It has become almost common place for some Americans to just not care that the American President is a serial liar….
Things that would have brought down any Democratic President or even George W. Bush are now regularly met with a shrug….
An investigation into lying by a President ios met by a President who has be restrained from firing the cops that are checking on his lying…
What goes on here?
Is ….’he’s one of us’…. so vitial that people will look the other way in acceptance…No Matter what?’
As it turns out, the sociologist Seymour Lipset predicted that this kind of disconnect could happen, triggered by what he called a “crisis of legitimacy.” The legitimacy of democracy might be undermined, Lipset envisioned, if a large part of society came to feel abandoned by the political establishment. Or, if a group felt a loss of power as leaders shifted their favor to new social groups. The white working class today — Trump’s base — fits both descriptions, as policies furthering globalization and offshoring of jobs have robbed them of economic opportunity, and immigration and demographic trends have visibly altered American society.
Lipset suggested that a crisis of legitimacy would have psychological consequences — and set the stage for a lying demagogue to be perceived by many people as bravely speaking suppressed truths. In normal conditions, voters shun any candidate who obviously lies and abuses widely shared social norms. But in a crisis, Lipset argued, disenfranchised voters may see such violations as a symbolic protest, and a deliberate poke in the eye to the elites they have come to despise.
This would explain how many Trump supporters, ordinary people, could actually cheer when he bragged about grabbing women’s genitals, or mocked Senator John McCain for having been shot down in the Vietnam War. This is not to say that Trump supporters approved of his behavior. Rather, they delighted in the profound irritation of the press and the political establishment.
Hahl and colleagues went further, with some experiments designed to assess how the political landscape can affect people’s perception of lies. They split volunteers into two groups, one of which they manipulated to feel marginalized, neglected by a powerful establishment group. They then presented the groups with two candidates, one of whom blatantly lied and made misogynistic comments. The vulgar behavior repelled the “establishment” group, but actually attracted the marginalized group — irrespective of previous political leanings. Lying helped form a bond of solidarity, by challenging the establishment’s authority to define what was true or correct….