By Rebecca L. Greenbaum
Even with Joe Biden’s presidential victory, one question is dominating my post-election conversations: “Why didn’t we win by more?” This question is not posed as an inquisitive search for knowledge, but as a baffling realization that nearly half of our country voted for Donald Trump. For many Americans, the case against Trump is so morally clear that the only “right” choice on the presidential ballot was to vote against him.
As an unethical leadership scholar, I unequivocally agree that we need new leadership in Washington, starting with the removal of Trump. However, I also believe that we inflame dysfunction by oversimplifying the American people’s election decisions — namely, when we fail to consider the diverging motives that collectively point to a Trump vote. If we want to stop Trumpian politics, we need to make a concerted effort to understand his appeal or why he receives support.
At its simplest, money is a key explanation for Trump’s support, and that’s not a novel explanation. Yet, there are two very different concerns regarding money. First, during economic downturns, people become so focused on their own needs that they are unable or unwilling to consider the social plight of others. Trump scores votes because, in the midst of a pandemic, people are afraid of going hungry and they have confidence in his economic policies.
Secondly, and more cynically, people only care about money and are thus willing to overlook Trump’s destructive tendencies for the sake of their own bottom lines. In fact, research suggests that people will tolerate the unethical conduct of high performers because of the benefits of “getting the job done.” For these people, Trump resonates because he forcefully pushes his economic agenda and does not let niceties get in the way.
More complexly, people overlook the difficulty of breaking away from long-held, ideological beliefs. People define and understand themselves based on their social roles, including their political positions. Personally, I have had many sleepless nights wrestling with my own changing ideological beliefs and what these beliefs say about me as a person. People would rather avoid healthy political discourse because they do not want to challenge their core assumptions of what is “right” with their world. Also, conservatives, more so than liberals, tend to prioritize loyalty and therefore have a harder time aligning themselves with a different political party. So, for some long-time Republicans, it is easier to stick with what is known than to go through the emotional toll of changing politics.
Of course, some people also voted for Trump because they love him. They see him as being authentically himself and as emotionally attractive. Trump’s character permits his supporters to rebel against political correctness and the will of the socially elite. Those who love Trump’s character are sending an equally strong message about what they dislike about progressives. They resent progressives who command moral superiority by investing time and resources into knowing “what’s best” for a changing America. Trump permits his supporters to tell people to go “kick rocks,” only with more colorful language.
As I deliberated over why Trump received such staggering support, one point became very clear and only stands to get worse. People are living in echo chambers; we only talk about political issues with those who have similar views, which gives us a false sense of confidence that our views are the correct views for the rest of America. The reality of my own political silo is reflected by my opening question of “why didn’t we win by more?” Hence, our next question needs to be: “what can we do to break these silos?”
Social media has become an important space for political discourse, but too many people quickly block those with diverging political views. Liberal people bristle at the thought of reading conservative news commentary or asking friends about their fears regarding a more progressive America. Unfortunately, too, our headlines have become overrun by false news, which has been inflamed by Trump and social media algorithms that target those prone to misinformation. Even in light of this sad reality, I argue that we need to keep the lines of communication open to multiple political views, irrespective of discomfort. Doing so will provide us with education, perspective, and opportunities to provide healthy influence, backed by legitimate news sources and information.
I believe the simplest, least contentious way to gain understanding is by asking questions and telling stories. Ask neighbors about their life experiences that have led them to their political views. Offer your own stories to humanize your position on a political issue. Talk about a time when you changed course on a political issue and why. People feel vulnerable when they have limited knowledge; they need to know that it is safe to learn about issues without feeling pigeonholed to new or existing beliefs. If we give people the opportunity and space to learn, they may stay exactly the same, or they may change. Either way, our efforts to understand may give our country what it needs to heal, forgive, and move forward.
Rebecca L. Greenbaum is a professor of human resource management in the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.
Here’s how to submit an op-ed or Letter to the Editor. Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow us on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and on Facebook at NJ.com Opinion. Get the latest news updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.com’s newsletters.