Donald Trump’s rise has been fueled by his ability to tap into populist anger and frustration. His disdain for “political-correctness” and willingness to “tell it like it is” has attracted large crowds from Miami to Mobile.
Like other polarizing figures in politics, Trump has drawn many protesters who disagree with his message. Liberal groups ranging from Black Lives Matter to Code Pink have shown up to his events to disrupt and be heard.
But while the forces of the “Never Trump” movement aim to do harm by disturbing the Republican front-runner, their efforts tend to have the opposite effect. As counterintuitive as it seems, Trump protesters only pour gasoline on the fire that is his supporters populist rage.
Examine not only how Trump handles the protesters in his rallies, but also how his audience reacts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSS1wv-AFM8
In every instance, the anti-Trump forces are met with sarcastic and cutting remarks, leading to positive reactions from the crowd. The very pretense of outside invaders seems to vindicate in the minds of his supporters that their candidate is right on the issue of “political correctness” and cultural censorship.
The effect, in essence, is to galvanize Trump’s base even more. Protests function as the anti-preaching to the choir effect: no matter how loud the opposing voices scream, the “Make America Great Again Crowd” will more forcefully do the opposite.
Furthermore, thanks in part to the coverage of his rally disturbances, Trump earned $400 million worth of free media last month, about what John McCain spent on his entire 2008 presidential campaign. The incidents only add to the spectacle – one that the national media cannot avoid covering- and unintentionally spread his message farther.
This reverse effect has been seen before. In fact, it has occurred in Alabama with a charismatic governor that decided to make a populist run for the presidency.
George C. Wallace tapped into similar populist anger that makes up Trump’s current base. His exertion of that raw frustration propelled him to moderate electoral success, despite encountering the same types of disruptions Trump faces.
Look at how Wallace went after his protesters and the similarities he shares in this regard to the likely 2016 GOP nominee.
Wallace felt that it was politically beneficial to decry “The folks he felt like his constituents disliked the most.” He stated “Every time y’all [protesters] show up, you get me a million votes.”
Former Wallace campaign staffers stated that the protesters actually drove up campaign donations, which led to general election victory in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.
Wallace and Trump supporters both viewed the “politically correct” crowd as the problem. Trump supporters today are no more likely to heed the words of a black lives matter protester than a Wallace supporter was to listen intently to a late-60s hippie.
Trump, like Wallace before him, has a very dedicated group of followers. At this point, people are either extremely for his campaign, or against it. There is limited middle ground. The protests now will not, in any likelihood, change the minds of any person on the billionaire. They only serve to rattle the populist cage that led to his surge in the first place.
