In hindsight, which often teems with insight, President-Elect Donald Trump seems to have duped far too many people into believing he is just an ordinary guy. But is it possible he really identifies with average Americans more than his detractors want to admit?
Empathy
Sells
Paradoxically, Trump, a wealthy real-estate developer and late-blooming T.V. star, seems the antithesis of all those average Americans with whom he supposedly identifies. How could this high-living, self-proclaimed billionaire possibly identify with average Americans? How could he possibly know how it feels to be worried about paying the bills, or what it means to be concerned about job stability?
In fact, though, Trump doesn’t have to be disenfranchised to empathize with those who are. Whether Trump’s empathy for the disgruntled public was contrived or not, he still convinced enough of them to believe he understood why they were dissatisfied with the status quo.
A Good Example
Ironically, Trump seems to have taken his cue for empathizing from former President Bill Clinton, the husband of Trump’s election foe. In 1992 Bill Clinton famously made headlines for his apparent profound empathy when he told an AIDS activist, “I feel your pain,” when the man urged Clinton to take a stand about the AIDS epidemic.
Did Bill Clinton have to have AIDS to understand why the man was discouraged? Did Trump have to live paycheque to paycheque to understand why many Americans are upset with their federal government and the state of their own lives?
Offensive Language
After the release of the disgusting audio from a now-infamous video, Trump even tried to explain away his crass taped words about women as just ‘guy talk;’ the way he suggested all males talk in locker rooms. Most people already know about Trump’s vulgar language on that tape, so his words don’t bear repeating here.
Trump’s incendiary language during the election campaign was often shocking and inflammatory, partly for what he said directly, and also for what he sometimes seemed to suggest.
Yet, as repulsive as a lot of Trump’s language was during the election campaign, including his disparaging comments about immigrants, women, and others, he still has the right of free speech—perhaps unless he uses words publicly to intentionally incite others to violence.
Inflammation Overload: Gunning for Votes
At least once, Trump seemed to purposely incite gun owners to violence against his opponent, Hillary Clinton. He opposed her goal to have stricter gun laws in the U.S.
Presumably vying for gun owners’ votes, Trump implied the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, dealing with the right to bear arms, would allow gun-owners to deal with Clinton, in their own way.
Many pundits believed Trump was encouraging gun-owners to assassinate Clinton, which he denied by explaining he meant only that gun owners could vote against her in the election. Was Trump really advocating violence against Clinton? Or was he just using language cleverly to make a point?
Powerful Language
Trump’s oratory during the campaign was often xenophobic in nature and powerful for his ability to tap into many Americans’ fear of foreigners, for his rich bluntness, and for his bluster about those he deemed unfit and ineligible to be in the country--such as unlawful immigrants and terrorists he claimed are currently allowed to be in the United States. Trump’s skillful-yet-often offensive use of language resonated with many average Americans who might fear their own jobs will be given to lower-paid unlawful immigrants or others, or who worry that potential or actual terrorists are now in the U. S. waiting for a chance to wreak havoc on the country.
No Shortage of Opinions
Trump always had an opinion or explanation about everything during the election campaign; however dubious, distasteful, fabricated or outright false his comments were. But he also seemed to consistently connect with profound voter unrest that Clinton and her Democratic party didn’t seem to recognize or acknowledge.
A Winning Combination
No doubt many factors contributed to Trump’s election victory, all of which ultimately seemed perfectly aligned when he finally grabbed the brass ring, including: general dissatisfaction with the status quo including ‘typical’ politicians like Clinton and others; the impact of his own loud, brazen rhetoric—regardless of how divisive and hateful it was or seemed; his keen instincts and intuition for ‘reading the public;’ his obvious showmanship, insatiable need for attention, and love of the limelight; and his impeccable and fortuitous timing in being a candidate in this particular election.
