A Sustainable Point of View

Trump, Hypermasculinity & Xenophobia: The Human Nature of A Republican Rebellion

Trump, Hypermasculinity & Xenophobia: The Human Nature of A Republican Rebellion

Now for the requisite piece on Donald Trump.

I should offer this piece apologetically. Trump has gotten so much media time, commentary pieces trying to explain the media blitz are themselves cliche. Looking at the media response itself, we almost need to explain why so many people feel that Trump needs explaining. From a certain perspective, Trump is both inevitable and predictable, so why the incredulity?

The subtext, of course, is that Trump can’t be explained when you look specifically from the perspective of America’s long-running faith narrative – the narrative that all political progress happens through rational discourse and facts and objectivity (after all, Trump is basically the anti-fact candidate). This, even though deep down, we’ve been questioning how much logic and reason are in politics for some time now. Still, the alternative is that we must speculate about deeper aspects of human nature to explain what might drive people to do the unthinkable and vote for him, en masse; a sport that often conjures up explanations as sinister as the spectacle is ugly; e.g., “all Trump supporters are just racists,” “they’re all stupid,” and so on. The fact is, however, that explanations based on human nature only seem dark when they are posited as a deconstruction of our ideals, or in this case, as a deconstruction of our faith in reason as a mechanism for change. But does that have to be the case?

In a big picture context, we might even find a grimly positive upside to Trump’s candidacy.

Part I: Trump in the Big Picture

Part II: The Human Nature Appeal

Breaking things down, cultural evolution style

We made the case in the last article that cultures evolve over time, and we should add to that, that this is what drives political progress, not logic and reason. So what is the cultural evolutionary context for this election?

Consider five major tidal waves in recent political history: health care reform, gay marriage, legal potminority presidents and socialist candidates. Wrapped up in these issues are many smaller shifts in our economic and political values, shifts that many on the right feel are evidence their “country is going in the wrong direction.” These are defining issues for a Trump candidacy, as we can consider Trump a reactionary candidate capitalizing on the long-simmering outrage about these developments and others like them. But how did they even happen? Ask somebody about the chances for each just ten years ago, and nearly everyone would have said the odds were basically laughable. And yet here we are – each of them not only happened, they swept in with an almost staggering speed. Why?

As we have talked about at length, Americans hold the worlds most individualistic beliefs (US individualism score: 91). One way to look at belief systems is that they motivate people to act in ways that has some kind of secret advantage or at least, some evolutionary stable strategy – some way of interacting that achieves systemic stability despite the inevitable imbalances. In the US, one way of looking at the underlying functionality of individualism, for instance, is to see how it produces a system uniquely suited to capitalism.

Individualism creates what we call an unstable hierarchy. Remembering that people tend to self-organize into social hierarchies by nature, the effect of taking away any formal status metrics by saying “we are all created equal” has a paradoxical effect. While it nominally lowers the power distance between people in a hierarchy (US power distance score: 40), it also creates status-anxiety because none of us know where we stand in the pecking order. This ambiguity itself is arguably functional, as by manufacturing a higher anxiety over status, it creates an almost unending drive to resolve that anxiety be chasing ever higher status, motivating people to consume more goods and services as status symbols and chase higher and higher rank and salary in career.* Either way, this puts jet fuel into an economy that benefits from more consumer money and more worker labor. Of course, unstable hierarchies come with the incredibly high cost of social instability – higher mental health problems, lower social trust, punitive prison terms, militarized police and more, yet all this is typically justified by blaming the issues on defective individuals instead of unintended systemic consequences. Despite the pervasive injustice and human costs, from an evolutionary perspective such a system might justify its existence by demonstrating accelerated technological and social innovation, something which benefits all the interdependent nations in a global economy. Or so the argument would go.

One of the consequences of such a perspective, though, is that America has a hypermasculinity problem.* Whether US culture sees more benefit or cost from its manufactured increase in drive and productivity, it does so by increasing competitiveness for status between individuals, and that means increasing the value of “keeping up with the Joneses” or “being the best.” Like individualism, putting a high value in proving one’s superiority corresponds to a hidden dimension in all cultures according to Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, a dimension called masculinity-femininity* (America ranks a modestly high 62, with higher numbers being more masculine). In masculine countries, being the best and competing are the primary motivations for social engagement; by contrast, feminine cultures tend to orient themselves to a collective need to “take care” of the population through a “no man left behind” society. Of this we can say one thing for sure – the Northern Social Democracies of Europe, and cultures with greater feminine orientation in general, see a payoff to their feminine values because feminine cultures tend to flatten the hierarchy, while masculine ones exacerbate it. The result is that feminine cultures have fewer social problems due to less status anxiety and greater social support, a systemic orientation which has a tangible effect on the economy from a different direction: less social problems equals less social drag on the economy.

*Hofstede uses “masculine/feminine” as proxies for competitive and cooperative societies, including certain implications that follow. This shouldn’t be conflated with the ongoing discourse about gender, which is highly complex and intersectional with culture, experience, temperament and biology. While there is a relationship, it is complex, and a topic for another time. Suffice it to say it is somewhat problematic to reduce that complexity to a masculine/feminine dichotomy.

Trump, of course, represents the opposite values of those Northern social democracies (their domestic champion would be Bernie Sanders). In an age where those feminine values have made us question what modern masculinity even looks like (for reasons we will look at in a moment), The Donald presents those most disaffected with a reassuring answer – we just need to lean into our past. Donald represents a vision of America from Wall Street in the 1980’s where Gordon Gekko made his fortune stepping on heads and getting ahead at all costs. He hails back to an era where masculine archetypes were clear and simple, and as anachronistic as they might now seem, he projects those recognizably American images of strength for people who feel defeated economically, politically and culturally. Trump embodies unadulterated individualism and masculinity from a time when they were least diluted and ambivalent, an image from when it was virtuous to do and say anything to get ahead, no matter how many you crushed along the way and no matter how toxic to the social contract. Accordingly, the America we are hoping to return to by “making America great again” is a hypermasculine America, an America where cutthroat CEOs, hedonistic excess and ruthless competition are all morally righteous because they give the little guy something to chase after in their own sad little American Dream. Trump is a 1980’s Wall Street cartoon come to life.

let s cut to the chase there are two kinds of people sheep and sharks anyone who s a sheep is fired who s a sheep

Trump’s candidacy, then, is supposed to be the antidote to feminine developments like gay marriage, universal health care, legal pot, minority leadership and socialist candidates.* But again, let’s ask the question Trump supporters ask themselves every morning: how did these developments arise in the first place? Why are Trump’s supporters on the cultural defensive, and why does Trump’s rise make sense as an equal and opposite reaction to a powerful swing toward the cultural left?

*For those who might not think see how these developments are connected, each is a shift away from a more “masculine” policy toward a more “feminine” one; i.e. toward values emphasizing cooperation (socialism), support (universal health care) and inclusion (gay marriage, minority leadership). Even legal pot represents a shift away from the “tough on crime” approach of punitive drug sentencing and zero-tolerance that are highly correlated with overly hierarchical, and therefore masculine, societies.

Trump supporters’ fear is not unreasonable. American values do indeed seem to be skewing feminine and/or liberal, and there may be a good reason why.

The Exponential Curve of Cultural Evolution… And Why It’s A Bitch

In the broadest trend of cultural evolution, much of early human history has been dominated by masculine values befitting a brutal and indifferent nature that didn’t care if people lived or died. Masculine competition has been favored in the vast majority of our bloody, unfair, unequal and uncaring history, even as those masculine values built the dog-eat-dog system in the first place. For basically all of biological evolution and most of cultural evolution, the world was a win-lose place, and mens’ win-lose drives held sway accordingly.*

*As we will see, men have anywhere from 30-60 times more testosterone than women, making them uniquely suited to competition and hierarchical sorting; women, however, have a higher need for oxytocin (see: also), making them uniquely suited to social networking (see: The Spirit Level, Ch. 14 for an interesting take on how male or female dominated forms of social organization skew the social hierarchy and the resultant social values). As a blog post for another time, this divergent male/female orientation may be the first kind of neurodiversity; a natural evolutionary division of meaning-making labor that creates different strategies critical to complex adaptive systems.

That trend has gradually been shifting, however. Though not only about female empowerment, a great way to track this development is to chart how women have begun to gain social power beginning in the early twentieth century. More importantly, though, are the societal shifts in underlying values that have seen increased efforts to pull the most vulnerable elements of the population up and even empower them. This is not just in feminine cultures; cultures that were once masculine are themselves becoming more feminine.* It is arguably the consequences of this shift that provide the reactionary elements that prop up a Trump candidacy. But why?

*as evidence of how comprehensive the trend is, small shifts in the world’s most masculine cultures are perhaps most illustrative: Saudi Arabia’s prince favors female drivers, India actually prosecutes honor killings of women, and many in the US have swooped in to defend transgendered people’s choice of bathrooms following recent NC legislation.

Possibly because of what Robert Wright calls the evolution of Non-Zero sumness; i.e. the evolution of win-win dynamics.

To summarize the argument I made from an earlier post, win-win dynamics have an evolutionary advantage over their win-lose counterparts because they benefit from greater cooperation and therefore more ambitious goals, while also producing less economic and social friction. The result is that anything that promotes a win-win potential between people tends to stick around, in both biological and cultural evolution (see: Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny). Consequently, civilization has been built up by a million little innovations – social, technological, political, economic – each contributing slightly to the aggregate win-win logic, allowing more people to communicate, cooperate and organize at greater and greater distances. These shifts require periodic leaps in our socio-ideological paradigms to harness novel potentials – new religious, economic and political philosophies that justify expanding the sphere of people we will consider human and worthy of cooperating with. And when we exploit these gains iteratively, we ratchet up social complexity, taking human groups from from tribes to larger polities, polities to city-states, city-states to nation-states and beyond to an increasingly interdependent, internet-connected global economy. The process is exponential. Technology begets technology, cooperation begets cooperation, and the logic of social life shifts from win-lose most of the time, to win-win most of the time, feeding back on itself. As a measure of that progress, while most people throughout history have been stuck in a win-lose system, the real surprise is that many people can now live their lives taking a win-win society entirely for granted.

The point here is that even as cultures position themselves differently along the masculinity-femininity divide, each one sits in an even larger context that gradually shifts them all toward the feminine. As technology shrinks the world and conditions put people “in the same boat,” cooperation is fostered, and ultimately consideration. Now more than ever, the internet-hyperconnected global economy has shrunk this distance completely, allowing people to work with anyone across the world, fast-tracking this logic. This new cooperative potential has been cemented by ideological growth as well: we find ourselves with a more liberal pope, more “politically correct” discourse, greater tolerance of homosexuality, acceptance of minority leadership and perhaps most heretical of all, openness to the socialist ideas we once defined ourselves against. And one way of looking at all this is that the world now finds itself in a place where feminine values are increasingly needed to shepherd the way. As win-lose social friction becomes less productive, a massive win-win global infrastructure means social networkers are more important than ever, as are their values of finding ways to empathize, support and get along with one another in an increasingly interdependent world.

All of which is good news for liberalism and bad news for older hegemonic power structures and their beneficiaries. But lest we pretend that this is just a triumph of good over evil, there are many good people who are crushed under the wheels of progress.

As great as all this might sound to liberals, it isn’t without its costs, and perhaps disproportionately so to conservatives. Though your average liberal couldn’t see forecasts like these come true quickly enough, a rising tide of cooperative potential has negative as well as positive implications for people everywhere. At home, expanding our sphere of empathy ever wider makes it increasingly hard to keep any one outgroup in the subhuman category – though parts of our society are trying to maintain this legacy with African-Americans and Muslims. Abroad, it means that the more we bear the fruits of international cooperation, the more we want to minimize friction by creating free trade bills that allow countries to compete in new markets, something which favors consumers and producers the world over. However, progress also means that a group that was once powerful or protected loses something. White Caucasian males are having a harder time defending their disproportionate cultural power in an increasingly empowered melting pot society, while blue collar workers see their jobs shipped away to more competitively-waged work forces abroad, an implicitly acceptable cost of globalization to an expendable demographic of poorer middle-aged men.*

We don’t often think of white middle-aged men as being high on the list of people requiring social sympathy, but for the sake of understanding the subjective motivations of our target demographic, we shouldn’t get lost in who is most disempowered and injusticed. Disempowerment and injustice are predictable feelings under particular circumstances, and we can infer from political, economic and cultural circumstances that Trump’s demographic is feeling the heat, if not the Bern.

Interestingly, when people are squeezed culturally, politically and economically all at the same time, it tends to make human nature fall back on deep neural circuitry that conjures ideological dreams full of hope, pride and community to compensate. And it is these dreams that Donald Trump is poised to speak to.

Lets look at how.

The Four Axis Model

Let’s drill a little deeper into the specifics of Trump’s appeal. To do that, we’ll take our four-axis model of meaning – a model that seeks to explain the relationship between the subjective and social dimensions of meaning – and bear out the human nature that makes this the year for Trump.*

*A note about the use of neurochemistry: this blog presents evidence that we have four neurochemical circuits that motivate us to self-organize into the major structures that organize social life. The theory follows that this has evolved as a biological need for what we call meaning in order to drive cultural evolutionand is used as both a theory of wellness and a new paradigm for social and political progress. I will not re-present that evidence here, but point you here, here and here for the broad strokes of this theory.


Sections - Goals 01ATrump’s impact on dopamine would refer to the way we gain motivation from anticipation of future rewards. The problem with this system of motivation, though, is that when times get tough and we can no longer see our way through, there is little to look forward to that can motivate us. When this happens, human beings have an adaptive trick to keep going – we come to believe that things will be get better somehow. We believe that someone will save us, that our lottery ticket will win, or that we’ll make it despite the odds, all to keep the motivating dopamine flowing. This is adaptive because it makes us keep working in spite of all the evidence; it gives us hope when it seems reasonable to believe there is none. Of course, both of these are also the definition of being delusional, and commensurately, this kind of magical thinking is something we are all capable of. This inborn driver of human irrationality could be called faith logic.

Trump benefits from this faith logic because as several articles have pointed out, Trump’s supporters often can’t see their way out: zones of Trump support overlap with communities battered around by low wages and the loss of manufacturing jobs. They’ve also been left behind in times of prosperity thanks to stagnating wages at the bottom and a lack of social mobility, making it hard to pivot to new economic sectors when their jobs get shipped overseas.

Without real economic prospects to keep them going, then, Trump supporters are desperate. They have to fall back on hope for a candidate based only on the claims that he is on their side, the fact that he speaks their language, and the idea that being a businessman would translate to economic growth as president. They have to believe that he will somehow enact his fantastical plans for border walls and manufacturing jobs and a return to American world power. Why? Because the alternative is confronting more of the same: politicians whose economic policies have given them learned helplessness about their prospects as their pleas fall on deaf ears.


Sections - Hierarchy 01AThere is another implication to being pushed into faith logic. If the real world hammers us and leaves us behind, we don’t just lose access to motivating rewards, we also lose access to the feedback that we are important and powerful. We lose our sense of status. Status is a hardwired chemical need; when we lose it, we become very susceptible to anyone who can spin power narratives in our imagination as it produces the same power chemistry in the brain. There is a reason Germany found itself vulnerable to Hitler after the crippling and punitive economic terms of the Versailles Treaty after World War I.

To capitalize on such disempowerment effectively, an image of strength and power requires someone to beat up on, an outgroup to place yourself above in the hierarchy. A great way to do that is racialized narratives. Racial narratives fix your advantages as inborn, and give you an imagined sense of winning that isn’t dependent on the real world’s fickle fortunes to provide external verification of it. Racial narratives give you status in your mind, regardless of what your world says about you.

These racial narratives become useful when fortunes push your group to the bottom; suddenly everyone becomes hyperaware of their status, seeing reflections of it everywhere. Good news to those rekindling age-old stories of intrinsic superiority: system dynamics are an unlikely ally, as they work to make these narratives all the more plausible. As existing power structures tend to be self-reinforcing, social systems keep those at the top and bottom right where they are over time (particularly masculine cultures with low social mobility). One of the self-reinforcing mechanisms is that strife and dysfunction follow those at the bottom, so socially disempowered groups tend to stay there, giving political ammunition to justify the social order as real and natural to those already inclined to buy into those stories.

In the US, of course, Obama came along in 2008 and inverted that racial hierarchy. Poor white people who lost their blue-collar jobs found themselves being hammered not only economically and politically, but culturally and ideologically by challenging these superiority myths. By making it a little harder to believe the most extreme versions of this myth, Obama struck a blow for Black people everywhere; power and potential might eventually be color-blind.

Though it might not generate a lot of sympathy, many poor white Americans lost access to a powerful historical coping mechanism under the Obama administration. Then, as if from the ether, a candidate comes along who primes those old schemas of intrinsic power and restores the old ideological coping mechanisms. It is okay to put Muslims into an outgroup again. It is okay to talk about kicking whiny liberal asses again. Presumably we can also dust off our truck nutz and start saying Merry Christmas again too.

Why does this work? The chemistry that sorts us into hierarchies is testosterone, with serotonin pulling in a relationship between mood and status. Trump’s base are conservatives, a group with temperamental roots that make them more likely to seek out stronger hierarchies, i.e. make them more receptive to authoritarianism. And for those same reasons, they’re likely more receptive to strong narratives about winners, superiority and strength in general, the kind of stuff that lends itself to the thinly-veiled racism we’ve been talking about.

But there is another phenomenon afoot. A study at the University of Utah measured the testosterone levels of basketball and soccer fans before and after their teams participated in major sporting events. They were looking to see if there was something physiological behind the glory of winning for those one step removed from actual competition. They already knew that such a thing existed for players: competitive winners see a rise in testosterone following play, while losers’ levels dip, a hormonal change that affects player prospects of future wins with something called the winning effect. The results of the Utah study were equally fascinating: turns out it isn’t just players whose testosterone goes up after a win, fans of the victorious team see their T go up as well. This chemical upgrade in perceived status – a change that sharpens the mind, boosts confidence and improves motivation – is not bound within individual physiology alone, as one only needs to perceive themselves to be apart of the winning team to gain the super-charged benefits. This perk of our social neurology confers a winning effect that spans entire groups.

We can infer a similar mechanism in politics. When Trump has a win, or or claims to, no matter how flimsy, he fuels a very real and chemical sense of power. This doesn’t just feel good; it replenishes a much needed pool of chemical status, a biological need in short supply among a demographic of people weather-beaten by years of political and economic strife.

Donald Trump, full of piss and vinegar, is making a disenfranchised people feel strong again, something the US politicians haven’t been able to do through actual political and economic empowerment for some time.


Sections - Networks 01AOxytocin isn’t just a beautiful chemical of community and love, it is also a chemical of sometimes-ugly ingroup/outgroup dynamics. It is a chemical that makes people feel more trusting of those inside their self-selected family, and less trusting of those outside. So when economics rend communities and make them vulnerable and weak, strategies that can pull them together again prove potent. One such mechanism is to unite people from the inside by the specter of boogeymen from without (Trump’s favorites: Mexicans and Muslims).

In fact, one could argue that someone as shrewd as Donald Trump uses things like anti-Mexican walls and anti-Muslim bans not as a celebration of racism, but for their strategic value in strengthening ingroups (albeit, ingroups that are prone to xenophobia). After all, as we talked about my last article that touched on political neurodiversity, conservatism is rooted in a temperamental collectivism that tends to be more ingroup/outgroup already (not to mention, more prone to fear-based predictions). While rallying a sense of common community and purpose by defining who isn’t included is thus a natural strategy, it is one that few conservatives can successfully implement anymore without being attacked as hopelessly xenophobic and backwater (not to mention losing the “diversity vote”). Fortunately for Trump, whether he is blithely ignorant or recklessly pragmatic in doubling down on such a strategy, one thing his clear: it has paid off in spades, at least in the primaries.

Alternatively, we might look at this ingroup/outgroup dimension through another oxytocin phenomena: Stockholm Syndrome.* The parallel is more apt than we think. The Patty Hearst story popularized a phenomenon whereby a kidnap victim attaches to their kidnappers in order to maintain a critical connection to someone, anyone. From a rational standpoint this is lunacy, but from the perspective of your body, the need to create the chemistry of safety and trust is imperative, and your mind will meet this need by making wolves seem like sheep. Similarly, Trump has presented himself as one of the few viable options for a group of people desperate for allies. Accordingly, voters in that block evidence a lot of the same characteristics of Stockholm Syndrome: endless justification of outlandish behavior; overlooking contradictions and misinformation; generally maintaining a delusional positive regard for the only person who seems to be in their corner.

*My point here is actually not to argue that Trump supporters have Stockholm Syndrome. I would argue that Stockholm Syndrome is the name we give to a more general pathological potential of our need to connect. So potent is our need for the social chemistry released during connection, that rather than go without, individuals will attach to basically anyone under the right conditions. We call the most extreme examples of this Stockholm Syndrome, but a more general version happens all the time with bad relationships. Trump supporters may not have Stockholm Syndrome, but they are in a bad relationship, willing to maintain an unhealthy connection and overlook signs of danger to stay in it.


Sections - Friction 01AThe liberalization/feminization of politics has put many blue-collar workers on their back foot in a way that invokes a sense of righteous indignation.

Temperamentally, socioeconomically, and as men, blue-collar workers feel robbed in more ways than one. They’ve had their jobs taken. They’ve seen their culture shift from traditional American values to socialist ideals of universal health care and equally socialist candidates who actually stand a chance. They’ve seen their racial hierarchy upended and their innate superiority questioned with a black president, a female candidate and gay marriage equality. All these things create a sense of injustice toward liberals, minorities, women and anyone perceived to be “taking our country away.”

A sense of injustice is ripe for creating scapegoats. Scapegoats are convenient objects of blame that personify a problem. While the reality of social problems are perhaps better explained as complex systemic phenomena, simpler objects of blame – “social justice warriors,” “affirmative action minorities,” “feminazis,” “political correctness” and so on – create satisfying targets for our frustration while dressing them us as villains: bad guys who are righteously deserving of our punishment. When becoming a scapegoat, it also helps if your group has history of disempowerment, as disempowerment can breed extreme anger and pain, which can lead to lashing out and justify further scapegoating. Coupled with the fact that chronic injustice makes people hair-trigger to subsequent injustice, and we see how forces conspire to help scapegoaters disparage disempowered groups as intrinsically extreme and irrational.

The same is also true in reverse: Trump supporters’ own sense of injustice makes them a convenient scapegoat and an obvious target of ridicule. But to be fair, the people in Trump’s voting bloc have had their jobs outsourced, their cultural power deflated, and their once secure future called into question. The culture has moved on and it’s hardly trendy to talk about the plight of the white blue-collar man. Their perceived sense of injustice leads many of these voters to act out of anger, leading to spectacles on the news of irrational conflict and aggression that further confirms the assumptions of a progressive middle class that Trump voters are intrinsically nuts. And there may be some of that. But when the real world hammers us into ideological comforts and irrational coping mechanisms, any of us can appear a little crazy.

In all these ways, a Trump presidency isn’t about logic and facts, it is about the meaning of what he stands for. He makes people feel like they’re important, that they’re a part of a collective identity, that they have a future and that they’re fighting injustice. The fact that Trump is the anti-fact candidate only highlights how he caters to these deeper needs, and how important they are, because they won him the Republican candidacy.

This is particularly important as we come up against a time of global integration, a time that puts pressure on us domestically even as it pulls us into something bigger still. Trump is a reactionary element capitalizing on growing pains just like these, a candidate that is an equal and opposite reaction to the potency of cultural shifts working against his base.

  1. Interesting examination of Trump’s ascendence. Do you think there enough registered voters in the Democratic/feminist side to block his election?

    By the way, Happy Birthday, Morgan!

    • Doubtful. Many registered Democrats I know and talk with are at least for now determined not to support HRC come November. Most will come around, but many will not. As a Sanders guy, I understand; as a citizen, I will have to vote for Hillary, should she head the ticket, and hope for the best.

  2. No where else have I seen the characteristics of Trump supporters compared to the characteristics of the Stockholm Syndrome. Brilliant analogy, Morgan.

  3. Oh boy, another “guys, I’ve got this whole Trump thing figured out!” word salad.

    With so many people cranking out these very long, Very Serious effortposts, it can be daunting to judge which ones are worth your time, and which you can safely ignore.

    But there’s a quick test you can perform to see if the author actually has any insight or understanding as to why people support Trump. If the article doesn’t pass the test, you can be sure it’s just another liberal circle-jerk, lamely attempting to pathologize voters acting in their own rational self-interest.

    Wanna know what the test is? It’s simple, really:

    CTRL F immigr

    Try it.

  4. A cogent, if wide ranging analysis of the phenomena. Especially important for liberals and progressives to understand and sympathize with the plight of the white blue collar. Important to note that the blue collar of several decades ago was NOT yet brainwashed to be anti-socialist, as the depression and the New Deal had been a seminal lesson for those now in their 80’s and up.

  5. I will be showing this to people over here in the UK as a way to begin understanding how Trump has got to where he is. Most are totally bewildered. Happy birthday Morgan!