to try to build the base of unconditional supporters and skillfully points to the durability of support as offering a powerful narrative for others to join his cause.
Finally, in the larger context of Republican Party politics, all of this was avoidable had the RNC Chair had a measure of political courage to deny Trump the opportunity to run for the GOP nomination upon Trump's earlier rhetoric. Instead, fear of an a third party run by Trump and overall timidity, led to the RNC's allowing him to pursue the nomination. Trump's candidacy and the positions he is taking and articulating will shape the GOP brand in a damaging fashion. Other Republicans who lack the charisma to compete with Trump and/or the ability to frame and articulate messages clearly may object to the shifting brand, but their efforts will likely prove futile for the short- and perhaps medium-term. The GOP will face a growing risk that its alienation with Latino voters, women, and Muslims could be enduring, much as its loss of African American support has been enduring. Political timidity has high costs, especially when one allows a charismatic leader to rebrand the Party.
