Preface: I had started writing this sometime around May as a generic paper for any democratic candidate. Soon after I heard about Andrew Yang. Most of this is discussing the actual presidential campaign but realistically it’s all applicable to the primaries as well. I did make some edits catering to Yang more specifically but the formatting on here is terrible but I just don’t have the time to go through and make it perfect. It is the content that matters right? It’s long. Stupid long. But Andrew Yang needs to build momentum and I’ve always felt maybe these are some ways that could help. Surprisingly, Andrew Yang beat me to the punch on a few of these ideas well before I could get them out.
To the reader:
To many Americans the 2018 mid-term election was more important than the 2016 election when Donald Trump was elected. As detrimental to our republic as Donald Trump has been, I don’t think anybody could have realized the true magnitude of the damage he would cause this country. For years as a youth and in my twenties, I did not vote. I was not passionate about politics, nor about the direction that our country was heading. I had other “more important,” things to worry about. Things however have changed and maybe it’s because of my age or because of some of the life experiences I have been afforded over the past decade. Some good, some bad but all of which have shaped me into a more reasonable and more importantly, a more compassionate person than I used to be.
I have written what I hope is something worth reading and I understand it will probably come off as something written by an egomaniac who believes he knows much more than he really does. Sadly, with AI and companies like Cambridge Analytica, papers like these seem almost unnecessary. Just get with a 3rd party and buy voter info and you’re set. That being said, humanism is still alive and well…for now. I suppose this is my attempt to assist in some way to better the chances of making some sort of positive difference in 2020 and even if nobody reads this, I can tell myself that I did something to make a change outside of protesting or marching which at times seems overlooked by the media and politicians alike.
Andrew, best of luck on the campaign trail.
Sincerely,
The Undergrad Psychologist (Not a real psychologist)*
Winning the 2020 Presidency for the Democrats: A Sociopsychological Perspective
Abstract
The 2016 presidential election was full of unprecedented and unexpected results as well as behaviors from both democratic and republican candidates which could be a turning point for the future of American voting. This could be an indication that in order for a democrat to win the 2020 presidency, the ways of old campaigning may need to be shelved and a new form of presidential campaigning will need to be invented or the American public will not relate to the nominee. This could spell disaster for the American public, the environment as well as women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights and more.
Introduction
Donald Trump’s stunning victory of the 2016 presidential election has been extensively researched from a multitude of social and psychological perspectives many of which have sought to find answers within xenophobia, racism, sexism, and other “isms.” However, there are other societal concepts which have been overlooked and in order for a democrat to win the 2020 presidential election, this individual will have to change campaign tactics and deviate from the norm. The 2016 election was fraught with surprises and recent research has found support for what is called Christian Nationalism that may have helped Donald Trump win the presidential election more than any other researched, popular topic. The purpose of this manuscript is to discuss psychological and sociological concepts and perspectives of American ideals and thought processes that may be strong indicators which could win the votes of disenfranchised Republicans as well as Independents who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 as well as individuals who did not vote in 2016 that could be swayed to vote for a democrat in the 2020 election. This manuscript is based on several factors: quantitative analysis, anecdotal evidence, as well as opinion. Although the last two are less than scientific, last year in 2018, Americans voted for more women and minorities than ever in American history against all odds so even anecdotal evidence and opinion by “professionals,” who were proved wrong in the news media was found to be essentially useless. The same was true in 2016 when the same professionals incorrectly foretold the nomination of Hillary Clinton. Although she won the popular vote, it is still the electoral college that matters. By this measure, it can be surmised that an individual educated in research, psychology, sociology and politics can possibly make conclusions about key areas of importance for the 2020 election. We are essentially in uncharted political territory. That being said, specifically, a democratic nominee must win the democratic base but due to the extreme political divide in the US, with roughly 20 democratic nominees, one must stand out. If the nominee maintains the status quo of democratic values without focusing extensively on socialism, abortion, climate change, immigration, and other key, democratic emotionally driven areas, this will help win independents and disenfranchised republicans in the national election by not driving them to a more conservative vote. However, in order to win the base, obviously these areas must be discussed but with reservation. This will be discussed further in this manuscript. Once the nominee has reached the national election, in order to win the presidency, specific behaviors more than content will be of importance more than substance. Donald Trump won his base due to his charisma and his ability to unite specific demographics because he was able to create dissonance within those who would not vote for him which caused many people simply not to vote. Basically, younger voters were burned out from the political discourse due to the Russian breach, the way the Democratic National Convention treated Senator Bernie Sanders and Trumps ability to create “euphoric recall,” within many Americans by the promise of “Making America Great Again.” This slogan although incredibly annoying to many, was so broad that those who did vote for him typically felt disenfranchised from the Obama administration. I call this “the rubber band effect,” which I will discuss further in this manuscript as well. Lastly, the American Psychological Association specifically prohibits professionals from diagnosing individuals without actually having a consultation with the client or patient. More importantly, I am an undergraduate psychology student and research assistant at the University of Central Florida, so I am in no position to make any clinical diagnoses of Donald Trump. However, it is possible he could be exhibiting specific diagnostic criteria of a personality disorder which I will not specify due to my lack of credentials and clinical education. That being said, whoever does win the nomination will have to be educated thoroughly about narcissistic personality disorder and gaslighting in order to fully appreciate the individual they are up against in the election. Additionally, being fully versed in “The Mueller Report,” will be of extreme importance in understanding how Donald Trump manipulates his subordinates as well as how he maintains control and also how he is able to curtail the law by convincing his subordinates to break laws on his behalf without specifically instructing them to do so at times. Even after two or four years of possible contact with the president, having a better understanding and appreciation of the innerworkings of the minds and behaviors of individuals who present these characteristics could help shape their behaviors when interacting with the president during debates as well as when creating political advertisements to counter his own. There will need to be a “splitting effect,” within the nominees advertising and public behaviors in order to conquer Trump. It is often said that it takes one to know one or it takes a thief to catch a thief. This may be true in order to win 2020 to an extent. Unfortunately.
Christian Nationalism and The Rubber Band Effect
During the Obama administration, sweeping progressive ideologies flourished in American society which America desperately needed as this is the land of the free and the brave. From women’s rights to LGBTQ+ rights to environmental and climate change protections, it seemed as if America was heading in the right direction for personal liberties as well as securing a safe, clean and hospitable country for American citizens. There was however a significant portion of the population that was held hostage by these changes for eight years and felt extremely disenfranchised. I call this “The Rubber-Band Effect.” Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, right? Due to so much happening in such a short period of time, this created a utopia for some and a dystopia for others. This imbalance went unchecked for many conservatives who felt a need to find common ground within their ranks even if they had very little in common. This is where Christian Nationalism comes into play. Christian Nationalism originally had its roots in the 1940’s for the purpose of keeping American Christian values in the country and eliminating the threat of a Jewish American state as well as anti-black influences and essentially any non-white influence. Since then, the definition has changed significantly as our relationship with Israel has strengthened and the new enemy of the state since 9/11 is Islamic extremists and unfortunately by default any Muslim according to the Trump administration based on their rhetoric, agenda and policies. Christian Nationalism in the 21st century is “a unique and independent ideology that can influence political actions by calling forth a defense of mythological narratives about America’s distinctively Christian heritage and future,” (Whitehead, Perry, Baker, 2018). The basic concept of Christian Nationalism is that the fundamental basis of American ideology is actually Christian theology. One does not actually have to be a Christian to want the basic principles of Christianity to be the basic foundations of morality within American society and Donald Trump was able to tap into this thinking in the 2016 election. In a 2018 study, Whitehead et al, found that Christian Nationalism was a more important factor in voting for Donald Trump than individuals with strong beliefs of islamophobia, illegal immigration, anti-black prejudice, sexism and economic satisfaction. Although individuals with these beliefs were more likely to vote for Donald Trump, it was found that these beliefs were not exclusive to Christian Nationalism which indicates that that both independents and democrats, although in lesser numbers voted for Donald Trump simply because of the message he was sending via Christian Nationalism beliefs. The concern that American “values,” meaning, social norms or moral standards of puritanical origins had been too quickly discarded in the eyes of many Americans regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof had to be recognized. The difficulty a democrat will face in 2020 is that there is no stronghold to which one can argue against religion. Science is in essence a religion but not everybody understands science, nor is science always appreciated. The democrats do not want a Harvard style debate. They want short, powerful soundbites. In order to overcome the incredibly powerful sense of unity that Christian Nationalism creates, the democratic candidate will have to create unity within chaos, and this will have to start as soon as possible. Currently, democrats are already divided and there is no front runner within the democratic party. The speaker of the house does not show strength in unity and actually shares this with another leading party head which shows weakness, not strength. If this were any other election cycle, this could be an asset, showing togetherness within the ranks of the party but due to the abnormal behavior of Donald Trump and his ability to tear down his opponents, the next presidential candidate will have to be independent and able to prove he/she can withstand the bombardment of harassment without the appearance of assistance of the party. A possible solution to Christian Nationalism is to actually use it to his/her benefit and steal it from Trump in the election. A moderate democrat is not necessarily a good thing, but it may be the only option in defeating the sitting president. Since Christian Nationalism is not about actual Christianity or Christian beliefs – you can obviously see this in the behaviors of Trump or he would not have been elected – any democrat can be elected as long as the nominee is able to focus on morality through togetherness with love being the key focus. Although the concept is directly out of a 1960’s hippy utopian playbook, the concept of peace and love could possibly overcome any objection Trump could create and nobody can argue that love is a bad thing. A nominee who argues that America is in need of a leader who can help to foster an atmosphere of loving kindness would essentially mimic that of a Jesus or Christlike figure which is the antithesis of Donald Trump. If the nominee can argue that America would be better as a whole instead of being divided and the nominee can offer solutions as to how to do this, it is possible to overcome Christian Nationalism and the brutality that Trump will display against any opponent on the campaign trail. The important thing to remember is that Jesus did not write the book of Revelation. However, I think it’s safe to say that Donald Trump certainly could have.
Defining Terms for the Public
Donald Trump is a master at misinformation or “alternative facts.” This is possibly due to his inability to understand certain concepts or more likely his ability to manipulate concepts as he sees fit in order to gain control of situations that he feels are going to cause issues for his presidency. One in particular that will be an issue for democrats in 2020 is socialism. On multiple occasions, Trump has vilified democrats as being socialists which may have been created with the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders because of his Democratic Socialist affiliation. There is an unfortunate issue with political brainwashing where if one is constantly told the same thing repeatedly by a person in power, constituents will believe the information to be true whether the information is valid or not. Currently, Trump supporters seem to be blind to actual facts and regardless of what correct information is provided to them, it is tossed aside, and Trump validates these beliefs as “fake news.” The more society or a nominee will try and impress upon his supporters that the party is not based on socialist ideals, his supporters may resist even more. This is not new, nor is it unknown to politicians or political strategists – confirmation bias or selective exposure theory – It should be known by now that Trump will use this as a major “Trump card,” during his campaign. He is using it already, but it can be overcome by defining socialism vs capitalism vs human capitalism and investment and democratic principles using metaphors and analogies on the campaign trail. For example, one could argue that the democratic party has very little interest in meddling in the affairs of what is produced, distributed or exchanged among the American people due to the significant amount of work that would be required to do so. The current administration does a phenomenal job of it already through controlling the flow of funds and contracts to specific entities who support his administration. The democratic party would and does only do so when public safety is at risk and so forth. This is a promise that can be made to the American public (for what it’s worth) Whenever a person in power influences major changes in companies with the ability to manipulate the economic system, it is no longer a free capitalistic system anyways. Democratic socialism is for the people; the financing of parks, police, roads etc but through this, taxes are still raised and distributed because the quality of life is increased through these services which aids the flow of capitalism. Happy and healthy people spend more money, they work more so they spend more. The “in addition to,” is not a bad thing if it is for the public good. Socialism as it is currently seen, reduces the freedoms of the American public and is enemy number one economically and the same as, if not more, socially. If the American people (conservatives and many others) fear that socialism is something that can take freedoms away, it is a controlling factor so the concept of control must be defined so that it can be fully explained on an objective and in the eyes of all Americans, also subjective perspective. This is not in support of or in a position against Democratic Socialism. Nor would this example probably hold up against even the worst Saturday morning talk show host. The bottom line is that if a nominee challenges the beliefs of conservatives directly and without proper explanation with a valid, sensible, rationale he/she will never gain support. A what could have been is now a will never happen. The purpose of defining terminology for the American public is not to give them the dictionary definitions of what Trump is distorting. It is to offer supplementary but thought-provoking details about the misinformation he is spewing into the open in order to induce the public into critically thinking about or having second thoughts about his objectivity and his truthfulness. If his supporters begin to question his motives or his objectivity he will lose support. (See The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump 2nd ed., 2019)
Morality vs. Constitutionality
In going back to Christian Nationalism, the republican party as a whole is still using this as a mainstay of operations. It is also still working quite well for their base. The democratic party is arguing more on the basis of constitutionality which will not work in 2020. Constitutionality is essentially atheism in the eyes of conservatives (I will use conservative(s) to describe right wing/ultra-right wing/Trump Supporters etc.) This is also an odd juxtaposition of morality as republicans will argue in favor of anti-gun control laws yet argue in favor of stricter abortion laws. The right to destroy life, yet the right to “save life.” A democratic nominee will need to overcome this juxtaposed insanity by removing the constitutionality argument in favor of a moral argument. When in doubt, fight for the women and children to get an emotional response. Abortion rates in the United States have actually fallen dramatically between 2008 and 2014 (Jones & Jerman 2017). This however should not be an excuse to encourage or create anti-abortion laws. Additionally, a 2017 study by Biggs, Upadhay, McCulloch, et al which focused on abortion and mental health found support that women who had abortions had higher instances of mental illness but later had to make a correction to the study when it was found to be published with significant errors. Opposite the original findings, the evidence showed that women who were denied an abortion were the ones who actually had higher instances of mental illness. They also stated in the correction that after several years, both women who received and did not receive an abortion in the two groups studied ended up converging with their mental health. However, denying an abortion, knowing it causes psychological stress, as well as other social concerns for women should give serious pause to reevaluate abortion policies. It also gives reason for a democratic nominee to discuss why abortion is important for women’s rights other than constitutionality. New laws based on bad science must be looked into. The focus of “a woman’s right to choose,” has been in play since Roe v. Wade, obviously longer, and it is obvious the argument is no longer able to withstand public scrutiny in multiple southern states. The attack of Roe v. Wade may be upheld in the Supreme Court, but a better argument could be the following: We are all born of women. Men will never understand and can never understand the full range of emotions that a woman will feel when she has to make the decision to keep or abort an unborn and as such, men in government making decisions on these matters seems trite, inconsequential and if anything, negligent. I certainly would not want elected officials making decisions about any of my most personal ways of sharing my DNA, what follows, and I believe just about every male in the country would be in agreement with me. Imagine if you will – let’s be real and really hypothetical for a moment – A teenage kid has a wet dream. All of a sudden, a swat team breaks down the door, crashes through the windows, rips the clothes off the kid and straps him to the bed. All of a sudden, a man in a white lab coat walks in and collects all of the specimen. Panic ensues. As the teen walks outside the next morning, his parents are aghast with embarrassment, the neighbors are staring, the windows are still shattered, there’s crime scene tape all around mostly to “protect,” the family from intruders from the lack of security they now face having to reinstall new doors and windows at their own expense. Meanwhile, the teenager is scared, traumatized, confused and how this child views sexuality for the rest of his life can/will be very different from somebody else. The moral of the story is that when it comes to reproductive rights, I personally do not believe we understand enough fully to really grasp the true nature of what happens when we force women to abide by laws that restrict the physical self. The above scenario is the best I can truly express what it might be like to be denied an abortion to be forced to carry a child to term. The damage, the looks, the bewilderment of the mother, the outrage, the confusion… Fear and the fury. I believe that it in some ways destroys the human psyche and research does show that as many as 1/3 of American women at some time have had an abortion in their lifetime. Yeah, that is the actual statistic. So, what about that thing? Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness? Hard to do when you’ve been broken down systematically since the day you were born. It could also get a candidate in a pinch based on their opinion of the matter though. Especially if one were to openly use my insane analogy with a wet dreaming teen (shrugs shoulders, it’s politics) It would be better for the nominee to simply recommend that civilian ethics boards, medical researchers, psychologists, sociologists, etc get together on a non-government board and without conflicts of interests like big pharma etc to make recommendations with a majority of them being women. Men should be there to learn how to get involved and better understand the plight of women in our country. Another option, each state should have the residents of that state vote on the matter, then weigh the votes based on the percentage of male vs female population that voted. In the 2022 election, it can be decided based on a vote as to the length of time a fetus can be aborted, then in 2024 the public can then vote yes or no, make additional changes etc. While it may seem like this issue is being dragged out, that is sort of the purpose. Public opinion may change and with American mob rule, sometimes we may see things much differently as time progresses and new science educates us. What if instead of abortion, the fetus could be removed, alive, and re-inserted into another woman for until the time of birth? Or, what if the fetus can be brought to term in a lab? Although these ideas sound like science fiction, if a candidate were to even mention them and grab the attention and imagination of voters, it takes away from a yes or no answer and more importantly a terrible “standard politician answer.” IF those in government are so concerned about abortion and the rights of the unborn, they must take into account the rights of the living. Science can help us achieve this goal, but the American public must be for this – with tax dollars. I am no doctor but when I hear other Americans say, “That’s impossible, we could never do that,” I think to myself, now we are beat. Now we are done for. If we are the strongest, most powerful, most imaginative country in the world, there is no reason we should not be able to do these things. If a candidate can throw that sort of thinking at their opponents, it will serve them very, very well. Other candidates may falter in their performance on stage if threatened with this type of response from our preferred candidate. Basically, “Are you really questioning the awesomeness of America? What is wrong with you?” We must think outside of the box and put the days of old behind us. A nominee who has a basic understanding of statistics (or who can at least pretend to) can explain how the votes will be weighted in basic terms so the public can understand that both men and women will have a vote, then based on the population of men vs women, if more men than women each male vote will equal .8 of a vote or if more women it will be the opposite etc, and the outcome will be decided that way. Although this sounds somewhat like what we put the slaves through in the voting process years ago, it’s more of a balancing act with a state voting system. However, the nominee can still offer their opinion but with reservations. There are many democrats who are in favor of anti-abortion laws and the democratic party is simply not in a position to lose those votes to Donald Trump in 2020. Even if this does not come to pass due to legal, ethical or moral issues in a state, it will hopefully allow the nominee to ride out the storm through the election and the public will most likely forget it due to the rapid news cycles which we are now so familiar with. Another option (high risk) is for the candidate to remind the American public that there is a separation of church and state for a reason. Originally, the purpose was to protect the church from the state interfering with the church, perverting the meaning of the church and its beliefs and preventing what happened in England which was still very fresh in the minds of the colonists when the country was founded. Reminding Americans that no federal funds actually go to Planned Parenthood for example, could be a comforting thought to some conservatives. It is possible many are unaware that abortions are not federally funded. Another risky move would be to simply explain that the next best thing would be to offer all women “the pill” at tax payer expense. It would significantly reduce the need for abortions, there would be no debate about tax payers money going to abortion because it was prevented, the foster system gets a serious break, less money will be going towards social services in the future for high risk single mothers with children who will need government assistance, less demand on emergency rooms that are not reimbursed by the patient and lastly, buying in bulk WITH the ability to negotiate prices could bring the expense to a minimal cost.
Social Media Domination
Donald Trump is the king of Twitter. He bases many of his decisions on the public response he gets from his Twitter feed which is unprecedented, and this is actually not uncommon with individuals who present narcissistic character traits. There could be a possible solution to this problem, but it will require stealth, underhanded tactics and the cooperation of many members of the democratic party. The idea is flimsy at best but if an outside group (indirectly or directly supported by the party) can start a campaign to report all of Donald Trump’s tweets as abusive or hateful etc, could it be possible to have Trump banned from Twitter? The idea again is a bit of a stretch but if one were to establish a strong group of individuals who advocate for the removal of Trump from Twitter, followed him on Twitter and began to report his Tweets, it may be possible. If this does happen, he would have what is called a narcissistic injury which can lead to narcissistic rage: aloofness, emotional dysregulation etc. I believe we are beginning to see this right now due to the Mueller hearings. He was simply unable to respond to reporters’ questions mostly saying they were lying, it was all lies, fake news and so forth with a much higher emotional response than most other reporter confrontations. Essentially, it could be the downfall of his presidency. If this happens during his campaign, a democratic nominee could have a much better chance at winning the presidency. Again, this is strictly hypothetical and would require “clandestine” operations but based on the actions of the DNC against Senator Bernie Sanders during the 2016 campaign, anything is possible. It would be in the best interest of the DNC however to use better judgement in their IT skills, encryption and security. In addition to clandestine operations as well as more ethical and moral actions, the democratic nominee must win the public via social media. There are several ways to do this which I have been considering for the past few years. Although it is eerily similar to the show “House of Cards,” with Kevin Spacey, where a character used social media during a campaign continuously to show how “normal,” he was, it is actually a very good idea. More specifically, the candidate should go live on Facebook (even better Twitter to steal some limelight) weekly and take real questions from the public. Reddit AMAs are good, but very niche. If possible, have a time delay or have the questions vetted first just to make sure it’s not a Russian who infiltrated Facebook but if a candidate can show that they are quick on their feet and able to withstand public scrutiny, it may be worth the risk. For Yang, this is especially important due to the first debate not going well regardless of why. The times are changing, and it may be worth it for a candidate to not show weakness per say but to show a human side to their political side. If an error is made, a wrong thing is said or something of that nature, one can simply get back on and correct it with a little comedy. To err is human. The American public is tired of the negativity of Trump. He has taken up too much “head space,” for too long (another reason why I believe Hillary Clinton failed: They’d taken up residence in our minds for just way too long.) The consistent attacks against other members of the house and senate as well as his own cabinet may be his downfall so the candidate should use self—deprecating humor if something like that should arise. “Well, I know Trump is going to have a field day with this so I might as well try and beat him to the punch!” (Jokingly pulls out phone to tweet about it.) To know your enemy is a significant advantage in a campaign of this magnitude. Trump has for the most part exhausted all of his tricks. He will be unable to use any surprises and his shock value is no longer shocking or has any value when it comes to the American public. It is getting old so the best response may be to either ignore it or utilize it. In the 1984 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan best exemplified this when he was asked if his age would be an issue as he was tired after a campaign event. He responded in what might be one of the greatest debate moments in American history with “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Even Walter Mondale, his opponent could not help but to laugh at the response, a fatal error on his part for his campaign. He showed his human side, his ability to go with the flow as well as to take the punches as they came but also to ignore and deflect his imperfections. This will be pertinent when campaigning against Donald Trump who will be significantly worse than Mondale. The candidate should do a weekly address on Facebook/Twitter etc in normal attire, be as human as possible and spend half the time on politics and half the time discussing his/her personal life story and experiences in order to help better create a personal connection with the American Public. Even if they cannot relate to the candidate, they will possibly relate to the human aspects which can be portrayed on camera without a podium distancing themselves from the public. To me, a podium is essentially a psychological barrier or wall. I would even consider (if possible) taking the microphone off of the podium and walk around with it. Be a preacher/pastor. Make a debate a Ted Talk, meaning OWN the whole stage, not just the podium. It would also be in the best interest of the candidate to discuss how an event or a debate went. “I wish I had more time to discuss ______” “I really wish they would have asked me about _______” “I think I could have answered this question better.” And so forth. The purpose of this is also to remove the media from the equation. All of those statements need to be followed up with “Time is pretty short here but the rest of what I’d like to say is on my website.” The average American is going to watch debates on the major news networks and then be subjected to the stupidity that follows via Fox News, CNN etc. Typically, an individual is going to watch whichever network that is already more closely aligned with their political affiliation or beliefs so in order to combat that negativity, having as much exposure outside of that is going to be paramount. Social media is free(ish) versus paying for political advertisements on television. Additionally, and I have not researched this…but I think it’s safe to say that the average American is sick and tired of watching/hearing political advertisements tearing into their opponent well before the election. So, several items to consider with this in mind. Constituents will most likely not tune into a different news network, but they will always be on social media and the internet. This increases the likelihood that individuals will see or stumble upon a candidate’s social media page or website due to the algorithms used by social media companies. It also brings up another idea for social media domination that I call “splitting.”
Splitting is very basic. You
have to have two basic personalities when running for office. If debating
Donald Trump on live television, he will dominate the stage, the clock and the
audience making it difficult to get any important policy points or agendas
across to the American public. Every debate Trump attended in the 2016 election,
he threw his opponents for a loop. They didn’t know exactly how to react, they
looked foolish, unprepared and flustered. To combat this sort of narcissistic
behavior, facial expressions and body language will be much more important than
the actual agenda and policy points that the candidate will be able to, or
actually not be able to express in the time allotted. My solution will look
something like this.
Moderator: Please tell us, what do you plan to do about _____>
Trump: I have, I will, I can, it is the best, the rest can’t, the rest won’t, the rest are the worst. (Only I can fix it)
- Trump basically will not elaborate on the topic specifically with the exception of what he has accomplished and know will sit well with his base. Typically, and based on 2016, an opponent will make an attempt to attack him and that is a fatal error. This is a better option.
Candidate: Well, look, this is a debate and the only thing we’ve debated is the size of my hands, the way I look, the way I dress, my intelligence and so forth and I don’t think this is helping the country at all. I will run a clean campaign on every and all key points of interest for the American public because of how important this election is. So, my real goals can be found on my website. Any time you see one of my political advertisements on tv, a sign, a billboard, you will see what is called a “QR code. It’s a little black and white box made up of small squares. It’s sort of like a short cut to a website. You just use your camera from your smartphone and zoom in on it. Your camera reads it and tells your web browser to bring you to all of my website where I discuss these topics in very deep detail without unnecessary interruptions. You will also see a link where I go live weekly to answer questions in town hall meetings so I can give the American public my full attention. Now, to answer your question…
The use of QR codes in political advertising is long overdue. Using them in signs might be difficult as individuals could use markers and color in other parts/pieces of the QR code but I am not an expert in how they work so this part is strictly hypothetical. However, to use one on a TV like HBO NOW, as well as other online companies like Amazon to subscribe to certain subscription platforms, seems like an ingenious way to get voters to your site without forcing them to type anything in, forget to do it later and so forth. It also allows the voter to bypass the news media which may not exactly be friendly to your campaign. QR codes can also be shared easily and if necessary, can be remade for different purposes, updated for different events, campaign commercials during different parts of the campaign itself and so forth. This is the splitting of the campaign advertising. In real life, on the news media, being somewhat indifferent or bored of Donald Trump’s antics, could be a way to win over some voters. “Mr. President, are you done yet? I’d like to actually like to use my 5 minutes now if you’d be so kind…” Sarcasm, dull, underhanded sarcasm is something the president will absolutely find objectively critical to his ego and is not something he will be able to handle well. One must break his tough exterior and cause a “meltdown,” in order to create a rift in his balance of narcissistic indifference and narcissistic shame which he feels. It has been discussed that the president is constantly asking for or looking for positive feedback or unconditional positive regard. UPR is actually a term from Carl Rogers, a famous psychologist who believed that no matter what his clients did, no matter how horrible, they deserved to be respected and loved. Trump would have loved Rogers. This is why he surrounds himself with people who will always give him the “love,” and the respect that he so much demands. It is too difficult for him to actually have to contemplate the thought that people actually, truly, deep down do not like him. On stage during a debate, it would be brilliant for a candidate to actually say. “No, I actually, honestly, do not really like you as a person but that’s not why I’m here. I am here for the American people. I am here to listen to what they want. Whether I like or don’t like you is not relevant. Even some of my views on how you conduct yourself in specific matters are not relevant. I am not fighting to be elected because I believe I am superior, powerful, or because I know I will be a master at being President. I am doing this because I know I will be able to follow through in the duties of the president to the best of my ability; respect and obey the laws, and the responsibilities and the burdens that a president must bear when elected. I see myself as a visionary who can help move the country forward in unity and to bring the country 21st century safely and financially securely against any person or country who might wish us ill will. That is my top priority and it should be a priority now, and it should have been a priority for years long since passed.” Currently, Yang simply wishes not to discuss it and says when he does it helps Trump. That is not the way to go. He has to recognize Trump as an adversary in the debates.
These types of speeches could bring support away from Trump due to the fact that it shows the candidate sees there were errors made by past presidents but does not “name names,” sees there are inadequacies in the current presidency and also sees there is a future for our country as well and although does not specifically state what they are in rich detail at times, will continue to discuss going to his website/QR code to continually discuss the relevant topics. One must hope that the news media will also find the QR code interesting and even if they talk negatively about it, people are going to want to see how it works and bring traffic to the site. The best website could be one that crashes…whether on purpose or simply because of the demand/high traffic….
College competition
I’ve been at UCF now for…longer than I’d like to admit. On and off due to whatever personal reasons I use to excuse the fact that I just wasn’t ready for college when I was younger, but I am very proud to say that I have one semester left before I graduate. Just so that I can look for another college and get another degree. Anyways, I have never actually been to any UCF football game, basketball game, baseball game etc. UCF has had a phenomenal football team for years now. Championships…(debatable) and yet, many students do not have an interest in sports. We do not go to college to get drunk and watch our fellow students march their way towards chronic traumatic encephalitis. With that said, why not have colleges compete against each other for other things? Academic pursuits for scholarships? For example, if a state is struggling with a financial issue or in trying to clean up a lake or find a better way for sanitation workers to save money on their pick up routes, why not give some of those problems to colleges and universities within the state, let students get together with professors and come up with cost saving initiatives that will be chosen as a winner by professionals in the industry and that college will receive grant money and the students who worked on the project will receive letters of recommendation for graduate school, grants, scholarships etc. Do you know how hard it can be to get into a laboratory or become a teacher’s assistant in order to get into a graduate program in a school of 50+ thousand students? I will keep my personal story out of this as I am somewhat jaded by my experience but, because of my experience it has afforded me the ability to think outside the box and try to come up with better ways to help college students work directly with faculty, with government agencies, with private industry etc and also help pay for college at the same time.
If one were to consider trade school, often, industry will assist the students with their career paths as they will be vital to them once they finish trade school. Students at universities may not have that same sort of direction and especially in the larger universities, it can be incredibly difficult to navigate. The cost is already much too high to attend so having more opportunities to prove to industry that you are a forward thinker by solving tomorrows problems today while still an undergraduate could be huge in getting ahead. It would also help bring students in from other states, bring in grant money, create more taxes for the local economy…the list goes on and on. Sports should not be the only thing that colleges promote and glorify. Academic excellence that solves major problems should be just as important and those who are able to do so should be rewarded and also brought to their state house, if not The White House out of appreciation for their hard work. Additionally, this could help remove the stigma that college students are hardcore, liberal snowflakes. Bringing together both conservative and liberal students to work on bipartisan issues and proving to the country that students from different political ideologies could also help to close the political gap we have in the country. Side note: I am not talking about SGA for who will win homecoming. I am talking about students who will work together on how to fix economic disparity, social justice issues, water quality issues, power management efficiency and so forth. If students are studying these as their majors, they should have hands on experience well before they finish their B.S. or B.A. Otherwise, they are just as unprepared as they were when they graduated high school, only they have 40-60k in debt and slightly more “mental,” education but no real applicable education and will need an additional degree to move forward.
Closing Thoughts
I feel I should stop now. I am
not using the number of sources from peer-reviewed journals as I would have
liked, and I feel this is turning much more into a manifesto of sorts than I
had originally intended. Since Trump has been elected, I have spent thousands
of hours people watching and talking to students on campus, individuals who
suffer from substance use disorders in AA/NA meetings, sharing beers with
strangers all over, talking to terminally ill cancer patients in hospitals,
speaking with their family members, asking questions, and my favorite, just
going up to elderly folks and just asking them about their lives and how they
view our current political situation and listening and trying to make sense of
the nonsensical. Part of me is convinced that people are the way they are and
that genetics make up a significant portion of what is happening to our country
today. Probability suggests that if you flip a coin enough times, eventually
you will regress towards the mean. Is that what we’re seeing? A true 50/50
split where our country has regressed to the mean of the political spectrums?
Part of me says that nature vs nurture is not given enough credence and that we
can turn things around by instilling hope in a new generation of Americans and
by starting now with more unconditional positive regard in our society. I do
not understand why people are so nasty to each other; so vulgar, so crude. Even
in my short existence, in my studies, my time with so many different people, I
am at a loss of understanding. I suppose that is just another facet of the
human experience for me to try and figure out. I do hope however that we find a
way to march forward and find a new, better way of life. A new American dream
that works for all Americans.
References
Jones, R., Jerman, J. (2017) Population group abortion rates and lifetime incidence of abortion: United States, 2008–2014. American Journal of Public Health, v. 107, n. 12, p. 1904– 1909, 2017.
The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications. (2019). American Public Health Association (APHA) publications. Retrieved 28 May 2019, from https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304042
Whitehead, A., Perry, S., & Baker, J. (2018). Make America Christian Again: Christian Nationalism and Voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election. Sociology Of Religion, 79(2), 147-171. doi:10.1093/socrel/srx070
psych_undergrad 