In reply to Postmanpat:
It doesn't seem to me that Mr Pozman is advocating a witch hunt. My interpretation of the OP is that attention is being called to the way in which Mr Trump's campaign benefited from the support of the so-called alt-right (I lament the decline of plain speech: these people used to be called fascists.)
As such, to support Mr Trump is to give quiet consent to the ascendancy of fascist ideals and their advocates to the most powerful office in the world.
This doesn't mean Mr Trump is a fascist, but it is clear he has used the groundswell of anger within America to his advantage, and has been remarkably careless of the frightening ramifications of such.
- his more extreme policies clearly did not impede his campaign despite our collective shock, and are broadly supported by those with fascist tendencies.
- He spoke of registers to identify people’s religion, bans on certain groups and other horrific and blatantly extreme-right views.
- Despite this morning’s disavowal of the extreme right, since becoming President-elect he has consistently chosen candidates with far-right and anti-immigrant tendencies to lead his team.
The majority of people who supported him are a long way from fascist. They’d be rightly abhorred at the thought. But when an influential leader of the far right is celebrating Mr Trump in such visceral and joyful terms it points clearly to the sympathies he has stirred and leveraged on his way to office.
We long for certainties. I think that Mr Trump offered certainties in such impassioned yet vague terms, that the man became a template on which many people imposed their own world view. I’m not an expert, but I feel that what happened with Mr Trump’s campaign is remarkably similar in some ways to the process of ‘cold reading’: one selects and carefully researches a sympathetic audience, then produces wish-fulfilling sound bites and sweeping statements to convince. I’d be interested to hear more on this specific point: certainly Mr Trump’s ability to energise and inspire people while never spelling out the ramifications of his statements, or admitting he was wrong, is a subject worthy of close academic study.
A little Googling reveals some parallels, steps 3-7 are certainly apt:
http://www.mentalismcentral.com/cold-reading-techniques/
Mr Trump's audience largely consisted of alienated and disgruntled voters who (again rightly) feel they have been left behind by a political elite. His statements were carefully chosen to appeal to a natural human instinct for entitlement, and focused blame for America’s troubles variously on ‘the Establishment’ and immigrants, as opposed to specific mechanisms which have produced a shift in the global and American economy. His simplistic explanations, despite their objective tenuousness, hold fundamental appeal for many. But to consciously align with them, is to also quietly endorse the most extreme of Mr Trump’s statements: he may be rowing back on some of his inflammatory words (this is inevitable) however he will never admit how he was wrong to use such terms to produce the emotional appeal that gave him victory. Because of this inability to repudiate his own rhetoric, to support *him* is to support his *ideas*. one cannot have one without the other, as Mr Pozman seems to be saying.
I feel that one can condemn an idea, without condemning the person. One can recognise that certain ideas are pernicious, and are being actively used in the pursuit of power to the detriment of everyone. The ideas Mr Trump has given voice to, are inextricably linked to his success.