Originally Posted by simplicitus
Here's a hypothesis: assume Trump was/is completely sincere and was trying to advocate for policies that were not only politically advantageous among certain, shall we say, less educated voters, but that he also believed were good policy generally. (He wasn't but work with me here.)
Let's face it, Trump basically farmed out his policy shop to Fox's morning show, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. Large scale manufacturing and low foreign imports Made America Great when Trump was a kid (with the economy a fraction of the size it is now), so why not set the ole policy time machine lever back to 1960. What could go wrong?
Now, point is, Trump is basically clueless about domestic policy (foreign too, but we're dealing with domestic here), whether political or economic or other, including issues like crime, healthcare, immigration, federalism, and basically everything else. And because he had no policy staff and could always count on supportive talking points from people likely Jeffry Lord, Kallyane, and Paul Ryan, Grover Norquist, etc., during the campaign, there was no corrective mechanism when it came to domestic policy, no way for Trump to understand what was real and important vs what Hannity thought up while sniffing nutmeg.
Unlike Hillary, who knew all the policy tradeoffs and pitfalls, and therefore was very narrow in what she could support or advocate for (Bernie is closer to Trump in this regard-he doesn't really do reality-based policy constraints), Trump could loudly proclaim that everyone was going to get great healthcare at lower prices, that manufacturing jobs would come back when we fix those damn trade agreements and round up the illegals and Mexico pays for the wall, etc.
Because Trump and his base do not live in a world where reality constrains policy options and proposals, Trump was able to passionately and sincerely advocate for policy prescriptions that make no sense. And much of the media, with its, "one side says vaccines work, the other says they don't; here's one guest with each perspective, you decide" was both not inclined to and incapable of calling out Trump's bull****, particularly among the sort of "many pictures, few words" media his supporters and potential supporters consume. (Sure, Vox/Slate/New Yorker called him out on the daily, but if you're reading Vox/Slate/New Yorker, you ain't voting for Trump.)
The analogy to Arrested Development's Build a House episode make sense (already with the "elite" references--how low the bar has fallen). When your only concern, whether in running for president or pushing Trump University or building a house, is not achieving some substantive goal (making America Great Again, educating people in a manner that improves their lives, providing viable shelter) but merely meeting some metric (getting elected, signing people up and having then pay additional fees, building the facade of a house but not the interior) that may or may not be related to any substantive goal, then it's easy to undermine the actual end goal.
And you may even believe the substantive goal is easy or implied by the metric, because you're an idiot, so you are sincere in your advocacy. And the voters, being clueless themselves, and "knowing" you are a very successful billionaire, and you're pretty much hitting all the tropes of their Fox News-informed policy understanding, so of course you're going to make America great, because you're not in the pocket of all those "special interests" who come up with really complex things like Dodd-Frank and the TPP, thousands of pages, which have obviously screwed the little guy, because I'm struggling and the neighborhood is going to hell, and the plant closed down and the coal jobs left, so voting for Trump is a slam dunk among a good percentage of the midwest.
In fact, while racism and racial grievances are an important component of Trump's support ("FOX NEWS--not racist, but #1 with racists"), I really think the above story has double or triple the explanatory power. I mean, only real dumb****s are "out" racists and think like "out" racists, while most of the uninformed, uneducated, policy-hating 'Muricans who voted for Trump did so because they shared his simplistic understanding of policy and government, as told by Fox, and thought, "Finally, someone gets it, tells it like it is, and can make American Great Again!"
This more akin to notes for an argument than a developed theory, but I do think "policy-stupidity," which has been fostered, nurtured, and advanced for 40 years by the GOP, its donors, its media, and its politicized "think tanks" is the real reason Trump could run and win.
Now, however, he has to apply his "understanding" of policy and politics to govern, but he can't do that effectively, because when you are not operating with a reality-based model, it's hard to shape reality to your ends, other than by dumb luck (see e.g, homeopathy or any other "fake" science).