"The Waking Up Podcast", Donald Trump, Podcast, President Trump, Sam Harris, Scott Adams, Trump's Supporters
The morning after Trump’s victory over Clinton, I simply posted:
The country spoke yesterday.
And we must listen.
I have tried to follow my own advice and have struggled with where my biases, my instincts, my thinking, and my emotions have led me. And as readers of this site know, I have mostly posted links to articles and books that seek to explain what I continue to find hard to understand: how is it that this President can continue to say and do what he does and to continue to have support from many of those who elected him?
Thanks to a suggestion from a MillersTime reader in the Comment section of a post a few days ago on this topic — Understanding Others: Tone More Than Policies? — I believe I now understand much more about Trump and about his supporters than ever before.
In a long interview/discussion between two individuals, Sam Harris and Scott Andrews, both strangers to me, I now have a frame that helps me see what has been in front of me but which I have not sufficiently understood. While my sympathy and views are largely similar to those of Sam Harris, it is Scott Andrews — he predicted Trump’s rise and victory all along — who is responsible for my new understandings.
You will need some time to listen to the lengthy podcast of the conversation between these two knowledgeable observers, but you don’t have to listen to the entire 2 hours and 17 minutes of that conversation. After a slowish start, the heart of what they discuss is contained within the first hour. I know that is long time to devote out of your busy schedules, but given the amount of time many of us have ‘devoted’ to reading about the latest news, fake or real, for me it was time well spent.
You can begin to listen to the Adams / Andrew’s exchange by going to: The Waking Up Podcast.
You will likely view what is happening in our country with clearer vision than many of you/us have until this point.
For those that don’t know, Scott Adams is the creator of the Dilbert comic strip, and has written books on the corporate world/sales/persuasion.
Salena Zito, I believe, is responsible for what I think is the best one sentence summation: Trump supporters took him seriously, but not literally; his opponents take him literally, but not seriously……
This audio program underlines my concern that Trump haters often over exaggerate all aspects of Trump. They talk of his lying like he is purposely misleading people. Is that like how Obama and Clinton lied about Obama care and Bengazi? Is it like Clinton accepting so much money “for the foundation” from Russia and so many countries who denigrate woman and others?
There do not seem to be real facts that Trump has hurt our country.
Mostly I find it difficult to listen to insults to the office of our president. For years people ere afraid to be critical of Obama because of being called racists. Maybe part of all the anger is anger that is easier to give a rich white man. Sure he is not perfect but who can really know what is in his heart?
If Trump tells his lies and exaggerations and is aware of what he is doing, then he is their master, and he can work around them and use them as tools. But, if he believes everything he says, then it is hopeless, and he truly is the victim of the last adviser or piece of information to reach him (as has been reported over and over). He has no far reaching plans, no view of the future, no firm ideas about anything. He could not begin to explain what made American great in the past and what he is trying to accomplish and none of the people around him can do that either.
He truly seems to believe that the advertising slogan is the actual product. He also seems to believe that all success can be negotiated and the key skill is knowing how to talk to the other side; if the right deal is made, the production/sales/distribution work will somehow take care of itself.
Clearly Trump reached many people on a personal level and gave them hope that things could change. Hillary never talked about progress or change or dreams or hope, except for women’s rights. And with her bland angry personality and her ever restless eyes, she was not the person to fight the emotional war with trump. It was all beneath her to take off her shoes and go stamp the grapes and she didn’t to associate with those who did.
Trump was not the ideal candidate for many people (except the very angry), but he offered a spark of hope that things might change, which Hillary made clear was not going to happen.She liked the immigration situation, the manufacturing and factory situation, the foreign trade, the criminal justice system, the health care system, education loans, relations with Europe and Russia and China, refugee management. I do not recall her calling for one change to one program; it wasn’t so much that Trump was the right candidate as it was the Hillary wasn’t. The only way that Trump could maintain such support was if people did not listen to what he was saying everyday but listened to the message they heard which was that Trump didn’t like things any more than they did and he, as an outsider, could and would fix them. That is always the most powerful political idea. It propelled the American Revolution and has brought many Presidents to power.
May I add to your reading recommendations….Scott Adam’s new book “Win Bigly….Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter”…..