A well worded argument, but it doesn't seem to check out in my opinion. Trumpers seem to like the following people the most: Murdoch, Trump, Elon Musk, and Koch bros.

They hate some elites like Bill Gates, so its not all billionaire-worship, but they swear allegiance to plenty of New York real-estate elite types and/or Tech-bro Billionaire types, and/or Media Tycoons.

Its not the elitism (or lack thereof) that attracts people to Trump. Trump is as billionaire, New York real-estate, Media Mogul as anyone else, possibly the richest President ever. That's not what they hate.

What Trump offers them is assurances that its someone else's fault. Trump makes cute nicknames for political opponents and manages to get arguments down to a single sentence or even single word. Its about simplicity in discussion and argument more so than anything else.

Simple arguments that are wrong to any thinking person of course. But simple arguments that tickle people's ego are the key to gaining a large flux of followers. And as someone else points out: you can't outsimplify arguments better than Trump, because Trump has no moral qualms about lying to make his simple statements simpler than any argument you can make. Secondly, your simple arguments (though possibly true) serve to tear down someone else's ego, rather than build up their ego.

Given the choice between a simple lie (that happens to improve someone's ego) and simple (or simplified) truths that are far more complex and that damage the ego, the simple lie will be taken every time.

Anyone got the non-paywalled version. I keep forgetting to bookmark the 12whatever website.

EDIT: Here we go

People like Trump because he's a populist for their type of people. He also says the quiet part outloud, validating their fears of being supplanted as the majority in charge.

Selfishness, Validation, and Racism.

At least he recognizes class distinction. He didn’t give any solutions other than “do better.” Just whiny elitism doing performance activism. Here’s the solution: Overthrow capitalism. If that’s too difficult for the author, then he should stop pretending to care.

Downvoting for paywall.

disagree with the arc of the piece (it reduces american diversity of thought to outright silly levels), but the points made are approachable enough to chew over and reassemble into different, somewhat coherent worldviews

worth a read, if only for a particular perspective.

edit: word

Like all elites, we use language and mores as tools to recognize one another and exclude others. Using words like problematic, cisgender, Latinx and intersectional is a sure sign that you’ve got cultural capital coming out of your ears. Meanwhile, members of the less-educated classes have to walk on eggshells, because they never know when we’ve changed the usage rules, so that something that was sayable five years ago now gets you fired.

This is giving reactionaries -- who have shown time and time again that they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt -- entirely too much credit. These aren't well-intentioned folks who are anxious about keeping up with changing social norms; they know the norms they like, that of an idealized 50s or 60s white America, and they want to go back. They want to be able to say "Mexicans are a bunch of rapists and drug dealers," like Trump said, and have everyone around them nod along.

Even the one decent point about people with more education (and from more elite schools) re-shaping the job market is at best half baked. It doesn't mention how we've gutted career options for people with less than a bachelor's degree. It doesn't mention how we simultaneously made it impossible for most people to pay off college as they go through it. It doesn't mention the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and housing.

It of course does not attempt to describe the alliance between these sorts of legitimate working-class grievances and the rest of the reactionary political project, or how actually addressing those grievances could undermine that alliance.