Relative Deprivation and Trump Appeal
Most people would choose a 3000 sq-ft. house over a 4000 sq-ft. home — if that’s the only way that their house could be bigger than everyone else’s.
That may help to explain Donald Trump’s appeal.
Their wages have languished or fallen even as minorities have gained ground — threatening white privilege and dominance, points out Thomas Edsall at the New York Times. Plus, the buying power of the top 10% has kept many goods and services beyond their reach, he adds.
Meanwhile, half of Trump’s supporters think we’d all be better of if women adhered to traditional gender roles — even though white working-class family incomes would drop even more if women stayed home.
And many of them worry when they see blacks and Latinos gaining ground.
Interesting that so many of these guys are angry at the “unfairness” of losing their privilege even as they hope to increase the inequality of those “beneath them.”
I agree with Trump voters on one thing
I actually join Trump voter outrage when it comes to this, though: Our government has been ignoring the working class, and today America’s working- and middle-class is shrinking as almost all of the income gains of the last 40 years float to the top 1%.
But why not root for everyone, instead of just trying to feel like you’re better than someone else?
Posted on October 28, 2016, in men, politics/class inequality, psychology, race/ethnicity, sexism and tagged Donald Trump appeal, income inequality, men, psychology, racism, Relative Deprivation, sexism, top one percent, working-class whites. Bookmark the permalink. 15 Comments.