Deconstructing the Donald
Donald Trump’s appeal to voters may be
explained by a preference for authoritarian
anti-establishment leaders.
To many observers, the success of Donald Trump in the Repub-
lican primaries has been bewildering, if not frankly terrifying.
While his candidacy has featured viliication of ethnic minori-
ties and immigrants, sexist remarks and aggressive language, it
has seemed that these displays have not deterred his supporters.
Attempts by media commentators to explain his popularity
have largely focused on the appeal of his policies to speciic
sectors of the American population. Some psychologists are
now speculating that a better explanation lies in examining the
impact of his caustic language.
In his 2013 book Angry White Men, the American sociol-
ogist Michael Kimmel described the rage of men who perceive
themselves to have been dispossessed of their natural right to
power and privilege. He argued that this sense of loss has engen-
dered “the cultural construction of aggrieved entitlement”,
with these men attributing their personal disadvantage to those
they viewed as different – ethnic minorities, immigrants, non-
Christians, and those whose preferences are other than hetero-
sexual. According to this theory, Trump’s popularity results
from his ability to speak to these angry white men, and to be seen
as their champion in the ight against others.
Yet Trump’s nationalistic appeal to white men seems insui-
cient to account for the breadth of his following. According to
exit polls, his supporters are not predominantly men, with some
surveys suggesting more than half are women. Nor are his
followers all white or of lower socioeconomic levels: surveys
have demonstrated that his supporters represent the full demo-
graphics of conservative voters. And, of course, Trump is far
from the only candidate to exploit nationalistic, arch-conserv-
ative sentiments.
Perhaps the dominant feature of Trump’s candidacy is his
marked refusal to comply with the usual expectations of conduct
for presidential candidates, as exempliied by his willingness to
use aggressive and defamatory terms to attack various targets.
He has attributed crime to immigrants and speciic minorities,
saying “the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major
cities is committed by blacks and Hispanics” and “When Mexico
sends its people... they’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime,
they’re rapists”. Linking Islam to terrorism, he has promised
“a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United
States,” and that “If Obama has brought some to this country,
they are leaving, they’re going, they’re gone”.
He has asserted the beneits of aggression, saying of a protester
at a rally: “I’d like to punch him in the face,” and declaring “I
could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot some-
body, and I wouldn’t lose any voters”. His comments on women,
especially those in the media, have ranged from the merely
demeaning to the blatantly misogynistic.
Given the character and frequency of such remarks, psychol-
ogists have speculated that Trump’s unexpected appeal may be
engendered by the very outrageousness of his language and
behaviour. Two psychological dispositions have been proposed
to drive the response of his supporters: anti-establishment pref-
erences and authoritarianism.
In the irst case, uncharacteristically extreme behaviour re -
inforces the message that a candidate is an outsider and not
part of the establishment, which is perceived by some to be
working against their interests. Thus, Trump’s campaign slogan
“Make America Great Again” is a promise to reverse those
economic, social or other changes that some perceive to be the
cause of their personal dissatisfaction.
Secondly, aggressive behaviour and language appeals to
authoritarian predispositions among voters. A candidate who
presents as dominant, successful and unyielding is perceived as
a strong leader able to wage a battle for them against their iden-
tiied opposition.
The American psychologist Jay Frankel describes this as a
case of “identifying with the aggressor”: when people feel inse-
cure, whether due to fears of terrorism, economic threats or
social changes, they seek strength. Candidates can exploit this
disposition by exaggerating the threat, and presenting them-
selves as the champion of “traditional American values”.
Trump’s success in the majority of the Republican primaries
demonstrates that vulgar and aggressive language and behav-
iour may be seen as a strength by voters, especially those feeling
aggrieved at a perceived loss of entitlement or privilege.
Whether this discovery inluences campaigning in future
Australian and New Zealand elections will be of interest. While
the odd conservative shock jock who has called Middle Eastern
males “vermin” and asserted that “women are destroying the
joint” may retain a healthy radio audience, we have not seen
mainstream political candidates display such a marked refusal
to follow accepted rules of conduct. At least, not yet.MAY 2016|| 41NEUROPSY Tim Hannan
A/Prof Tim Hannan is Head of the School of Psychology at Charles Sturt University, and the
Past President of the Australian Psychological Society.Gage Skidmore