I recently extracted another post from the wreckage of Metespective 2.0. This one seems appropriate for reopening the blog as it examines the views of 103 Trump voters interviewed by USA Today following the 2016 election. 
The original post included links to my methodology and my code but my technical site is still a wreck. So maybe I'll find the pieces and put it back together. Anyway, here's the main post…

Originally published January 2017 . . .

Recently, USAToday produced a webpage titled Trump Nation that presents the opinions of 103 Trump supporters. I decided to read through some of these opinions because I find the support for a candidate who I think is so obviously wrong for working-class America nothing less than fascinating. It didn’t take long for me to realize how subjective the opinions were and I decided to make a little project out of it.

I wrote a short program to extract the data and compile it into a spreadsheet for easier analysis and this is what I found. None of the 103 Americans interviewed mentioned any specific law, policy or problem and none of them mentioned any specific actions taken by their chosen candidate in the past to suggest his qualification either. All the respondents remained vague, hopeful and incredibly subjective.

Out of these vague, “touchy-feely” arguments a small number of generalized themes and assumptions appear as the basis for their support.

• 26 of the respondents suggested that Trump is a straight talker and cited that as a reason for supporting him.
• 24 cited his career as a businessman as a clear reason to support him.
• 21 indicated their support was in part due to his position as an outsider.
• 20 mentioned their utter distaste for Hillary Clinton as a good enough reason to vote for Trump.

These are the most common themes across all the respondents in this particular study. There were a few other themes that I was surprised to see so few people mention such as putting America first, a major theme in Trump’s campaign and yet only 14 out of 103 respondents mentioned that. Another one is bringing back jobs, another major theme in the Trump campaign and yet only ten respondents mentioned it. Even more surprisingly, border-security was only mentioned by ten of the 103 respondents and making America great again was only mentioned eight times. That’s not much more than the seven respondents that had negative things to say about immigrants or the six that had negative things to say about Muslims.

So from the opinions of these 103 Americans we can see that although racist issues and the promise of a “greater America” ARE indeed factors they are nevertheless outweighed by a prevailing sentiment that people are just sick and tired of politicians. While I can understand that sentiment I am appalled by the inability of these 103 Americans to improve the situation by learning how to elect better politicians.

To demonstrate what I mean I’m going to respond to the most common points made by these 103 Americans.

Trump the Straight-Talker

First thing I want to ask is why is there so much evidence to the contrary? Why is he being investigated for so many things that would suggest he isn’t so honest, such as issuing hush money and obstructing justice? Is that not fair because the investigation is still in progress and nothing has been proven yet? OK fine, what about the fact that he still refuses to reveal his tax returns? Saying that he’s not legally obligated to disclose his personal taxes does nothing to change the fact that he is obviously hiding something. The excuse he came up with during his campaign was that his taxes are being audited. Well that was two years ago, which I’m sure is long enough to wrap up an audit or at least identify the case or get some kind of confirmation from ANYONE that his taxes really are being audited, but we got nothing, which really leaves no other option but to assume he was lying about that. Not enough? OK, what about his campaign promise that he would never cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Don’t remember that? See if this jogs your memory…

Trump promising no cuts to Medicare or Medicaid

And yet… in his latest budget proposal he is cutting $200 billion from Medicare. There is no legal loopholes for Trumpian excuses here. This is empirical evidence which couldn’t possibly be any more direct or obvious. He is very clearly breaking his campaign promise. Now sometimes this happens when a president promises something, tries to make it happen but fails. But Trump’s promise not to cut Medicare should not have been a challenge; the program is overwhelmingly supported by the American people and their representatives. Slashing the budget for Medicare was not a failure to preserve it, it was a conscientious decision to attack it and in so doing he did in fact break his promise. This is not the hallmark of a honest man.

One might say, well, ALL politicians lie. Well, first of all, let me restate that two of the most common reasons these 103 Americans came up with for supporting Trump is that he is NOT a politician and that he *is* an honest man. In fact these two reasons go hand-in hand. They like him because he is NOT a dishonest politician. Could have fooled me. In fact he’s breaking records by amassing a collection of more lies than any politician so far ever recorded.

It’s because of this unprecedented disregard for the truth that the New York Times has been maintaining a record of his lies since his inauguration. NYT: List of Trump’s Lies.

Another aspect of this illusion that Trump is a straight-talker is based on the recently increased intolerance for being politically-correct. Five of the respondents (all but one being under 30 years of age) mentioned this directly. Honestly, I don’t know what the problem is here. We used to call it being civil or just having good manners, but now there seems to be this impression that being civil somehow interferes with getting things done.

Gary Johnson, 26 said “we need to be less politically correct and get to the source of problems without beating around the bush as much.” Maybe if he could have provided an actual example where being politically correct caused a beating around the bush.

Joshua Grad, 27 takes it even further by calling political correctness a “disease” that “has caused a lot of arguments, fights, disagreements, and a lot of destruction and decay throughout the entire country.” Again, no examples but that doesn’t stop Joshua from going even further by stating how he loves “the fact that, of all the candidates, Republican and Democrat, he came on and he was rude, he was vulgar, he got his point right across, but he did not do it in a nice friendly way. I’ve had too many politicians that are nice and fluffy, I want someone who will say ‘Naah, you take that and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.’

Honestly, this sounds to me like what he wants is a rude nasty tyrant. His one chance to make his opinion known to the entire USA Today audience and he actually chose to say he likes Trump BECAUSE he is rude and vulgar.

I do understand the problems with oversensitivity and the limits that puts on our humor or our casual conversations. Trust me, as someone who often laughs at jokes about Trump I am well aware of how offended his thin-skinned supporters can get. But we don’t fix problems with casual conversations and jokes. We fix them with serious conversations and carefully considered policies and I really don’t see how being civil or even polite interferes with that.

Overall, I think the of lack of substance to support these opinions about Trump being a straight-talker, paired with the prevalence of that theme among supporters provides a very strong indication that what we are seeing here are people that are either brain-washed or they have other reasons for supporting Trump that they don’t feel they can justify so they reach for other reasons that might not make sense. I think there is also a dismissive attitude among these supporters where they are just sick and tired of the politics they’ve been subjected to over the years and are simply reacting by supporting the non-politician. As for the honesty they insist comes from Trump, I’m pretty dang certain it’s more about the fact that Trump is just saying things they like to hear and calling it the truth is more about endorsing the statement for what they say and much less about whether they’re true or not.

Trump the Businessman

Over recent years, there’s been an upswell of resentment toward the government and its politicians and a businessman is a cultural icon that in many ways symbolizes the “outside” alternative. In the ideological world, businessmen represents the leaders of the private sector, which is being hailed by many as being more capable of efficient solutions than the government. This perspective is largely based on the idea that in the business world competition encourages efficiency and performance and in government there *is* no competition, but that stops making sense when you start noticing how often elections are referred to as races or how often politicians oppose each other on issues. In reality politics *IS* competition.

There are a number of reasons why so many people perceive business as being more efficient. First there is the fundamental difference. The simple fact that in business there is typically one bottom line that makes decisions relatively easy. Everyone knows it’s better to make $100 than $10. But in government it’s not that simple because a policy that benefits a citizen in Ohio might be a detriment to a citizen in Arizona. These conflicts can’t be resolved with simple math.

Another reason for the perception that business is more efficient and/or less corrupt than government is that it’s not as transparent. In the private sector MY business is none of YOUR business. There are the minimal reports required by government, but for the most part, corruption and inefficiencies are handled internally and rarely reaches the media. Private sector business are actually great places for corruption to hide with structures such as the limited liability company. The very idea of a corporation originated as a legal means for collective investment into specific things, which in itself creates a form of government but always with like-minded people – so the board of directors all reaching as a unified party for the $100.

Meanwhile, in the government we have opposing parties scanning each other for flaws to send directly to the media so as to create public outrage and gains in the voter blocks. Because… in government, MY business *IS* YOUR business, which is why you can watch Congress live on CSPAN. How many private sector board meetings can you find on TV?

So with the private sector being so “private” it’s hard to really tell how corrupt or inefficient it is compared to the public sector. I know, I know, there are always the examples. But you can’t draw conclusions on examples of a whole that you don’t even know the size of. One thing we can see on an absolute scale is debt and some people might be surprised to see that private debt is far worse than our national debt.

Aside from the efficiency factor being unsubstantiated there is also the absurdity of preferring a man of business over a man of law to mind matters of law. First of all, calling the government “a business” makes as much sense as calling a car an engine. Engines are used IN cars, airplanes and anything else that… that needs an engine. Likewise, business provides the logistics and financing for product lines, services, churches, clubs, even families and government. So, yes you DO want politicians that are business-savvy but you DON’T want politicians that aren’t also government-savvy.

So really, asking a businessman to run the government instead of a politician is no less absurd than asking a car mechanic to perform open heart surgery instead of a doctor. Unlike a business, which is primarily concerned with the matter of cash flow, a representative government is primarily concerned with the will of the people being represented and these two concerns are not always in sync. There are times when it’s in the best interest of the people to make what is essentially a bad business decision. In fact people like Donald Trump know this, because in business, this can be an advantage; especially if you happen to be an investor who can leverage a human crisis to put a person, a family or even a nation in debt. (This happens all the time).

Now, before I go any further, let’s be clear… business and politics is NOT mutually exclusive. So, there’s nothing saying that a businessman can’t also be a good politician but there’s nothing saying that a car mechanic can’t also surgically repair your body. Even so, as a general rule, if we don’t trust our surgeon, we get another surgeon not a car mechanic.

There’s a lot of overlap between business and government, I know that. But it’s the aspects that are unique to each that present problems depending on how well a decision-maker can switch motives. Our republic has laws about this; laid out in the founding documents. Any businessman assuming the office of the President of the United States will surrender control of his business while in office. Obviously, the potential for conflict between private and public interests is of significant concern.

And yet… 24 of the 103 respondents say they support Trump simply because he’s a businessman… sometimes further qualifying with a reference to his net worth as if that means he’s a successful businessman. Yes, his net-worth is a valid point… It means he didn’t lose everything. But that’s about ALL it means. You see, being a businessman can mean a lot of things… it can mean you are a founder of companies but it can also mean you’re a back alley drug dealer or a dog-walker or in Trump’s case an investor who inherited enough money to make some big bets that apparently paid off. This last category is unique in the sense that success depends more on the money you have than it does on your talent or hard work.

Trump is not an innovator or a builder like Henry Ford or Bill Gates. Trump is an investor like Paris Hilton or any of those other heirs to fortune investing their windfalls in fashion lines, real-estate and branding. So what I’m saying here is that a person without much talent and near-zero effort COULD be as successful as Trump given enough money and luck. I’m not saying this is definitely the case, I’m just saying you can’t rule it out, so when people are making decisions about who to vote for, they need to dig deeper than just… “He’s a wealthy businessman”, especially when you consider the fact that swindlers are also businessmen and probably the worst possible choice to lead a government for the benefit of the people.

Trump the Outsider

But is he really? It seems there is more than one perspective on this. On one hand, there is an upswell of resentment toward the government and its politicians that has been developing over the years and this is the perspective that Trump is leveraging with slogans like “drain the swamp”. But for those who pay more attention to the fact that government and it’s politicians have been influenced, perhaps even to some extent controlled by lobbies dispatched from the private sector, the question often arises… Who really rules the nation? Is it really the government or is it a relatively small number of very rich and powerful private citizens influencing the government?

A very basic lesson in civics can clear this up. Our constitution establishes government as a public interest. That means the politicians are technically public servants obligated to serving the needs of the people, including very rich and powerful people. This doesn’t mean that politicians can’t be corrupted by self-interest, but the fact that corruption charges are actually very rare suggests that it’s not as rampant as the conspiracy theories suggest. And when you consider the point

In many ways this is the same thing as saying he’s a businessman. There’s been an upswell of resentment toward the government and its politicians that has been developing over the years and a businessman is a cultural icon that in many ways symbolizes the “outside” alternative. In the ideological world, businessmen represents the leaders of the private sector, which is being hailed by many as being more capable of efficient solutions than the government.

What this perspective misses is the fact that business always has a bottom line and a representative government doesn’t. This is why business often appears to be more efficient… When you HAVE a bottom line, the decisions and strategies are more clear, perhaps even obvious. Everyone knows how to choose between $100 and $10, even automated systems can do that. But a representative government is often faced with irreconcilable differences that have no bottom line and how DO you choose between a citizen in Ohio and a citizen in Arizona?

But during the 2016 elections, being an “outsider” meant more than just being a businessman. It meant being outside the circle of career politicians that have maintained the same agendas across multiple presidencies. This is of particular interest to those who think that agenda is mired in corruption and Trump’s campaign tapped into this, encouraging the idea that these Washington lifers