How could Donald Trump, a man who’s given tons of cash to liberals, be so beloved by outspoken conservatives who previously prided themselves on despising Republicans for being RINOS and “squishies”?

It helps that Trump studied the landscape of the true believers and then, in a deliberate pivot, indulged their “beliefs.” I put “beliefs” in quotes because, frankly, I am not sure what anyone believes any more.

Pick a topic, and Trump has been on both sides. See guns. Immigration. Taxes.

His ideology is a non-ideology of free-flowing, ever-changing dispositions. He’s a political mood ring.

And there is the genius of Trump: His principle is the replacement of principles with an amorphous, pragmatic, deal-making continuum. His ideology is a non-ideology of free-flowing, ever-changing dispositions. He’s a political mood ring.

As a non-ideologue, I’m open to this new kind of animal, and without any hint of hypocrisy.

What I find troubling are those strident ideologues who now embrace Trump – a centrist of fluid belief – after castigating other hardworking conservatives for not being rigid enough. Maybe I’ll forgive it, but I won’t forget.

In his classic book, “Influence,” Robert Cialdini describes a trick played by killer female fireflies. Male fireflies do what they can to avoid them, because, as I just said, they are deadly. But these females have figured out a way to trap these hapless males. They hacked the courtship code that fireflies use to let each other know they’re ready to mate. The killer females mimic the flashing signals, which attract the males into their deathly grasp. They die.

Cialdini explains that this copying of triggers so you can trick creatures into doing what you desire also happens among humans – especially in sales, all the time. Mimic the triggers, and people come running.

But I know now that it also happens in politics. Trump, through a decade of observing conservative commentary and listening to talk radio, learned the triggers – and now he expertly mimics the signals that draw the fireflies of the right to his light.

I think he actually believes what he says, but what he says can change, depending on circumstance. Meaning: It’s what he says that drives belief, not the reverse.

Who reacts to his triggers? The needy media, hungry for both ratings and popularity. (Note: These are two different things. You can have high ratings but still “feel” unpopular.) They flock to him, for in this exchange they find fame, ratings, love from a famous person and a path to better living. Yet he expends very little. He blinked the code, and they came running. He learned to exploit the desires and insecurities of the right – primarily those on their way up, or down.

And the results are confusing, for it’s so strange to see hardcore conservatives now perfectly fine with very un-conservative ideas (no entitlement reform, pro-eminent domain, promises of trade wars and tariffs).

But it’s not a new thing. You see it among politicians when they engage in the shameless ploy of logrolling – that exchange of favors that makes conservatives act liberal, and liberals act conservative. It’s a seemingly bizarre vote done as a favor.

Trump has effectively logrolled the media. Right wing mouthpieces ignored Trump when he dissed war heroes. They dismissed his insane JFK conspiracies. They happily ignore his contradictions on taxes, abortion and foreign policy. But this is their indebtedness, their reciprocity in full flower.

And this leads me to my final point, as explained by Cialdini, and others:

The world exists on favors. On trust. If I do something for you, you reciprocate. It’s pretty much the evolutionary engine for civilization. But in this process, there are those who master such moves and use them to exploit those who, frankly, are willing to be exploited.

Don’t blame Trump. Blame those who dropped like flies before him.

Quoted:
Well done article by Gutfeld.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/26/man-who-sold-right-part-three-donald-trump-and-assimilation-behavior.html?intcmp=hpbt2

Quoted:
"Red Eye" and "The Five" have to be the two worst shows on Fox news.

Quoted:






"Red Eye" and "The Five" have to be the two worst shows on Fox news.



I'm actually surprised he's not a bad writer

Quoted:


"The Five" is a terrible show, but not because of Gutfeld.

Quoted:






lol to be honest I had no idea it was so popular. I kind of always wondered who watched it.

Quoted:
Why I wouldn't vote for him


Something terrible is coming down the pike.

Yes, Hillary is bad....but to think Trump isn't is naive.

Quoted:
lol to be honest I had no idea it was so popular. I kind of always wondered who watched it.

Quoted:
When Gutfeld left on one hand I was hoping TV's Andy Levy would take over the show (since he amuses the hell out of me) but on the other when he'd fill in when Greg was off he didn't do that great as a host. I really wish they could have had Greg Proops take over as host, because he was not only high-larious when he was a guest but when he covered for Greg a few times as host the quality (and funny) stayed constant. Plus the man had the best hairdo on TV in...ever.

ETA: Did you ever see the really early episodes when Rachel Sklar was on every night? When she left I was so damn happy, she annoyed the shit out of me.