close
close

How Trump's worst-case interpretations of liberals actually help him

Elwood is the author of “Defusing American anger“ and hosts the podcast “People who read people.”

In a recent speech to Christians, former President Donald Trump told them to vote for him because that would mean “you don't have to vote anymore.” This provoked much criticism. For example, Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign team said Trump's statement was a “Vow to end democracy.”

But as with many things Trump has said, that can have multiple meanings. Personally, I think there's a good chance that Trump, in his typical exaggerated manner, was trying to convey something like, “This election is so important; if you vote for me, it will have such a huge positive effect on you that future elections will pale in comparison.” I think there's a good chance that Trump, in his exaggeration, was trying to a bit humorousas others have already suggested.

Of course, I can't say for sure. And that's the point: nobody can.

A major reason for the widening of our toxic divide is that so many of us overly pessimistic views our political opponents. We too often take the worst possible view of everything “they” do and say. We participate in Mind readingbecause we believe we understand the malicious motives behind even the most spontaneous and ambiguous statements and actions.

Sign up for the Fulcrum newsletter

Our pessimistic reactions, in turn, reinforce the vicious cycle of conflict. Excessive contempt and fear breed more contempt and fear. (This is not to say that there aren't things to worry about; it just means that conflict can increase our fears.)

When we interpret everything Trump (or anyone else) says in the worst possible way, we increase the toxicity of our conflict. Such things reinforce the narrative that Trump and his supporters are being treated unfairly by the liberal establishment. This leads to real and understandable resentment and anger on the Republican side.

The degree of certainty plays a role. It is one thing to say: “Trump might have meant X.” It is quite another thing to say: “Trump definitely X meant.” To describe Trump's statement as a “vowing to end democracy,” as the Harris team did, is not only highly pessimistic, but also highly certain. And that certainty will bother people who are aware that Trump's statement can be interpreted in different ways (just as liberals are bothered when Republicans do similar things).

In short, an overly negative attitude toward Trump helps Trump.Avoiding very pessimistic and certain interpretations is in itself the right thing to do – but politically passionate people should also do this for purely practical reasons.

In many interviews, Trump voters have said that Trump’s unfair treatment, in their view, a factor in their support for himWe can also look at work showing that group-targeted insults – seen by some as highly pessimistic views of Trump – Intensify conflictsWe can also look at the research that shows that insults are a Boomerang effect and make a person's original beliefs more extreme and persistent.

This dynamic has been evident in many of Trump’s ambiguous statements. Statement “very fine people”there was the “step back and stand by” instruction there was the “They are rapists” statement was recently “Bloodbath” statement. In my book “Defusing American Anger” I a chapter about our different views on Trumpin which I examine liberal interpretations of some of these statements – as well as the more positive interpretations of Trump supporters. To understand our divisions – and reduce them – we must see how our polarized narratives shape and inform our views on so many events and behaviors around us.

Some will object: “But Trump has done and said many clearly bad things; giving him a break is a naive mistake. He deserves our pessimism.” But that is not Reason for us to interpret things in the worst possible way; it is a Excuse me For many of us, both on the right and the left, conflict instinctively leads to extremely negative and hostile reactions – but we must recognize that this is neither the right thing to do nor does it help us.

When I talk to Trump voters, there are things they find problematic and troubling about Trump. People who want to convince their fellow Americans of Trump's inability to lead should talk about these things that are generally accepted and less ambiguous. (And I would say the same to Republicans: There are many real things you can criticize Democrats for without resorting to extremely pessimistic and mind-reading arguments.)

To counter political toxicity (and the Extremism resulting from this toxicity), more people need to think about how biased, emotional reactions deepen our divisions—and also how those reactions can help our more polarized opponents.

You may also like...