The Dynamics of Emotional Voting: Why 'Intelligent Informed Voters' Support Figures Like Trump, Boebert, and Gaetz
It is often concluded that 'intelligent informed voters' do not support figures such as Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG), Lauren Boebert, or Matt Gaetz. However, the psychological and social underpinnings of voter behavior reveal a more nuanced picture. These individuals and others like them are often supported not by a lack of intelligence or information, but rather by deeply entrenched emotional and psychological factors that supersede rational and informed decision-making.
Emotions Over Common Sense
The idea that 'intelligent informed voters' do not support Trump, Boebert, and Gaetz is based on the assumption that these individuals vote rationally, grounded in a wealth of accurate information. However, political behavior is often governed by emotions and biases, rather than cold, calculated reasoning. In this context, politics and religion are arenas where emotions and biases routinely prevail over common sense.
The decades following World War II were marked by heightened awareness of the dangers of autocracy and populism, which is why figures like Barry Goldwater faced a heavy defeat in the 1964 presidential election against Lyndon Johnson. By those standards, it is highly improbable that contemporaries of Trump, Boebert, and Gaetz would have been elected to any national office. The change in American political climate has eroded the traditional norms that once protected democratic institutions from such risks.
The Disconnect Between Trust and Authority
The erosion of trust in authority is a critical factor in understanding the current political landscape. The degree of trust in authority is directly correlated with one's investment in the existing power structure. For most Americans, there is little reason to feel invested in the current political system. Those who stand to benefit the most from the existing system, whether rich Americans or the underprivileged, have a strong vested interest in upholding this status quo.
This leads to a paradox where governmental narratives are accepted uncritically. There is an infrastructural bias toward unquestioning loyalty, which is deeply entrenched in both political and social institutions. This blind adherence to authority is what allows populist sentiments to be dismissed as threats to democracy, despite the fact that true democracy is inherently populist in nature. The current political landscape means that populism is demonized, even as it is used to justify the existing power structures.
The Role of Media and Perception
Another layer of complexity lies in the way media and public discourse frame political candidates and issues. Populist candidates are often made to appear brash and unrefined, which can be seen as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it earns these candidates more attention, which is crucial in an era dominated by massive media interests. On the other hand, it can foster a perception that these individuals are not qualified, which further polarizes the electorate.
The rhetoric surrounding populism becomes a tool to stifle true democratic participation. By labeling populism as a threat, and by characterizing those who support it as uneducated or dangerous, the establishment maintains control. This narrative props up the existing political and economic elites, who are virtually untouchable due to their deep financial ties and influence over the media and political systems.
The Push for Nationalism and Libertariansim
While the current political landscape clearly favors a narrative of globalism and the destruction of Western culture, there is a growing movement towards more nationalist and libertarian ideologies. This movement aims to temper the extremes with pragmatism, as seen in support for figures like Vivek Ramaswamy. The ultimate goal is to break the two-party system, which currently offers no real choice to the electorate.
By supporting populist candidates and fostering a movement towards nationalist libertarianism, it is hoped that genuine representation can be restored. This would mean a return to representatives who truly represent the people, rather than the financial elite. The fight to reclaim democratic representation is ongoing, and it involves not only voting but also changing the discourse and narrative that surrounds political participation.
For those who see through the facade and recognize the need for true democratic representation, the path forward is clear. Supporting populist candidates, engaging in critical discourse, and fostering a more informed and emotionally intelligent electorate are crucial steps towards breaking the status quo. The future of democracy depends on our ability to think critically and act with conviction.
Conclusion
The current political environment is one where emotions and biases often override rational and informed decision-making. While the term 'intelligent informed voters' is used to describe those who vote with rationale and accurate information, it is clear that many who support figures like Trump, Boebert, and Gaetz do so based on a deep-seated emotional and psychological connection rather than a lack of intelligence or information.
Understanding the dynamics of emotional voting is crucial for both voters and policymakers. By recognizing the influence of emotions and biases, and by fostering a more informed and critically engaged electorate, we can work towards a more representative and democratic political system.