Author Archives: Matthew Dickinson

Is Trump Hitler? I Have A Better Question

Since the start of this year’s most unusual presidential campaign, I have given dozens of election-themed talks to audiences ranging from senior citizens to high-school students.  During the Q&A period after my lectures, a version of one question is almost always asked:  “Is Trump Hitler?”

The first time this happened, during a talk I gave last fall, the question was posed by a former State Department Foreign Service officer who went on to suggest we were experiencing what the Weimer Republic went through before the rise of Nazi Germany. I don’t remember my response, but I do know the question caught me by surprise. As it became apparent that Trump was going to secure the Republican nomination, however, the question was asked more frequently, and not just by my audience members. National pundits got into the act as well. Andrew Sullivan warned that Trump, and his “neo-Fascist movement” was an “extinction-level event.”  In his survey of Trump’s rise, Robert Kagan explained that, “This is how fascism comes to America.”  Trump was,  Peter Steinfels summarized, “the semi-fascist candidate.” Eventually, Trump’s wife Melania felt compelled to publicly rebut the accusation: “We know the truth. He’s not Hitler,” she insisted in an interview with Dujour magazine   “He wants to help America. He wants to unite people. They think he doesn’t but he does.”  It did little good.  Responding to Melania, the New Yorker’s Adam Gropnik replied, “He’s not Hitler, as his wife recently said? Well, of course he isn’t. But then Hitler wasn’t Hitler—until he was.”

Until he was.  That’s the key element to this Trump-is-Hitler argument.  Initially, as I began to anticipate this question after my lectures, I would try to point to the many ways that Trump is not Hitler – he hasn’t organized a putsch, or written about the need for living space, or expressed a desire to exterminate people, for instance.  Nor is the United States much like post-World War I Germany, a country with little experience with parliamentary democracy.  And there’s that cultural argument as well, if you believe that line of reasoning.  (I’m skeptical.)  Invariably, the comeback is, “Well, he isn’t Hitler yet!  But wait until he takes power…..”

After a time, I realized that the questioners didn’t really want to hear my answer.  They were already convinced Trump IS Hitler. Nothing I can say would dissuade them from that belief.  And so now, when I am asked if I believe Trump is Hitler, my response is: “I don’t know.  Is Bernie Sanders Mao?”  That usually flummoxes them long enough for me to move on to the next question.

Now, I don’t actually believe Sanders is Mao.  Not yet.  But who knows what will happen if he somehow captures the Democratic nomination?  If the choice is Sanders or Trump, it’s not inconceivable that come November a majority of voters will choose Sanders.  And then what? Anyone who has been assaulted by Bernie Bros on social media  understands that his supporters are willing to do most anything to further his cause.  In this regard, the death threats and near-riot from Sanders’ supporters in Nevada may just be a preview of things to come!

If Mao…er…Sanders does take power, the first victim is likely to be the First Amendment.  Already we are seeing free speech come under assault on our college campuses under the guise of furthering “diversity.” A generation of young students – most of them Bernie supporters – is embracing this type of mind control without a moment’s hesitation.  First they took our Halloween costumes, and we did nothing.  Next…..

Say goodbye to a free press as well.  President Sanders is almost certain to push for a state-run media organization. After all, Sanders’ supporters routinely rail against the “corporate media”.  Under the Sandersista regime, our children will grow up watching “Sanders Street.”

And it won’t stop there.  Bernie will undoubtedly push for a sizable increase in the government-controlled social welfare state as well. But where will that expansion end?  Remember, it’s a small step from government-run health care to government-run reeducation camps!

“Sure,” you say.  “But Bernie’s only attacking the 1%. The remaining 99% have nothing to worry about!”  Yes, but who is to say he will stop there?  Pretty soon it will be the 5%, then 10%, and then…. .  You can see how it ends.  Within a few years we will all be toting our little Bernie books, getting Bernie haircuts and gesticulating wildly while we mansplain socialist doctrine to the masses.

Far-fetched?  Perhaps.  But by the time the tanks roll through Middlebury square, and I’m marched off with my fellow political scientists to work the marijuana fields, it’s too late.

Is Trump Hitler?  I have a better question: Is Bernie Mao?!


The Truth About the Orlando Shooting, Based On My Twitter Feed

With news reports indicating that at least 50 people have been killed in a mass shooting at an Orlando night club, making it the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, I turned to social media to find out what we know about this horrific attack.  Who did it, what was his motive and how might we prevent future attacks? Here is what I found out.  All quotes taken directly from my twitter feed.

Who was the shooter, and what was his motive?   

Let’s not rush to judgment until we know more about him.

“Omar Mateen, immediately, is a terrorist. Dylan Roof? Let’s wait for all of the facts to come out, says the media and the authorities.”

Admit it: he was a Muslim terrorist.

“Been watching CBS for 40 minutes. No mention this killer was Muslim who targeted a gay bar. If he was Christian it would be headline news.”


What weapon did he use, and how did he get his hands on it?

Once again, an individual who should not be allowed a gun somehow acquired an assault weapon.

“The gun used in Orlando – AR 15 rifle- is the same gun used at Sandy Hook and San Bernadino. It is a weapon of mass destruction.”

Once again, this shooting demonstrates that it is impossible to predict who should be prevented from owning a gun.

“Omar Mateen was reportedly a security guard and licensed to carry a gun”


What was the gunman’s motive?  

Evidently he was a lone-wolf terrorist motivated by religious hatred:

“Rep. Schiff, who is always cautious, says Dept. of Homeland Security told him Orlando shooter made pledge of allegiance to Islamic State.”

“Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was a ‘known quantity’ to the FBI”

Evidently he was an anti-gay bigot motivated by conservative ideology.

“Shooter was born in America. His anger toward gays is a conservative ideology, opposite of liberalism”

“Orlando Gunman’s Father Says Son Was Upset By Gay Kiss, Not Motivated By Religion”


Would stricter gun control laws have prevented this?

Clearly Yes:

“Pete Williams reports terrorist was on a ‘watch list’ In Dec, GOP blocked bill to stop terrorists from buying guns”

“We can argue about gun control but the fact is that places with reasonable gun control laws simply don’t have mass shootings like this”

Clearly No:

“Paris called. They said you’re an idiot.”

#Orlando shooter passed background check. Next, please.”

“These murders were caused by religion and hate. You can blame the tools all you want but religion is what led to this.”

“50 shootings is a nice peaceful weekend in gun control utopia of Chicago.”

In fact, existing gun control laws exacerbated the carnage:

“Like the killers at the Paris Bataclan concert, the Orlando gunman had 3 hours to work his way through the club, killing at will, B4 being shot.”


How can we prevent future incidents like this from happening?

Not by disarming law-abiding Americans

“We can stop terror attacks on innocent Americans by disarming innocent Americans’ is fun argument. Good luck with that.”

Instead, we must recognize the source of the terror: Radical Islamic Terrorism

“Will only get worse in America, when our POTUS can’t say, or recognize those 3 very words-RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM.”

“First, they came for the French satirists, but I wasn’t a French satirist, and I did not speak out …

Then they came for the gays in the nightclub, but I’m not gay, and I did not speak out …”

#LGBT need to arm themselves from the only people on the planet and our country targeting them: Muslims”

“Sorry gang. Bigotry is not refusing to bake a fucking cake. It’s slaughtering folks in a night club ’cause Allah don’t like it”

Yes: we must recognize the source of the terror: Americans’ love affair with guns and violence combined with bigotry.

“Saying the words ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ (even tweeting them) does not actually combat terrorism.”

“Those who demonize, and promote discrimination against, LGBTs create the ideological / cultural context for the Pulse massacre. #sociology

“Also: you do not have permission from queer Latinxs to use the Pulse shooting for your Islamophobic, ssaremongering war machine. Don’t dare.”


Will it have any impact on the presidential election?

It shows why we should elect Trump:

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump 33m33 minutes ago

Horrific incident in FL. Praying for all the victims & their families. When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart & vigilant?”

 It shows why we should not elect Trump:

“Donald Trump should not be president. But the PC response to the Orlando attack is helping his chances.”


The Pulse shooting.  It is a hate crime, made more likely by lax guns laws and a conservative culture that demonizes the LGBT community.

The Pulse shooting. It is an act of terrorism, fueled by religious hatred fomented by Islamic jihadists.

One thing it apparently is not: an incident that will bring partisan activists together. And that’s the sad truth about the Orlando shooting.

Millennials: Glass Ceiling? What Glass Ceiling?

On a late October night in 2004, I woke my oldest son Seth to watch an historic event: the Boston Red Sox were on the cusp of winning the World Series for the first time since 1918, thus breaking the 86-year “Curse of the Bambino”. (In an uncharacteristic show of mercy, I let my youngest son sleep through history in the making.) At 11:41 p.m., when the Cardinals’ Edgar Renteria tapped meekly back to Sox pitcher Keith Foulke for the final out, I raised a glass of single malt in a toast to all those generations of Sox fans who had lived and died with our Old Towne Team, and yet who never got to experience what I had just witnessed: a World Championship. It was an experience made that much sweeter because I shared it with my son.

Years later I remember asking Seth how he felt on that historic night, when church bells rang throughout small New England towns, grandfathers wept with their sons, and the ghosts of Billy Buckner, Grady Little, Mike Torrez and yes, the Babe himself, were finally and irrevocably exorcised. He paused for a moment and then replied, “I don’t remember. I think I fell asleep.” Upon reflection, I wasn’t surprised by his response. Seth hadn’t really experienced the Red Sox’ long, tortured history, had no idea who Enos Slaughter, Mookie Wilson or Bucky “Bleeping” Dent even were, had no real understanding of why Fenway Park is a religious shrine. (When I brought him to games there, he would bring a science fiction book to read during down time.) And it’s not like this was a once-in-a-lifetime event – the Red Sox have gone on to win two more championships since that historic victory.

I was reminded of Seth’s reaction last night, when my twitter feed was inundated with posts reacting to Hillary Clinton clinching the Democratic nomination, thus becoming the first woman to run as a major party’s nominee. On her twitter feed, Clinton posted this picture, with the caption: “Don’t Let Anyone Tell You Great Things Can’t Happen in America.”

It was particularly poignant moment when Clinton, in her victory speech, referenced her own mother, saying, “”I wish she could see her daughter become the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

More than one tweeter noted that they were in tears watching this historic moment: “Crying for all the women who never got a chance to see this. #historymade #Imwithher.” And this: “kind of sobbing #historymade”. There were lots of references as well to the shattering of the final glass ceiling: “I’m celebrating by drinking tears of the patriarchy from my glass made of shattered glass ceiling. #HistoryMade”

Many of the tweeters noted that they had woken their young daughters, so that they might watch Clinton’s victory speech and experience the historic event together, much as I had woken my son many years ago.  More than one included this photo in their tweets.

In reading these tweets, I could not help but wonder: Were the young daughters crying too? And how many of them will remember this event? It’s no secret that the biggest dividing line between Clinton’s and Sanders’ supporters – maybe bigger than income, or race – is age. Glass ceiling notwithstanding, Millennials – those born after 1980 – vote overwhelmingly for Bernie, while Clinton does much better with the over-fifty crowd. Surprisingly, perhaps, polls indicate that the age divide extends to women, with Sanders running stronger among young women, while Clinton’s support with a women increases as one moves up the age ladder.

For many Millennial women, the notion that Clinton’s deserves their support because of her gender makes little sense and, in fact, seems somewhat patronizing. Yes, they realize that no women had become a major party nominee, never mind president.  But that had less to do with some metaphorical glass ceiling than it did with the failure to find an effective woman candidate. And when they look at the two Democratic candidates, and their stances on issues like income inequality, dealing with Wall St., the environment, health care and education, they find it hard to make a case for Clinton over Sanders. As one of my female students explained in an op-ed piece she wrote justifying her vote for Bernie, “Voting for Hillary, at least for me, would have meant that I was content with the pragmatic, incremental changes that she’s proposed, and that I was skeptical of Bernie’s ability to beat a Republican nominee – and maybe even his ability to run the country.” A vote for Bernie, “the Democratic socialist from Vermont,” she argued, “essentially means that you think the current political system (largely controlled by wealthy individuals and corporate interests) isn’t working. You reject the consumerism, me-first way of life of our parents’ generation and envision a more sustainable, more caring and more economically just America.”

That is a sentiment widely shared among my students, men and women, and among Millennials more generally. This doesn’t mean they don’t recognize the historic nature of Clinton’s candidacy, or that they believe gender discrimination is no longer a problem in society. But they grew up in the era of Title IX, at a time when more women than men are graduating from college, and when the gender pay gap is diminishing. To them, their gender seems less likely to determine their fate than it did for Clinton’s generation, and there is little reason to believe it will determine how one behaves as President.

Perhaps more importantly, Hillary Clinton does not strike many Millennials as the ideal symbol of gender equality. Instead, she seems to be the product of a political establishment that they reject as corrupt and incapable of change. Clinton’s long history of association with scandals, from Whitewater through Lewinsky and her husband’s impeachment (and they don’t forget she stood by her man) to the current email server controversy, makes her less a symbol of change than a reminder of politics as usual. And more than one student has noted to me that Clinton got her initial political start as the spouse of the President – hardly the Millennial’s feminist ideal. Unfair? Perhaps. But in a head-to-head matchup, many Millennials prefer what they see as Sanders’ more genuine, idealistic and uplifting message over Clinton’s establishment persona.

In making his case last night to his followers for why he will stay in the race, Sanders noted his overwhelming support among young voters – a sign, he says, that his message represents the future of the Democratic Party, and of politics more generally. Time will tell if he’s right.  In the years to come, the young daughters who were dragged out of bed last night to stand next to Mom and Grandma, may look back and wonder what all the fuss was about – if they remember at all.  I suppose that would be progress, of a sort.  In that vein, my son Seth never developed much passion for baseball, to say nothing of a rooting allegiance for the Red Sox. “The games are too slow,” he tells me. On the other hand, he just published his first science fiction novel, to rave reviews.

I guess I can live with that.

Voters To Clinton and Trump: “You Lie.” But Does It Matter?

There has been a flurry of media coverage over still another recent post, this one by Rasmussen, indicating that voters rate Donald Trump as more honest than Hillary, although neither candidate rates very highly among voters on this metric.  In my last post I examined why, despite his documented penchant for making accurate statements, several recent polls indicate that slightly more people view Trump as the more honest of the two.  In the latest Rasmussen poll, a national survey of likely voters (margin of error +/- 3%) asked respondents the following two questions:
1. Is Hillary Clinton more honest or less honest than most other politicians? Or is her level of honesty about the same?
2. Is Donald Trump more honest or less honest than most other politicians? Or is his level of honesty about the same?
According to Rasmussen’s summary of their survey data (I don’t subscribe to their polls and thus don’t have access to the poll’s internals), 30% of survey respondents think Trump is more honest than most other politicians, compared to only 15% who think Clinton is more honest than most politicians. That’s the good news for Trump, and that’s what a lot of conservative media outlets played up. The bad news for Trump, and for Clinton too, is that a plurality of respondents think both Trump (45%) and Clinton (46%) are less honest than most other politicians. Based on Rasmussen’s summary of the poll, 22% of respondents rate Trump about as honest as most others in the political game, compared to 37% who say that about Clinton. According to other media outlets (presumably with access to Rasmussen’s crosstabs), Clinton’s trust gap even extends to Democrats, with only 27% of them believing she’s more honest than other politicians, compared to 50% of Republicans who say that about Trump.

As I noted in my last post, at first glance it might seem rather remarkable that Trump would beat Clinton in any poll on the issue of who is more honest and trustworthy, but in fact this is a pretty consistent finding across several recent polls. But it makes sense if you think that for many voters, being “trustworthy” is speaking your mind without regard for political consequences. This is consistent with what a lot of Trump supporters told me during his rallies when I asked why they were supporting him. At the same time, Clinton has been embroiled in a string of controversial events that have led many to question her credibility.

Naturally, conservative media outlets have picked up on this, arguing that Trump’s relative advantage on the honesty scale might be an important factor in the general election. As Mike Flynn writes at Breitbart News, “In the expected close election in November, such differences can have a huge impact.”  I can understand why pundits would make this claim. But, as I’ve written before, I don’t know of much research that indicates that voters’ perceptions of a candidate’s personal qualities, like trustworthiness, has a significant impact on the presidential vote. In an earlier post at U.S. News, when Hillary’s trust issues were getting significant media coverage, I teased readers by writing this: “Consider the following results from this nationwide survey of voters. When asked, only 41 percent of those polled find Clinton ‘honest and trustworthy,’ while fully 54 percent do not. Among those who do not find Clinton trustworthy, fully 67 percent say they are voting for Clinton’s opponent. The results seem to support the contention of political pundits that a candidate who is so widely mistrusted is unlikely to win the presidency. As one analyst puts it, ‘If you don’t fundamentally trust someone or believe they are, at root, honest then how would you justify putting the controls of the country in their hands for at least four years?’

How indeed? Except that this data comes from 1996 presidential election exit poll – the one taken on the day of the election. That was the election, you will recall, in which the deeply mistrusted candidate Bill Clinton handily defeated his opponent and man of sterling character, World War II veteran Bob Dole, 49.2 percent to 40.7 percent.”

I went on to cite data suggesting that voters’ attitudes toward presidential candidates’ personal qualities are not particularly useful for predicting how they are going to vote in the general election. Nonetheless, I’m confident this won’t stop pundits of all ideological stripes from claiming that Clinton’s trustworthiness issues constitute a “major problem.”  This was probably going to be the case no matter who she ran against, even if the data doesn’t seem to support the assertion. But when facing an opponent who has his own trustworthiness issues, as recent polls indicate Trump clearly does, I’m even less convinced that questions regarding who is the least dishonest of the two are going to be the decisive factor come November.

Nonetheless, it is pretty remarkable that when it comes to issues of trust, the two major party candidates don’t seem to be held in particularly high regard. Most voters seem to accept the fact that, “You Lie” is a pretty apt description of their candidacies.

Is Trump More Honest Than Hillary?

The latest Quinnipiac nationwide survey of registered voters has Hillary Clinton holding a slight lead over Donald Trump, 45%-41% (margin of error of +/- 2.5%). That’s consistent with the polling averages at Huffington Post, which have Clinton up 42.7%-40.8%, and at RealClearPolitics, which has Clinton leading Trump 44%-42.5%.  Of course, as I’ve noted before, head-to-head polling is still not very predictive at this point in the race, and really won’t be until after the nominating conventions. This is particularly true with Clinton still in a fight for the Democratic nomination, while Trump is moving ahead to unify Republicans behind him. It is also the case that fully 15% of respondents chose not to back either candidate. Nonetheless, it is interesting to look at the internals of recent polls to get a sense of what is driving the results.

Perhaps the most surprising result in the Quinnipiac polls is that when asked who they found more trustworthy and honest, Clinton or Trump, 44% of respondents chose Trump, compared to 39% who selected Clinton. Obviously some of the responses are conditioned by the respondent’s partisan affiliation – Democrats rate Hillary higher, while Republicans view Trump as more trustworthy.  But among independents, Trump led by an even greater 15%, 44%-29%.


How can this be? Isn’t Trump the candidate that Politifact fact-checked and rated close to 80% of the statements of his that they checked as false, mostly false or meriting a Pants on Fire? Given his documented record of making false statements, how could survey respondents rate him more trustworthy than Clinton? This result isn’t unique to Quinnipiac, mind you. In the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, Trump also “led” Clinton 42%-41% among registered voters on the honesty/trustworthiness question.

One explanation is that because Clinton hasn’t been able to secure her party’s nomination, some Democrats and likely Sanders’ supporters are more willing to say that Trump is more trustworthy as a form of protesting Clinton’s candidacy rather than as a statement in favor of Trump’s honesty. As evidence, note that more than twice as many Democrats – 10% – said Trump was more trustworthy than did Republicans – 5% – about Clinton.

A second possible explanation is that Trump draws disproportionately from less educated supporters who may be less able to judge the veracity of Trump’s statements – or less willing to care whether what he says is true or not.

Note that in the Quinnipiac survey, those without a college education are more likely to rate Trump as the more honest of the two than are the college educated.

However, I think a third factor is at play here. For many Trump supporters, his trustworthiness and honesty is not measured by how factually correct his statements are. Instead, it is better gauged by his willingness to speak candidly about issues, even if he does so in ways that are not viewed as politically correct, and which may create a media backlash. Again and again I heard his followers at his rallies say that they appreciated his willingness to talk about issues that other candidates shied away from, regardless of the potential consequences. They tended to dismiss his exaggerations as “Donald being Donald”.  In contrast, for many voters, Clinton often appears too clever by half, with her every statement carefully crafted to appeal to a potential voting bloc or interest group. That, combined with her long history of being embroiled in controversy, from Whitewater through the Lewinsky affair to concerns  about her finances to the current questions about her speaking fees and the ongoing email controversy, has made many voters uneasy regarding her credibility. Her careful parsing of statements regarding whether she exchanged classified material on her private email server is a case in point. Did she lie? Probably not. Was she being completely candid? Many voters have their doubts.

In short, when asked about candidate honesty or trustworthiness, many voters do not respond  in terms of whether the candidates’ statements are factually accurate. Instead, they are using a slightly different metric – one based on whether they think the candidate’s statements are candid and sincere. I was reminded of this a couple weeks back when a CNN panel of talking heads was vigorously debating how much blowback Trump would receive if his tax returns showed that he was only worth $4 billion or even less, as opposed to the more than $10 billion Trump claims. If his tax returns show he is lying, it would certainly earn Trump still another Pants on Fire rating.  And yet my sense is that for potential Trump supporters, the answer isn’t nearly as important as the talking heads were making it out to be. Potential Trump supporters know he is very rich – he practically shouts it at them in every rally, when he explains how he can’t be bought. If it turns out he is only half as rich as he claimed to be, he’s still very rich, and his broader point still holds, at least to his potential supporters.

My point here is not to defend Trump or, for that matter, to make a virtue of his spouting blatant falsehoods. Nor should we exaggerate the differences in the survey results between Trump and Clinton when respondents are asked to compare the two candidates’ honesty and trustworthiness. The difference is not great, at least based on recent polls. But the fact that Trump is viewed by slightly more respondents as more trustworthy, instead of Clinton, does seem somewhat shocking, given the almost daily media story documenting still another Trump statement as untrue. The explanation, I think, is that many voters, when asked about trustworthiness and honesty, think in terms of candidate sincerity and candidness, as much or more than they do about the factual accuracy of candidate statements.

Is Clinton honest? Is Trump? It depends on the meaning of honesty!