both the Democrats and the Republicans have their ready made, mostly true, and repeatedly self-confirming stories about the defects of the other. They need only read the news to feel better about themselves, and the academic contingent of the Democrats is better at this than are most ordinary citizens. There is thus a rather large cottage industry of intellectuals interpreting and channeling these stories to Democratic voters and sympathizers. On the right, you will find an equally large cottage industry, sometimes reeking of intolerance or at least imperfect tolerance, peddling mostly true stories about the failures of Democratic governance, absurd political correctness, tribal loyalties, and so on. That industry has a smaller role for the intellectuals and a larger role for preachers and talk radio.
It is characteristic of Tyler, and also of Robin Hanson and on occasion Bryan Caplan, to look at human behavior in terms of status competition. If you buy into that, as I do, then a reasonable way to differentiate the parties is in terms of whose status they wish to elevate and whose status they wish to demean.
1. I would say that for Democrats, the goal is to elevate the status of public sector workers, social scientists, well-educated people in general, urban residents, and members of groups who are willing to see themselves as oppressed groups fitting the Democratic narrative. They wish to demean the status of business owners, non-urban residents, strong religious believers, and working-class whites who fail to see themselves as an oppressed group fitting the Democratic narrative.
2. Note that Barack Obama hit most of the right buttons, in part simply by being black.
3. I would say that for Republicans, the goal is to elevate the status of members of the armed forces, non-urban residents, religious believers, small business owners, and working-class whites who prefer to blame their problems on society coddling immigrants and minority groups. They wish to demean the status of wealthy and successful progressives, particularly those in the media and entertainment industries. They wish to demean the status of unmarried individuals and of people they perceive as hostile to conventional families.
4. Note that Donald Trump has hit at least a couple of the right buttons spectacularly effectively: raising the status of working-class whites who prefer to blame their problems on society coddling immigrants and minority groups; and demeaning the status of wealth and successful progressives, particularly those in the media.
5. Note that many of Trump’s negative traits, including narcissism, authoritarianism, and uncharitable views of those who disagree with him, are shared by Barack Obama.
6. Denouncing Trump is a form of virtue signaling. That is, it is a cheap way to try to raise your status among well-educated people.
7. Notwithstanding all of these remarks on status competition, one may still think of politics in terms of ideology. And I think of Donald Trump as destroying the Republican Party as an ideological vehicle. In terms of Clay Shirky’s metaphor, the host (the Republican Party) has been taken over by a parasite (Trump). The Republicans I know tend to subscribe to a conservative/libertarian ideology. None of them would vote for Trump in a primary, and most of them would not vote for him in November.
8. From my point of view, the Trump candidacy has no upside and considerable downside. I doubt that a Trump victory would lead to policies that correspond to a conservative/libertarian agenda. And I think that he can only hurt Republican candidates for other offices. When those candidates are asked whether or not they support Trump, there is no answer that they can give that will not cost them votes.
9. Conversely, those on the Democratic side with an overt ideology are in a no-lose position. The ideological Overton window has moved very far to the left, somewhere between Bill Clinton and Bernie Sanders.