Ny studie visar att det var ras snarare än klass som avgjorde Trumps seger i presidentvalet

Det var inte i första hand klass utan ras som gjorde att Trump segrade skriver The Atlantic och refererar till Diana C. Mutz studie ”Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote” och som gör att så höga procentandelar av de vita väljarna alltmer röstar på högerpopulistiska partier i hela västvärlden – d v s det handlar i grunden om en existentiell och raslig ”vithetsångest” och om en slags kombinerad vit sorg, vit längtan och vit nostalgi (över 1900-talet) mer än om en ekonomisk oro eller ett klassuppror mot den vita eliten från de vita arbetarnas och den vita lägre medelklassens sida och samma slutsats drog Charlotte Hyltén-Cavallius och jag i vår studie om de vita svenskarnas situation i södra Botkyrka (https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/white-working-class-communities-stockholm) liksom Catrin Lundström och jag i vår gemensamma artikel om den vita svenska melankolin (https://www.eurozine.com/white-melancholia):
 
 
”After analyzing in-depth survey data from 2012 and 2016, the University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana C. Mutz argues that it’s the latter. In a new article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, she added her conclusion to the growing body of evidence that the 2016 election was not about economic hardship.
“Instead,” she writes, “it was about dominant groups that felt threatened by change and a candidate who took advantage of that trend.”
 
“For the first time since Europeans arrived in this country,” Mutz notes, “white Americans are being told that they will soon be a minority race.” When members of a historically dominant group feel threatened, she explains, they go through some interesting psychological twists and turns to make themselves feel okay again. First, they get nostalgic and try to protect the status quo however they can. They defend their own group (“all lives matter”), they start behaving in more traditional ways, and they start to feel more negatively toward other groups.
 
This could be why in one study, whites who were presented with evidence of racial progress experienced lower self-esteem afterward. In another study, reminding whites who were high in “ethnic identification” that nonwhite groups will soon outnumber them revved up their support for Trump, their desire for anti-immigrant policies, and their opposition to political correctness.”
 
(…)
 
”These why-did-people-vote-for-Trump studies are clarifying, but also a little bit unsatisfying, from the point of view of a politician. They dispel the fiction—to use another 2016 meme—that the majority of Trump supporters are disenfranchised victims of capitalism’s cruelties. At the same time, deep-seated psychological resentment is harder for policy makers to address than an overly meager disability check. You can teach out-of-work coal miners to code, but you may not be able to convince them to embrace changing racial and gender norms. You can offer universal basic incomes, but that won’t ameliorate resentment of demographic changes.
 
In other words, it’s now pretty clear that many Trump supporters feel threatened, frustrated, and marginalized—not on an economic, but on an existential level. Now what?”