Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How liberals' worst-case readings of Trump actually help Trump

Donald Trump
James Devaney/GC Images

Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts the podcast “People Who Read People.”

In a recent speech addressed to Christians, former President Donald Trump said they should vote for him because doing so would mean, “You won’t have to vote anymore.” This provoked much criticism. For example, Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign said Trump’s statement was a "vow to end democracy."

But, as with many things Trump has said, there can be multiple meanings here. I myself think there’s a good chance Trump was, in his typical over-the-top way, trying to communicate something like, “This election is so important; if you vote for me, it’s going to have such a huge positive effect for you that future elections will pale in comparison.” I think there’s a decent chance Trump was, in his over-the-topness, trying to be a bit humorous, as others have suggested.


I, of course, can’t be sure. And that’s the point: No one can.

A major way our toxic divides grow is by so many of us having overly pessimistic views of our political opponents. We too often take the worst-case-possible views of everything “they” do and say. We engage in mind-reading, believing that we understand the malicious motivations behind even the most off-the-cuff and ambiguous statements and actions.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Our pessimistic reactions in turn add to the vicious cycle of conflict. Outsized contempt and fear beget more contempt and fear. (This is not to say there aren’t things to be concerned about; it’s just to say that conflict can amplify our fears.)

When we take the worst-case interpretations of everything Trump (or anyone) says, we amplify the toxicity of our conflict. Such things bolster the narrative that Trump and his supporters are being treated unfairly by the liberal establishment. It results in genuine and understandable Republican-side grievances and anger.

People’s degree of certainty plays a role here. It’s one thing to say, “Trump might have meant X.” It’s another thing entirely to say, “Trump definitely meant X.” Calling Trump’s statement a “vow to end democracy,” as the Harris campaign did, is not only highly pessimistic; it’s also highly certain. And that certainty will bother people who recognize that Trump’s statement can be interpreted in different ways (just as it bothers liberals when Republicans do similar things).

In short, overly negative takes about Trump help Trump.Avoiding highly pessimistic and certain interpretations is the right thing to do, on its own — but it’s also something politically passionate people should do for purely practical reasons.

In many interviews, Trump voters have said that Trump’s unfair treatment, as they see it, is a factor in their support for him. We can also look at work that shows that group-aimed insults — which highly pessimistic takes about Trump will be seen by some as representing — amplify conflict. We can also look at research showing that insults can have a boomerang effect and make someone’s initial beliefs more extreme and committed.

This dynamic has played out for many ambiguous things Trump has said. There was the “very fine people” statement, there was the “stand back and stand by” statement, there was the “They’re rapists” statement, there was the recent “bloodbath” statement. In my book “Defusing American Anger,” I have a chapter on our divergent views of Trump, in which I examine liberal-side interpretations of some of these statements — as well as the more positive interpretations Trump supporters had. To understand our divides — and lessen them — we must see how our polarized narratives shape and mold 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’s earned our pessimism.” But that is not a reason for us to interpret things in the worst possible way; it’s an excuse for doing so. Conflict leads many of us, on the right and left, to instinctually have highly negative and adversarial reactions — but we must see that that’s not the right thing to do, nor does it help us.

When I’ve talked to Trump voters, there are things they see as problematic and worrying about Trump. People who wish to persuade their fellow Americans of Trump’s unfitness to lead should talk about those more agreed-upon and less ambiguous things. (And I’d say the same to Republicans: There are many real things to criticize Democrats for without reaching for extremely pessimistic and mind-reading arguments.)

To succeed in reducing political toxicity (and the extremism that such toxicity helps generate), we’ll need more people to consider how biased, emotional reactions worsen our divides — and to also consider how those reactions can aid our more polarized opponents.

Read More

Members of Congress standing next to a poster about Project 2025

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Patty Murray look at their Project 2025 poster during a press conference on Sept. 12.

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Project 2025 policies are on the Nov. 5 ballot

Corbin is professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.

It’s becoming crystal clear, as we near the Nov. 5 presidential election, that voters need to seriously check out the radical government reformation policies contained within the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Here’s why.

The right-wing think tank has written not one, not two, but nine “Mandate for Leadership” documents for Republican presidential candidates, with its first playbook published in 1981. The Heritage Foundation spent $22 million —serious money — in 2023 to create Project 2025 for Donald Trump to implement.

Keep ReadingShow less
screenshot of Steve Kornacki

You don't need to be Steve Kornacki to know which states (and counties) to watch on election night.

YouTube screenshot

How to win a bar bet on election night

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

The odds are you don’t go to sleep at night and dream of precinct maps and tabulation deadlines like NBC’s breathless election guru Steve Kornacki. Watch him on election night and you will be dazzled and exhausted by his machine-gun-like sharing of statistics and crosstabs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Latino man standing at the counter in a bakery

"Trump wants to bring jobs back to America. For us, this means more work here and for our community,” says Joge Sactic, who owns a bakery just outside Washington, D.C.

Beatrice M. Spadacini

Small-business owner prioritizes immigration in this year’s election

Spadacini is an Italian American freelance journalist who writes about social justice and public health.

The Fulcrum presents We the People, a series elevating the voices and visibility of the persons most affected by the decisions of elected officials. In this installment, we explore the motivations of over 36 million eligible Latino voters as they prepare to make their voices heard in November.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris debating

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris debate on Sept. 10.

Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The state of our nation: Polling Americans’ priorities for election 2024

Originally published by The 19th.

This is the third annual poll from The 19th and SurveyMonkey, designed to shed light on what women, particularly women of color, and LGBTQ+ people think about the issues animating our politics. It comes as Americans face another critical election, one that could make Democrat Kamala Harris the first woman to hold the country’s highest office or give Republican Donald Trump a second term. Here’s what we learned about how Americans view the candidates, as well as opinions on abortion and on reproductive care more broadly, the ability to access gender-affirming care and more.

Keep ReadingShow less
Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift made another call for peopleto register to vote at the Video Music Awards on Thursday.

Christopher Polk/Billboard via Getty Images

What will Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris mean?

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

On Sep 11, we reported in The Fulcrum thatTaylor Swift had entered the political fray by endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president of the United States. I ended the article by stating that “the full extent of her impact remains to be seen.”

Now only a few days later, some data is already suggesting the impact could be significant. The day after Swift endorsed Harris there was a significant surge of visitors to Vote.gov, the U.S. government website that helps citizens understand how they can register to vote. According to a spokesperson for the Government Services Administration, Swift’s endorsement on Instagram led directly to 337,826 people visiting the site.

Keep ReadingShow less