People don't vote their self-interest.
People don't vote their self-interest. Nor do people vote rationally to promote their principles or advance their values. Instead, people vote for the candidate with whom they symbolically-emotionally identify. Both self-interest and principles or values enter into the choice of candidate primarily when these things serve as symbols for the expressive-emotional needs of the voter.
Symbolic-emotional election of leaders is true not only for individual voters, but --even more so-- for the collectivities those individual voters comprise. After all, the result of an election is a collective product; the winner --and thus the winning majority-- represents the entire collectivity. To the extent that it is true that collective actions express the needs of the collectivity-as-a-whole, even the "losing" voters are authentically part of the "we-who-did-that."
Donald Trump represents us all. Truly. We need to own it. "Us and them" masks the group reality.
President Trump signifies America's tantrum. This moment in history --the turning over of the Elliot Wave Theory Supercycle fifth wave toward "correcting"(:stock market jargon) the rise in wealth and civilizational advance from the beginning of the Industrial Age-- is an emotional tantrum in frustrated rejection of the "parental" ruling establishment.
Note: Locating this historical moment in a history that can satisfactorily contextualize it, that can successfully provide meaning for this moment is an uncertain task. For me, two paradigms for historically contextualizing the election of Trump that, together, give me some sense of understanding are called Elliott Wave Theory/Socionomics and Psychohistory. The first is based on an empirically descriptive analysis of the ups and downs of stock prices and other large public events. The second is based on a psychoanalytic approach to group dynamics.
Symbolic-emotional election of leaders is true not only for individual voters, but --even more so-- for the collectivities those individual voters comprise. After all, the result of an election is a collective product; the winner --and thus the winning majority-- represents the entire collectivity. To the extent that it is true that collective actions express the needs of the collectivity-as-a-whole, even the "losing" voters are authentically part of the "we-who-did-that."
Donald Trump represents us all. Truly. We need to own it. "Us and them" masks the group reality.
President Trump signifies America's tantrum. This moment in history --the turning over of the Elliot Wave Theory Supercycle fifth wave toward "correcting"(:stock market jargon) the rise in wealth and civilizational advance from the beginning of the Industrial Age-- is an emotional tantrum in frustrated rejection of the "parental" ruling establishment.
Note: Locating this historical moment in a history that can satisfactorily contextualize it, that can successfully provide meaning for this moment is an uncertain task. For me, two paradigms for historically contextualizing the election of Trump that, together, give me some sense of understanding are called Elliott Wave Theory/Socionomics and Psychohistory. The first is based on an empirically descriptive analysis of the ups and downs of stock prices and other large public events. The second is based on a psychoanalytic approach to group dynamics.
Comments
Post a Comment