An important question would be whether politicians in a representative democracy are supposed to represent the people ... or they are supposed to represent the interests of the people. Ultimately, politicians are supposed to be the cream of the crop and thus they can never truly represent the people, so the idea in a representative democracy is that politicians represent the interests of the people.
However, the political establishment has failed to do the latter for quite some time now. People have switched from voting for the shirt-color they believe in to voting against the shirt-colors they don't believe in. Hence, the attempt with the Tea Party during last election. And the current attempt with Trump. And random attempts of writing in hamsters, dogs, and other pets on ballots.
The normal political election strategy seems to be to make empty promises that resonate with certain segments of the voters; then once elected, renege on those promises and go back to pushing through unread legislation that was written by lobbyists. This means a politician has one well-defined target and they try to pander to that specific target.
Trump's strategy is much more refined! He's essentially running A/B testing (similar to how Tim Ferris optimized the title for the 4HWW) trying out different statements that might even contradict themselves within the very same interview and if not then revert on a dime when public opinion (sales) suggest that the other/contradicting statement sells better. (I know someone who works as a Republican lobbyist and apparently they are just as confused as how to handle this new media-consumerist approach to getting elected as the other old-school politicians. They literally do not know how to phrase legislation for the incoherent/shifting policy that Trump promotes.)
Obviously facts mean nothing.
Trump has only 8% of statements that can be qualified as mostly true or better (true); conversely 76% of his statements are mostly false or worse. In contrast the numbers for old-school politicians like Hillary (50%/30%), Sanders (50%/30%), and Obama (48%/26%) are so different from Trump's that they're a difference in kind rather than a difference in mere degree. Clearly Trump and his [continued] supporters don't care about facts(*). Whereas old-school politicians care ... or at least pretend to half the time or so.
(*) I think this is where Dunning-Kruger enters to provide some nuance. It's not really that Trump supporters (I'm speaking in general, present company excluded, etc.) don't care about facts. In fact, at least based on anecdotal evidence (I'm thinking of friends and family ... I observe and mostly shut up), it seems they care greatly about facts because according to them: "they've done their research". It's just that they are too ignorant to realize that spending 5 minutes googling or hitting the share button for a facebook meme does not constitute sufficient research to establish an informed opinion. I mean, we're talking several Wheaton levels, so I've learned that just shutting up is a far better strategy when it comes to politics.
Seriously, from the perspective of a somewhat neutral (I try hard) grey position (I can't vote anyway, permanent resident, not convicted felon
), the gap between "confidence of position" and "informed position" is particularly large for Trump supporters.
And yes ... calling people stupid doesn't work. These days, it's a fairly rare individual who will---on being told so---will proceed to question themselves instead of others. Calling people stupid is not going to get anyone elected ... however, it may just provide some understanding for those who care more about that. Oh yeah, it also unifies your own shirt color.
Actually, I also know a few Trump supporters who are looking forward to the trading opportunities that such unpredictable policies might provide. Heck, he's even talking about abolishing Dodd-Frank. How can anyone who profits from market volatility resist that kind of politics?
Personally, I blame widespread ignorance/disinterest and post modernism ... Colbert got it! (We need someone in popular media who is to Trump as Colbert was to Bush ... but of course that's not going to change the minds of the people who need it most. Despite how entertaining this might be (on late night TV), it will just be even more polarizing.)
Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word…
It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President [George W. Bush] because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?…
Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
