In Trump 's bully pulpit it's us vs. them with race often used as a device to polarize
For much of his time as president   Donald Trump  has been the bully in the bully pulpit  castigating targets foreign and domestic. Much of  Trump ’s bluster attempts to divide people into us-against-them  and it often has a single polarizing agent: race.
On Friday night  as he has many times before   Trump  inflamed an almost exclusively white Southern audience against opponents who he said were trying to steal their heritage and attack their values. In that Alabama speech and on Saturday  he criticized African American athletes who had exercised free speech by declining to stand during the national anthem.
His racially oriented statements seem to reflect  Trump ’s embrace of the world as it was decades ago when power was largely held by men like him.
By the sheer bulk of his comments   Trump  has reversed what had been a trend in politics over several decades: racial appeals have grown less overt  not more.  Trump’s  targets in the last week  by contrast  have included Golden State Warriors star Stephen Curry  unemployed NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick and ESPN anchor Jemele Hill — all African Americans.
 Trump  jumped into the presidential contest by flinging insults at Mexicans. During  his  campaign   he  cast doubt on the allegiance of Muslims  accused people in China and Japan of taking American jobs  and over and over castigated immigrants.
The point appeared to be to encourage a surge of white pride that would draw voters to  him  — and to a large extent it worked. Now  as president  Trump is continuing in the mold  he  made as a candidate.
Divining the intent of any politician’s remarks  or the audience’s receipt of them  can be complicated. Who doesn’t want America to be great? Who doesn’t want values protected? Not all  Trump  supporters were drawn in by  his  racial views  although by this point  he  has made them clear.
Political messages are refracted through individual lenses  and often unwittingly rely on deep-seated assumptions and biases  according to social scientists. For example   Trump’s  regular calls for an imposition of law and order may seem reasonable to an audience of white supporters fearful of crime and of criminals they presume to be nonwhite. To others in nonwhite communities fearful of law enforcement   Trump’s  words seem to give license to abuse by police. Similar pitches on topics such as welfare  immigration  gay and transgender rights and women’s rights may sound one way to  Trump ’s supporters  and the opposite to others.
The closest comparison to  Trump  in recent decades may be the former Democratic governor of Alabama  George Wallace. In his presidential campaigns  Wallace was stylistically similar to  Trump  in his aggression on the stump; he blamed “anarchists” for disrupting his events and the country at large  much as  Trump  has often impugned today’s protesters. As a renowned segregationist  Wallace didn’t have to talk openly about race; instead he talked about blocking fair housing laws initiated to protect minorities.
“It’s hard to find somebody as bold and blunt as  Trump  is without going back to George Wallace ” said Joe Feagin  a Texas A&M professor who has studied race relations for decades. “It’s more of a megaphone than a dog whistle.”
America has changed since Wallace’s era. Yet  Trump  has found success by both cultivating and reinforcing concerns among many modern-day Americans that the country is changing too swiftly  stripping them of their traditional standing.
In an August NBC News poll  voters were asked if they were comfortable with “different lifestyles  gender roles  languages  cultures and experiences.” Among Hillary Clinton voters  81% said they were comfortable. Only 28% of  Trump  voters said the same. To persuade those voters that he shares their views   Trump  has divided the nation between his people — and the others.
For much of his time as president   Donald Trump  has been the bully in the bully pulpit  castigating targets foreign and domestic. Much of  [TGT] ’s bluster attempts to divide people into us-against-them  and it often has a single polarizing agent: race.
On Friday night  as he has many times before   [TGT]  inflamed an almost exclusively white Southern audience against opponents who he said were trying to steal their heritage and attack their values. In that Alabama speech and on Saturday  he criticized African American athletes who had exercised free speech by declining to stand during the national anthem.
His racially oriented statements seem to reflect  Trump ’s embrace of the world as it was decades ago when power was largely held by men like him.
By the sheer bulk of his comments   Trump  has reversed what had been a trend in politics over several decades: racial appeals have grown less overt  not more.  Trump’s  targets in the last week  by contrast  have included Golden State Warriors star Stephen Curry  unemployed NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick and ESPN anchor Jemele Hill — all African Americans.
 Trump  jumped into the presidential contest by flinging insults at Mexicans. During  his  campaign   he  cast doubt on the allegiance of Muslims  accused people in China and Japan of taking American jobs  and over and over castigated immigrants.
The point appeared to be to encourage a surge of white pride that would draw voters to  him  — and to a large extent it worked. Now  as president  Trump is continuing in the mold  he  made as a candidate.
Divining the intent of any politician’s remarks  or the audience’s receipt of them  can be complicated. Who doesn’t want America to be great? Who doesn’t want values protected? Not all  Trump  supporters were drawn in by  his  racial views  although by this point  he  has made them clear.
Political messages are refracted through individual lenses  and often unwittingly rely on deep-seated assumptions and biases  according to social scientists. For example   Trump’s  regular calls for an imposition of law and order may seem reasonable to an audience of white supporters fearful of crime and of criminals they presume to be nonwhite. To others in nonwhite communities fearful of law enforcement   Trump’s  words seem to give license to abuse by police. Similar pitches on topics such as welfare  immigration  gay and transgender rights and women’s rights may sound one way to  Trump ’s supporters  and the opposite to others.
The closest comparison to  Trump  in recent decades may be the former Democratic governor of Alabama  George Wallace. In his presidential campaigns  Wallace was stylistically similar to  Trump  in his aggression on the stump; he blamed “anarchists” for disrupting his events and the country at large  much as  Trump  has often impugned today’s protesters. As a renowned segregationist  Wallace didn’t have to talk openly about race; instead he talked about blocking fair housing laws initiated to protect minorities.
“It’s hard to find somebody as bold and blunt as  Trump  is without going back to George Wallace ” said Joe Feagin  a Texas A&M professor who has studied race relations for decades. “It’s more of a megaphone than a dog whistle.”
America has changed since Wallace’s era. Yet  Trump  has found success by both cultivating and reinforcing concerns among many modern-day Americans that the country is changing too swiftly  stripping them of their traditional standing.
In an August NBC News poll  voters were asked if they were comfortable with “different lifestyles  gender roles  languages  cultures and experiences.” Among Hillary Clinton voters  81% said they were comfortable. Only 28% of  Trump  voters said the same. To persuade those voters that he shares their views   Trump  has divided the nation between his people — and the others.