Imagine, if you will, that you are living in the Old South, prior to the Civil War.  Imagine too that you are a slave, living and working on a medium-size plantation whose cash crop is cotton.  And imagine that from time to time, you have personal interactions with the man who is the owner of the plantation and your slave master.

In these interactions, as in all human two-person interactions, each party hopes the other party will act in such a way to satisfy the wishes of the first party.  The master hopes you will please him, and you hope the master will please you, or at least not displease you.  And so each of you will try to shape the behavior of the other.

Now, it is relatively easy for the master to shape your behavior.  He has authority (an authority you, being a relatively well behaved slave who grew up on the plantation, acknowledge).  To back up that authority, if need be, he has the right to use force against you.  And so when he says, “Do this” or “Don’t do that,” you very probably obey.  Perhaps you don’t obey promptly, sluggishness being the slave’s way of protesting against his unfree condition, but you obey.  The master doesn’t have to waste time and energy persuading you — which in turn would mean that he’d have to study your mind and figure out what you would find persuasive.

You, by contrast, have no authority over him.  And you would not dare use force against him.  So if you are to shape his behavior, you will have to study his mind.  You will have to know what pleases him and what displeases him, and you’ll have to know what time and what place and what circumstances are best for persuading him to grant your wish or for dissuading him from laying some onerous burden on you. 

In the end, you, if your life is to be tolerable, will have to become something of an “expert” on your master’s mind, whereas he will have no need to become more than minimally familiar with your mind.

And so it is in all hierarchical organizations.  The person of superior rank need have little more than a slight understanding of the mind of subordinates, whereas subordinates must have a good understanding of the minds of their bosses.  Workers must understand bosses more than bosses understand workers.  Lieutenants must understand colonels better than colonels understand lieutenants.  Prisoners must understand guards better than the other way around.

It is this way even when social superiors and social inferiors interact outside a hierarchical organization, which is to say outside a command structure.  For instance, if I (an obscure person) happen to interact with a famous or important person, good manners dictate that I pay more attention to the celebrity’s feelings than vice versa.  I (Mr. Nobody) have to show more respect to, say, Meryl Streep than she has to show to me.  (This rule of good manners is often violated — but we all know what the rule is.  Even the boorish violator of the rule knows.)

Generally speaking, then, socially superior people don’t have to know much about the thoughts and feelings of socially inferior people, but social inferiors have to know something about the minds of social superiors. 

All of this leads me to point out a feature of present-day American politics. 

At this late date, it is generally understood that the fans of Donald Trump are, at least on average, though not in every case, socially inferior to the despisers of Donald Trump.  On average, Trump enthusiasts have less schooling than his despisers (who commonly have college degrees and graduate degrees), have smaller incomes, have fewer assets, have less prestigious occupations, reside in less desirable neighborhoods, drive cheaper cars, dine in cheaper restaurants, etc. 

Generally speaking, Trump-despisers look down upon Trump enthusiasts — and, it should be noted, Trump enthusiasts normally resent being looked down upon.

If the rule I described earlier (that socially superior people need know less about the minds of socially inferior people than vice versa) is true, Trump-despisers will have a poor understanding of the minds of Trump enthusiasts.  We see this illustrated almost every day.

  For instance, the despisers don’t seem to understand why the enthusiasts object to illegal immigration.  Instead of considering the possibility that this objection may arise from a genuine and quite rational wish to see the nation’s laws enforced, the despisers attribute the objection to racism.  Trump enthusiasts, the despisers believe, object to the “browning” of America; they would have no objection to millions of “undocumented” “immigrants” if the lawbreaking immigrants were white or if they came from “S-hole” white countries.  Only a racist would object if, let’s say, the entire population of Haiti were to move into Florida tomorrow.

Again, Trump-despisers find it difficult to understand why many Trump enthusiasts object to abortion.  It cannot possibly be because these objectors honestly believe that an unborn baby is a human being and that, therefore, to kill an unborn baby is to commit homicide.  “We don’t believe anything so silly as that,” say the despisers, “and therefore no rational person can believe it.”  What, then, is the motive driving pro-life people?  “That’s easy to explain,” the despisers tell us.  “It is a misogynistic desire to control women, to limit their freedom, to keep them subordinate to men.”  The despisers say this without pausing to note that the pro-life movement is predominantly led and staffed by women.

Finally, Trump-despisers seem unaware that Trump enthusiasts might resent being looked down upon by the despisers.  “Why should they resent being labeled racists and misogynists and fools?  These labels are true, aren’t they?  Why should anybody, except of course a semi-educated fool, object to the truth?”

Image via PickPik.