The America of Trump, how was that possible at all?

Photo by Joe Raedle. Getty Images

I have almost no relation to the United States, and seemingly why should I care about what is happening there. But it is not only that the United States is a leading force and a stronghold (and a model, without irony) of democracy, important for most of the responsible people of any citizenship, but also in the fact that the basis of events that attracted the attention of millions around the world and scattered them on different sides of the barricades, made them sometimes completely irreconcilable opponents, lies in the factor that brings closer the most developed and most backward countries, countries with absolutely incompatible regimes — from democracies to dictatorships, making real most incredible plots, contributing unpredictability into the stream of ordinary and seeming simple events.

This factor is man.

Referring to the themes of a man and one’s behavior, it is difficult to avoid banality, but, be that as it may, our life mainly consists of banalities, which, from time to time, suddenly weave in something completely extraordinary — surprising us and putting us into a dead-end.

And yet, I’ll try to reduce banalities to a minimum, as well as be brief and understandable in my reflections (well, at least be understandable 😊).

So, what is “the America of Trump”?

This, of course, is not so much about Trump itself, how eccentric, immoral or hypocritical he wasn’t (though these qualities definitely played an extremely important role in this story, which we’ll talk about a bit later). It is about so stunningly large, the number of people who supported him in his political campaign and continue to support, despite the scandals, lies, and exaltation, which accompanied the entire term of his presidency. I think many were surprised not even by the fact that Trump won the elections in 2016, but by the fact that he was not so far from victory in 2020, too.

What is wrong here? After all, everyone has the right to freedom of choice, especially in the country, which traditionally remains one of the leaders of democracy.

The thing is that Trump is such a toxic person, that it seems any self-respecting individual must stay away, except maybe some number of businessmen and politicians who have a not very high threshold of moral cleanliness, and, of course, people close to him. But the reality turns out to be different, for someone possibly absurd — the popularity of Trump is extremely high and remains so even after leaving the presidency, impeachment (two, if accurate), and the attempted coup d’état.

Who are these people who make such a strange, from the point of view of a normal person (a person who considers themselves normal, of course), the choice?

Here it is necessary to make an emphasis on two main, as it seems to me, types of behavior characteristic of people in any society, the importance of which at best is underestimated, if not ignored at all — rational and emotional ones (about the importance of which, I will speak below), and also hold a small classification associated with the definition of fundamental motivational categories among voters.

First, classification.

There are several main categories among the electorate of any political force, any leader, in any country:

1. Those who vote mostly rationally, preferring ideas, plans, or the reputation of a party or leader. To this category can be attributed those who are unselfish in their preferences, and those who plan to reap the benefit from such support, and perhaps those who are forced to make a choice.
2. Those who vote by “out of habit”, that is, is a traditional follower of a particular party, or person, regardless of the wavering of their ideas or actions. Such fluctuations can begin to be perceived only when they affect the foundations of the ideology or pose a threat to the personal interests of the voter. Such voters form the basis of the “electorate” (I take in quotes for obvious reasons) in various authoritarian regimes — they always support the existing regime, as long as it does not become threatening to their personal, most often quite limited, world.
3. Those who vote for a party or leader, mainly guided by emotional motifs — sympathy, a sense of unity, proximity, similarity, trust, attraction. Such motives are definitely rationalized but rationalized within the paradigm in which a voter exists.
4. Those who vote by protest, for an opponent of a particular party, or personalities, that is, actually against, or for the likelihood of less damage. This category can consist of those who have rational causes, and those who vote in this way, guided by emotional motifs, in particular, antipathy, disgust, fear.
5. Those who could be ranked at one of the above groups, but usually do not take part in the elections. This can be attributed to all those who do not vote due to busyness, those who consider their participation insignificantly, and those who cannot decide on, or absolutely indifferent to political life.

Of course, this classification is conditional, by nature — categories can be mixed, and voters can be guided by a combination of motifs. In addition, it is probably impossible to estimate the number of people relating to one category or another, except maybe very speculative proportions. Nevertheless, such a classification, in my opinion, fully reflects the basic motifs of voters in any circumstances and for any regimes, and the proportions, even conditional, can give an idea of the scale and dynamics of processes.

In this analysis, I intentionally do not stop at the details of the voters by the color, social status, or gender — on the one hand, there are plenty of such data, on the other, they may vary depending on the regime or level of development of society and often do not provide a real idea of motives (though some social stratification gives good grounds for predicting the motives of choice — for example, a social layer, experiencing serious problems with the living conditions with high probability will vote for populists who promise quick improvements (1,2,3)).

Namely, in motifs it should look for the origins of the popularity of Trump.

So, what does this classification give us? (Here I will also begin to touch on announced types of behavior).

If we carefully look at these categories, we will be able to determine the one in which voters, to a larger extent, make a conscious choice — either from altruistic reasons, or selfish ones, or by coercion, these people are largely able to estimate the future, they know (or can learn) background, have the certain critical thinking, and can give a fairly objective moral assessment, or be cynical enough to see, understand, but ignore the moral and ethical dissonances.

In case of coercion, moral or physical, this category of people is in a state of deprivation of freedom of will and the possibility of doing the choice they may have done in other circumstances. Of course, it is about authoritarian regimes in their various manifestations. Undoubtedly, some personalities can resist such violence, but their number, unfortunately, is very small, and their position leads to persecution that varies depending on the rigor and repressiveness of the regime.

This category is closely related to the level of critical thinking, to the level of responsibility and moral criteria (or cynicism) — in general, to the level of personal development (even if basic one), allowing one to have a global vision and determine causal relations. It is difficult to accurately determine the number of such people (as well as in other categories), but it can be assumed that their amount depends on the level of development of society and state, on the level and accessibility of education, on the development of the economy and financial sector. In other words, in developed, democratic countries, their number will be larger, and in developing, authoritarian countries, less, not to mention backward countries or rigid dictatorships.

In general, it should be noted that no one society in the world, even the most authoritarian or most developed (especially this), is not homogeneous — in each society, there are smart and stupid people, responsible and irresponsible, successful and losers, patriots and traitors, decent and scoundrels. People are people, and in any society all of their manifestations are presented, the difference is only in proportions — in developed societies of smart, responsible, successful, decent, and, possibly, patriotic ones (even if the theme of patriotism is very ambiguous and demanding subtle relation), in my opinion, more than in others. With this statement, of course, many may not agree, but I think we can go on one indisputable fact (that directly or indirectly entails the rest) — there are more highly educated and developed people in developed societies than in developing or backward ones (4,5).

Common sense, also, suggests that the proportion of such people cannot be dominant in any society, even in the most developed and prosperous. The reason is that development is associated with education, with understanding its need, with the costs of it, with personal efforts to receive it, with prospects, etc., that is, with certain restrictions and difficulties that serve as obstacles to personal development for many people. In addition, educated people relate to procreation with special attention, which is manifested in a later birth of children and fewer of their number, so, educated people in any society are the part that tends to reduce (such negative selection is the result not only of an informed approach but, perhaps, also genetic factors, 6).

It should also be noted the important fact that the education itself is not a guarantee of stable personal growth — for full-fledged development (including high-quality critical thinking as the most important tool for determining authenticity) is required versatility, a wide outlook, the ability to operate with a variety of information — education, even of high quality, is not always able to give all that.

Voters, guided by rational motifs, are in other categories, too.

For example, those who we can attribute to the “protest” category, in general, estimate the circumstances as well as those who we can attribute to the first one. The difference is that among the existing candidates and parties, they do not see those whose advantages seem indisputable or convincing — voting by protest, in fact, they choose the least bad, try to “punish” those politicians who do not justify their trust, or stop political (and often corruption one) outrage.

In addition, such people are also in the last category of the list, as potential voters who do not vote, including due to the lack of decent (for them) representatives or parties. The potential of their quantity is difficult to assess, but it is likely that it can be commensurate with the number of the categories described above (and possibly larger) and depends on the circumstances and the regime.

To summarize the above and try to identify some conditional proportions, I would suggest that in a developed society such people can make up a maximum of a third of an adult, mentally healthy, population. In developing, autocratic, or backward countries, their number is significantly less.

Now let’s move to the rest of the categories, since they exactly contain the main number of voters that determine the outcome of any election and for whose votes the main battles unfold in the pre-election rallies in any country.

It should be noted that despite the difference (real or apparent) in motives, all these groups of voters, except a certain part of the protest and non-voting voters who have rational motives, can be united by the fact that their choice is based on the emotional sphere. That is, emotional choices or preferences have a significant or dominant influence on the final decision. Moreover, such a decision turns out to be much more stable and more difficult to correct than a decision made primarily in a rational way.

Why?

I think this is because emotions are an evolutionarily older and more powerful (still) tool for interacting with the outside world than the mind. The emotional sphere is, in fact, a more ancient “intelligence” that allows us to respond to circumstances almost automatically, instantly, without the large expenditure of internal energy and time inherent in the work of the mind (unless we are talking about states of emotional peaks). Moreover, emotions are much more difficult to control than thoughts, as anyone can easily see. Emotions are in the nature of a conservative tool that develops throughout life, the accuracy and relevance of which are difficult to assess.

In general, emotions allow us to respond to any event, thing, and living being, creating a certain pattern that underlies our behavior or the reaction of the body. Without a doubt, we all have emotions from birth, but with the development of intelligence, the influence of the emotional sphere decreases, and sometimes significantly, which is manifested in the difference between rational and emotional choice. However, one should not literally oppose mind and emotions — they are components of a single whole, our body, brain, consciousness — they complement each other, become the cause or effect of each other. The main question, rather, is the dominance or prevalence of the type of behavior — emotional or rational.

What bears to us an emotional type of behavior?

Obviously, it is to a lesser extent control of the situation (except for situations of overwhelming superiority, physical or moral), as well as an understanding of causal relationships; spontaneity in decision-making, and dependence on such decisions. With this type of behavior, as I noted, the emotional vector is rationalized but remains dominant, i.e., rationalization serves not for critical analysis, but to confirm this vector or its excuse. Moreover, such a type of behavior can be seen even in well-educated people, and in this case, the level of confirmation or justification grows significantly — it becomes pseudoscientific or even scientific but remains biased (7).

The emotionality and the dependence of the mind on emotions underlie the various kinds of prejudice and the inability to overcome them. We are ready to believe anything just because we are experiencing an emotional attraction to such a choice. And the symbiosis of the tendency to prevalence of the emotional choice and intellectual backwardness, in general, can make real wonders — otherwise, how is it possible to explain the faith in such things as the “Flat Earth” in the 21st century?

But it certainly does not mean that emotions are harmful — it would be just stupid to assert this. Yes, many emotions can get us into trouble and even be dangerous, but it is a completely imprescriptible part of our life, and their absence indicates serious mental disabilities or diseases. It is necessary to understand emotions and analyze them to be (at least to some extent) confident in the correctness of the choice (8). For example, intuition, an extremely important and useful tool for interaction with the world — however, without a developed intelligence, capable of correctly interpreting the information that intuition provides, it can lead us to a dead-end.

An evaluation of someone or something (including moral one) we also carry out emotionally, and only then determine the criteria, degrees, or dependencies, although many of us are limited to the emotional side.

In general, the emotional type of behavior makes us dependent on what we do not fully understand and what we are not able to control.

It would seem since the emotional sphere is a natural part of our life, then you should not worry, but accept everything as it is. However, there is a very big problem — the emotions of others, and, therefore, their behavior, it is very easy to manipulate.

Manipulation, no doubt, is one of the most ancient benefit tools. Well, in the 21st century, its use has reached unprecedented heights, both in the breadth of use and the degree of immorality. Business is perhaps the most harmless of beneficiaries — manipulations of the politicians (intentional or native), sometimes reflecting the position of state power, reach unprecedented scale, covering millions of people (often threatening their mental health).

Manipulating by intellectually developed people, quite difficult (although not impossible), so the main target is an emotional sphere and people with an emotional type of behavior. That is why the most successful advertising or political actions are addressed to emotions, “settle” the most susceptible ones on the invisible “short leash”.

But politics is more interesting for us — look at the behavior of those usually called “populists”. All their behavior, their companies are aimed at “catching” voters on the “hook” — exaltation, acting, posturing, excessive appeal to the themes of patriotism, national/racial/moral identity, uniqueness, chosenness, greatness, the exploitation of the image of “friend “(highly moral, aesthetically attractive, and strong) in opposition to “foes” (vile, aesthetically unpleasant/ugly, and extremely powerful). And, of course, the promises to solve the most pressing problems (regardless of reality) associated with established injustice, which, of course, any society and the state are prone to.

All these are triggers that switch on the emotional attraction — aesthetic, social, moral, and, possibly, sexual. And such an attraction can acquire so strong character that it cannot be discredited by any, even the most convincing, arguments and facts. Those who “settle on the hook/leash” can even be aware and take the most flagrant facts, but it won’t be able to change their emotional addiction.

In addition, the emotional sphere lies at the heart of such phenomena as the gregariousness and thirst for a “strong hand”. In these cases, certain evolutionary mechanisms are included, allowing “to automate” a personal choice, reducing it to the choice of a significant number of people identified as alike/similar ones, as well as to the definition of the leader/top dog/alpha male (female?), endowed with real or hypothetical power/force. This aspect possibly is decisive in closed societies characterized by a thirst for autocracy and a tendency to concentrate around the “strong leader”, endowing him/her with non-existent or hypertrophic advantages (9).

Especially, the tendency to the emotional type of behavior and vulnerability to various kinds of manipulations is manifested during the times of shocks or instability, economic, political, and social crises — at such moments a significant part of the electorate becomes tuned for decisive actions and easily swinging, and the chances of populists as high as possible.

And what is the most amazing, such populists are always!

Briefly go through the categories associated with the emotional type of behavior.

Those who vote “habitually” — a group of voters that make up the core in any elections, which are represented by at least one “old” (a very relative concept, possibly limited by sufficient fame, and not a term of existence) political power or well-known person. Without getting nuanced, they, in fact, are predominantly voting for the preservation of their “world”, i.e., for the status quo fearing the changes in which, consciously or not, feel an existential threat.

The nature of this approach is, in fact, much more difficult and obviously is a complex of motives, the result of the action of internal (and, probably innate) social systems, allowing simplify the relationship with the outside world to a certain quantity of emotional states, including the feeling of “authenticity”, the binary system “friend/foe”, “trust”, “sympathy”, etc.

Similar mechanisms lie also at the heart of the choice of those who vote “for” or “against” guided by the motives of sympathy and antipathy. The difference may be in the lack of information about the person or party proposed for the choice, or the absence of a “their” candidate and, herewith, a fairly high level of dissatisfaction by the current state of affairs.

In the category of non-voting, of course, there is a whole range of emotional or rational types of behavior described above. Various kinds of reasons do not allow such people under normal conditions to take part in the elections. However, this category is an almost limitless field of possibilities, the implementation of which, though, requires fundamentally different ways of approach. For example, people with a rational type of behavior need to be attracted by fact-proving, moderation, rationality, responsibility, decency. And those who have an emotional type by strengthening exaltation, escalating tension, increasing fears, bringing real or imaginary threats to absurdity, etc.

However, constant escalation of hysteria can “switch off” the mind in quite rational people, too.

I will add a few words (primitive, but, in my opinion, relevant to reality) about the difference between rational and emotional behaviors.

When I talk about the prevalence of emotions over mind, I do not mean that emotions suppress any manifestation of the mind — that, of course, is possible, but rather in some border states, the states of the maximum emotional tension and outburst of emotions.

No, the mind always works, and in everyone (well, almost in everyone 😊), but the mode of operation and purpose are definitely different.

The bottom line is that the mind allows us to interpret emotions — an emotion arises, provoking the work of the mind on its implementation. Accordingly, there is an opposite path — some thought, if it is deep or important, can cause an emotional response.

If we have developed intelligence, and, obviously, the developed brain, emotions can cause completely unpredictable thoughts, ideas, and implementation, up to refusing to implement in force of the inconsistency to some moral, ethical, or social standards.

If the intellect is not developed, the brain is not developed, too, and its functioning in the conscious tasks is limited to a certain set of neural patterns, that is, stereotypes or routine, around which, in this case, all conscious activities spin. Therefore, emotions will cause largely the identical rational answer. Therefore, rationalization will be carried out within the framework of the paradigm of the “carrier’s” existence and, rather, will operate with ultimate categories — “good/bad”, “consent/denial”, “confirmation” or “justification”, may even be critical thinking, but on some kind of very primitive and subjective level (10).

The lack of development of neural connections can make the perception of the most trivial things very complex.

It should be noted once again the significant importance of the width of development of intelligence, the horizon, which allows you to use numerous various neural patterns, since even an excellent, but narrowly specialized, education, may apparently limit the number of neural circuits or make them of the same type, which can also be reflected in the inability adequately react to emotional impulses.

Well, now let’s look at Trump. From the side, Trump looks rather not as a politician but as a showman or pop star — bright, brutal, narcissistic, surrounded by a crowd of fans, ready to forgive him any sins (even the murder on the 5th Avenue? 11). I will not evaluate the economic achievements of his administration, let it make specialists. As applies to politics, then we all had the opportunity to observe — a disaster in the relations with the nearest allies, but flirting with dictators and autocrats, absolute indifference to the moral values and the lives of other people (even of citizens of his country, what brightly demonstrated the epidemic of COVID-19), ignoring climate change, neglect by any problems of the future, except for his re-election, to which he was ready to go at any cost, and unprecedented perseverance in reluctance to concede defeat.

His rhetoric and actions, in my opinion, quite definitely characterize him as a populist, and an authoritarian one.

As I noted, it is not surprising that Trump was able to get such big support in his first elections, it’s amazing that his supporters’ base remained as much despite all the information that was completely accessible and characterized him by far from the best side.

But, as follows from the foregoing, Trump turned out to be a skillful “fisherman” and managed to catch a very big “fish” — millions of Americans who were on the “hook” of emotional attraction.

His image, behavior, and persistence turned out to be so attractive for many people, that ones in the literal sense “fell in love” with him, becoming hostages of their emotionality, others saw “Moses” in him, able to destroy the plans of “enemies” and bring his followers to the “Promised land” but not after 40 years, and already “tomorrow”. The third ones… The third ones saw what was happening with the first and second ones, realized the scale of the processes, and decided to hold on to Trump at any cost. I mean the top of the Republican Party who apparently understood everything but did their moral choice, deciding that a small moral dissonance is worth the expected benefit.

And the situation is developing.

Trump is now similar to a “godfather” giving “okay” on any actions (ironic but also a short version of his name resonates with this comparison). Well, if you continue the analogy the kernel of the Republican Party becomes similar to the mafia, the main virtue of which is the demonstration of devotion to their “Don” (I wonder if they will be limited to this?).

I think the popularity of the Republican Party now remains high in many ways because Trump is still its leader and the party itself is perceived as the Trump party — if Trump decides to create his own project a significant number of his fans will go with him that, of course, can lead the Republican Party to a serious crisis, and perhaps raise the question of its existence (that becomes another factor in the loyalty of the Republican elite).

It is difficult to say how naturalness is the image and style of the behavior of Trump, whether it is his own find or the result of the activities of image-makers, but it is obvious that even something that can annoy ones (arrogance, brutality, lie, not to mention such funny things as self-tanner or hairstyle), is attractive to others.

To the goal of sensitizing the masses and their emotional attraction serves not only the image of Trump himself but, also, the images of his spouse and families who made a considerable contribution to the overall picture (are there no little things in such a case?).

Special mention deserves a manic reluctance to recognize his defeat comparable, to something, with the reluctance of a capricious child to part with a beloved toy — the comparison is not groundless because a “toy” with which it is so difficult to part in this case is power (the thing that for many is the very essence of their existence). This reluctance probably has two reasons: personal one — as a self-affected, prone to narcissism, a person, it is difficult for him to take defeats; and advertising one — since the non-recognition of defeats, victory at all costs, is exactly what many of his fans like (12).

And yes, they see in him what he is most likely not, but it works!

Let’s go back to the proportions.

Of course, there is a temptation to attribute all people with a good education as voters with a rational type of behavior, but, as I have already noted, this is not the case — education itself does not serve as a guarantee of adequate personal development, although it is an important step to it. Carefully assume that in countries with traditionally qualitative education and cultural development, such people are a moderate majority (among educated people). In developing or authoritarian countries, their number is much less.

Well, what is the rest of the population? Are all these people the holders of emotional behavior? I think that among people who do not have good education are probably those who have congenital, pronounced, analytical abilities and demonstrate a rational type of behavior, but, unfortunately, such people are probably very few.

And if I noted that, in my opinion, the number of people with a rational type of behavior in developed countries can be up to a third of the adult population, then the remaining two-thirds probably are people with an emotional type of behavior. In less developed countries, their number is obviously more.

It is clear that such an assumption is the result of observations and reflections, not a statistical analysis since such an analysis is now hardly possible as a consequence of the absence of statistical material. Even, as close as possible to this topic, the rating of countries in terms of development — “Human Development Index Ranking”, 5 — mentioned above, remains little informative and not particularly useful in the context of the illuminated theme.

How to estimate the number of people by their type of behavior remains unclear — the process of determining the prevalence of rational or emotional motives obviously requires a high level of personal development and self-reflection. Perhaps the method of such an assessment still exists or will appear soon.

Does everyone who demonstrates a rational type of behavior voted for Biden? I am sure that no — mind is sometimes able to find such arguments that will be unacceptable for most rational people. Nevertheless, without special hesitation, I assume that the overwhelming majority voted for Biden.

Does everyone who demonstrates the emotional type of behavior is a Trump supporter? Either no, because among those who voted for Biden were those who voted by habit and on other emotional motives, in particular, as protest voters (as well as those who voted for Trump, “protesting” against Biden’s election).

It should be noted that Trump’s election tactic made it possible to attract an incredible number of traditionally non-voting voters, probably mostly possessing the emotional type of behavior. However, it seems that it also pushed his opponents from the same category to take part in the elections.

In general, all those techniques that allowed Trump to create such a powerful base of followers and fans have largely worked against him, motivating a huge number of voters, both with rational and emotional behavior, to vote for Biden or against Trump. What seems attractive for one becomes unacceptable, and even disgusting, for others.

That is, by his image, the behavior, and moral qualities, Trump strengthened the split and contradictions in the American society (which, certainly, existed before it, but, obviously, in a less acute form) to the limit, what turned out in the attempt of the coup d’état.

That’s the power of the historical moment — it is unlikely that there were many of those who could assume that the appearance of Trump would be so crushing for the foundations of democracy in the United States (13). Although even the surface assessment of the character’s features of Trump could be sufficient to predict his behavior as the president.

Now some are trying to fight the “Trump effect” while others are trying to “saddle” it.

Consciously or intuitively, Trump fell into the mood of a sufficiently large group of people, who raised him to the top of power. If he continues so skillfully manipulate them in the future, he will remain an influential political figure for quite a long time, as much as the mobilization emotional rise of his “army” will last, and how long he can keep himself on the top, literally and figuratively. And it can be a very difficult time for democracy around the world.

Can there be other Trumps?

The question is not easy, since such a success and influence, is the result of the symbiosis of the charismatic personality, the emotional attraction of tremendous masses of people suffering from injustice (real or seeming), and the power of the moment that is pressing together all this into a dense combustible mixture, ready to explode from the slightest spark. So, the question of whether Trump could achieve such success earlier (which could provide him much more time on political Olympus), or whether he will be able to repeat his success in the future, remains open.

It’s no secret, of course, that the “Trump effect” is not a unique phenomenon — at different times and in different countries there were a lot of similar cases, they are now, too. However, it’s not correct to compare them with the described situation, if only because these events occur not in the country of the third world, not in any autocracy, but in a country that is a stronghold of democracy and the free world.

Yes, it should be noted that democracy itself is experiencing far from the best times — in many aspects, it demonstrates its vulnerability since its advantages are also its disadvantages, which use various autocratic regimes, seeing existential threat even in such a state. The disagreements between democratic countries increase, as well as the gap between the rich and poor; racial contradictions are not weakened; the loss of jobs in connection with the increase in robotization and the development of artificial intelligence; a surge of manifestations of discontent associated with the growth of the self-consciousness of the wide masses; prevailing the economic prerogatives over the morality, and more. But there is no reasonable alternative to democracy!

The ideas and actions of Trump are not aimed at improving democracy — they are aimed at its destruction, at replacing the democratic system with an authoritarian one, if not a dictatorship…

And if democracy fails in the United States, it will also be under great threat in the rest of the world.

Hell, the world itself will be in great danger!

All this is definitely necessary to take into account the current administration and political establishment to reduce the likelihood of repetition of such events in the future and deprive Trump of the main instruments of manipulation. And there is a question of political hyperopia (regardless of party affiliation), responsibility, and moral cleanliness.

But this should also be taken into account by ordinary people, those who voted for Trump or against him since not only the fate of the United States depends on them, but, in many respects, the fate of the entire world. They should also pay special attention to personal development since only such development can protect against the adoption of an incorrect decision and make a clear view of many problems that make our lives.

Of course, other Trumps are possible, but for this such “other” will have to become a new Trump, which is very difficult to do. However, it should be remembered about Trump himself, because it could be that his time has not yet passed — after all, millions covered by emotional attraction is a very powerful force…

References:

1. Who Votes Right-Wing Populist? Geographical and Individual Factors in Seven German State Elections https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/14560.pdf

2. Do unhappy citizens vote for populism? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268020301336

3. The Populist Voter https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PanelDetails/527

4. Human Development Education index http://hdr.undp.org/en/indicators/103706

5. 2020 Human Development Index Ranking http://www.hdr.undp.org/en/content/latest-human-development-index-ranking

6. Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/10/1612113114

7. How Conspiracy Theorists Get the Scientific Method Wrong https://elephantinthelab.org/how-conspiracy-theorists-get-the-scientific-method-wrong/

8. People with lower emotional intelligence are more likely to hold right-wing views, study finds https://www.psypost.org/2019/09/people-with-lower-emotional-intelligence-are-more-likely-to-hold-right-wing-views-study-finds-54369

9. Why Your Brain Hates Other People https://nautil.us/issue/55/trust/why-your-brain-hates-other-people-rp

10. How the Brain Influences Which Way You Vote https://neurosciencenews.com/lofc-neurobiology-voting-2104/

11. Trump: “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters” https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/index.html

12. Traditional Stereotypes About Masculinity May Help Explain Support for Trump https://neurosciencenews.com/masculinity-perception-trump-supporters-17527/

13. NEW REPORT: US Democracy Has Declined Significantly in the Past Decade, Reforms Urgently Needed https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-report-us-democracy-has-declined-significantly-past-decade-reforms-urgently-needed

This article is the result of my deeply subjective reflections, observations of the surrounding and my inner world, the attempts to establish simple causal relationships and create an understandable model of the world. Some ideas are confirmed by scientific research or correlate with them, some, I hope, will either be confirmed or disproved in the near future. Your right to accept these ideas and draw your conclusions, or completely ignore them and go your own way.

“May the force be with you!”

Continuation of the attempts of the building an understandable (and, I dare to hope, quite simple) model of the world you can find here.