It’s Not Just Trump Voters. Both Parties Are in Denial.

Summary

Podcast Summary: "It’s Not Just Trump Voters. Both Parties Are in Denial."

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Opinions
• Host/Author: The New York Times Opinion
• Episode: It’s Not Just Trump Voters. Both Parties Are in Denial
• Release Date: June 16, 2025

---

Introduction

In the June 16, 2025 episode of The Opinions, hosted by David Leonhart of The New York Times Editorial Board, the discussion delves into the intricate dynamics of American political polarization. Arlie Russell Hochschild, an eminent sociologist known for coining the "Great Paradox," joins Leonhart to explore how both political parties are failing to recognize and address the underlying emotions and losses experienced by their constituents. The episode sheds light on the emotional drivers behind voter loyalty, particularly in regions grappling with economic decline and societal shifts, and offers insights into potential pathways for political reconciliation and progress.

---

Setting the Scene: Eastern Kentucky and Coal's Decline

The conversation begins with Hochschild painting a vivid picture of eastern Kentucky, particularly Pikeville, a region once proud of its coal mining heritage. "It's beautiful. There are mountains around. What you can't see is that there's a lot of coal in them," Hochschild notes at [02:21], emphasizing the stark contrast between the picturesque landscape and the economic hardships resulting from the decline of coal industries. The area, described as "the whitest and third poorest congressional district in the nation," showcases the remnants of a once-thriving coal economy—closed mines, abandoned machinery, and shuttered businesses.

Hochschild elaborates on the transformation of the local economy: "These days, the largest employer is not a coal mine. It's the Pikeville Medical Center. And a lot of the top doctors are actually recruited from India, Pakistan, other places" ([02:21]). This shift underscores a loss of local employment and a sense of eroded community identity, as residents grapple with the disappearance of industries that once provided both economic stability and pride.

The Great Paradox and Life Expectancy

Leonhart introduces the concept of the Great Paradox, highlighting a troubling trend in American society: "Hatred of government often seems to be most intense among people who most rely on government." He connects this paradox to stark public health metrics, noting, "Life expectancy for people who don't have a four-year college degree has essentially been stagnant for decades." This stagnation reflects deeper societal issues, including economic disenfranchisement and systemic neglect.

Hochschild responds by linking this stagnation to the "deaths of despair," a term she uses to describe fatalities resulting from the opioid crisis and other stressors linked to economic and social decline: "A lot of the lives lost are due to the drug crisis that came in when coal went out and it’s taken the lives of young" ([04:45]). These deaths are not merely statistical but symbolize the profound sense of loss and hopelessness that permeates affected communities.

Emotional Responses and Trump's Four-Moment Anti-Shaming Ritual

Hochschild delves deeper into the psychological mechanisms at play, explaining how feelings of loss and shame are transformed into anger and political allegiance. She outlines what she calls Donald Trump's "four-moment anti-shaming ritual" ([07:00]):

1. Transgressive Statement: Trump makes a controversial or provocative remark, such as accusing Haitian immigrants of "eating your pet cats and dogs" ([07:20]).
2. Punditry Shames Him: Media and pundits respond by criticizing and shaming Trump for his transgressions ([07:45]).
3. Trump as the Victim: Trump redefines himself as a victim of the shamers, garnering sympathy and portraying himself as misunderstood ([07:55]).
4. Retribution Against Shamers: Finally, Trump rallies his supporters to retaliate against those who criticized him, channeling collective anger into political action ([08:30]).

Hochschild explains, "The Democratic half of America reads one half of the ritual... the Republican half of America... reads the second part of the ritual" ([08:54]). This process effectively divides the populace, reinforcing partisan identities and deepening political divides.

Community Voices: Roger Ford's Perspective

To exemplify the sentiments in eastern Kentucky, Leonhart plays a recording of Roger Ford, a local energy startup leader: "It looks like chaos. He's coming at you from six directions all at once. But it is not chaos. It is very methodical, and it's all about making the deal" ([09:15]). Ford likens Trump's strategies to historical negotiations between Churchill and Roosevelt, suggesting a calculated approach rather than genuine disorder.

This perspective highlights a key theme: the perception of political actions varies significantly based on individual and community experiences. While some view Trump's actions as chaotic, others see deliberate and strategic maneuvering aimed at securing political gains.

The Democratic Dilemma: Denial and Disconnect

Leonhart poses a critical question to Hochschild regarding Trump's sustained support despite unmet promises: "Why is it that the last decade of experience has not loosened their loyalty and caused more of them to look at him as now part of the problem?" ([09:57]).

Hochschild attributes this loyalty to the emotional resonance of Trump's narrative, which addresses feelings of loss and shame: "They have turned to a charismatic leader... he offers veneer of policies and a story" ([10:32]). She argues that Democrats have been overly focused on policy solutions without addressing the underlying emotional and psychological needs of voters.

Furthermore, Hochschild points out a "bilingual" challenge in politics: balancing rational policy discussions with emotional understanding. "We need to read what's happening emotionally" ([10:32]), she emphasizes, suggesting that without acknowledging and addressing these emotions, political parties will continue to fail in bridging the divide.

Shifting Demographics: Minority Voters and the Rightward Shift

The discussion shifts to the changing political landscape among minority voters. Leonhart notes, "We've seen real increases in support for Trump and the Republican Party among Latino voters, among Asian voters, among black voters" ([14:26]).

Hochschild interprets this trend as a response to economic pressures and identity crises: "Men of color... feeling, gosh, we're downwardly mobile too... the rise of AI could do to the middle class... what the loss of coal did to the blue-collar class" ([15:34]). These shifts reflect broader anxieties about economic displacement and social status, leading some minority voters to seek allies in unlikely places, such as the Republican Party, which they perceive as offering strength and solutions to their immediate concerns.

Party Solutions: What Can Democrats Do?

The conversation turns to potential solutions for the Democratic Party. Leonhart plays a recording of Marcy Kaptor, a Democratic House member from Ohio, who emphasizes traditional conservative priorities: "Stopping illegal immigration, bringing our jobs home, and growing new jobs right here" ([17:33]).

Hochschild agrees with Leonhart's assessment that the Democratic Party's "thorough social liberalism, elite liberalism" alienates voters in regions like Kentucky and Ohio. She suggests creating a new, more moderate party that can bridge the gap: "There is surprising room for crossover... we need a new party, a kind of a more moderate party" ([19:01]).

Hochschild highlights the importance of addressing local issues and leveraging communal efforts: "The Democratic Party can help you, it can support you" ([20:37]). This approach emphasizes practical solutions and community-driven initiatives over purely ideological stances.

Predictions for American Politics

In the concluding segment, Leonhart asks Hochschild to predict the future of American politics. Hochschild expresses cautious optimism, stating that "a lot of what will happen depends on what we do" ([23:35]). She underscores the importance of active participation and community engagement in shaping the political landscape.

Hochschild warns against the continuation of current divisive narratives: "Then I think we could slide further in the direction of autocracy" ([24:30]). She advocates for reversing negative stories and restoring communal pride: "Nobody stole your pride. We're restoring it together" ([25:45]).

Leonhart echoes this sentiment, noting that the advice Hochschild provides—empathy, respect, and communal engagement—is not only politically advantageous but also beneficial for personal fulfillment and societal harmony.

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Opinions offers a profound exploration of the emotional and socio-economic factors driving political allegiance in contemporary America. Arlie Russell Hochschild's insights into the Great Paradox, the transformation of grief into anger, and the resultant polarization provide a nuanced understanding of why both parties struggle to connect with and retain voters who feel marginalized and disenfranchised. The discussion underscores the necessity for political parties, especially the Democrats, to engage more deeply with the emotional realities of their constituents, advocate for communal solutions, and foster inclusive narratives that bridge divides. As American politics continues to evolve, the episode emphasizes that meaningful change requires both strategic policy shifts and empathetic engagement with the nation's diverse populace.

Transcript

[Robert Vinloen]

Hey, I'm Robert Vinloen. I'm from New York Times Games, and I'm here talking to people about wordle and the wordle Archive. Do you all play wordle?

[David Leonhart]

I play it every day. All right.

[Robert Vinloen]

I have something exciting to show you. It's the wordle Archive.

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

What? Okay, that's awesome.

[Robert Vinloen]

So now you can play every wordle that has ever existed. There's like a thousand puzzles.

[David Leonhart]

What? Wordle Archive. Oh, cool. Now you can do yesterday's wordle.

[Narrator]

If you missed it, New York Times game subscribers can now access the entire Wordle archive. Find out more at nytimes.com games. Subscribe by June 2020 2nd to get a special offer. This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.

[David Leonhart]

I'm David Leonhart, the director of the New York Times Editorial Board. Every week, I'm having conversations to help shape the board's opinions. This week, I'm talking with Arlie Russell Hochschild. She's an eminent sociologist who a decade ago coined the Great Paradox. It describes the fact that hatred of government often seems to be most intense among people who most rely on government. And it describes the fact that working class voters are increasingly turning against policies and politicians that seem to benefit those voters. Donald Trump's second term has made the Great Paradox all the more relevant. He's shutting down government agencies. And his big, beautiful bill that he's trying to pass through Congress would cut taxes for the rich while. While taking away health insurance from the middle class and poor. And yet millions of Donald Trump supporters continue to stand strongly by him. So I asked Arli to come on our show and talk about all this. She recently wrote an essay for Times Opinion about her reporting in eastern Kentucky's 5th congressional district. And it's a place where she spent years reporting for her book, Stolen Pride. Arlie, thanks for joining us.

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

Well, thank you very much, David. Delighted to be here.

[David Leonhart]

Let's start by setting a scene. I know you're based in Berkeley, California, which is a very different place from eastern Kentucky. So can you just talk to us about what eastern Kentucky and towns like Pikeville, Kentucky, are like?

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

It's beautiful. There are mountains around. What you can't see is that there's a lot of coal in them. This is the whitest and third poorest congressional district in the nation. And it's got a history that you see as you're driving around closed mines and kind of coal machinery Kind of like these corpses. Coal was a source of great pride for people. We kept the lights on. We won World War I, World War II, and now it's gone. So you see a loss, you see a goneness. You see places where stores used to be, you see schools that are now closed. And when you get to talk to people, the first thing that they'll talk about is the past, kind of how it was. So these days, the largest employer is not a coal mine. It's the Pikeville Medical Center. And a lot of the top doctors are actually recruited from India, Pakistan, other places. And the nurses are trained local women, usually women. So it gives you a feeling of something lost. And when you talk to people, that's what you hear.

[David Leonhart]

As I was reading your essay, I started thinking about this chart that I've come to think of as the most important chart in American life today. And it's a chart that shows life expectancy for both people who have a four year college degree and people who don't have a four year college degree. And life expectancy for people who don't have a four year college degree has essentially been stagnant for decades. And as I hear you talking about loss and the devastation in these communities, I thought of that chart because I do think it's really important to think about just how deep and profound and real the problems in places like Kentucky's 5th congressional district are. And it seems to me it's rational for people there to feel quite angry.

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

Well, I think that is a fascinating statement to pause on how it is we respond to loss. And let's just go back to your saying lower life expectancy. A lot of the lives lost are due to the drug crisis that came in when coal went out and it's taken the lives of young. These are part of the so called deaths of despair. And you look at the obituary page of the Appalachian News Express and you'll see sort of hearty picture of a young man, you know, 20s, 30s, dead. But it doesn't say the cause of death because there's shame attached to dying that way. People feel shame to have a son who killed himself and you have to back up. Why did he kill himself? Well, you know, he was given a choice. Either take a low paid service job, which is available in pike county, but they call them kind of girly jobs. You can't really support a family on that. Either they take that kind of job and feel ashamed of that, or they take Route 23 off to Cincinnati and they can't find a good factory job there, and they come back ashamed there. So there's loss, but what to do with loss, it involves kind of a mourning and shame. And that, that created a setup for Donald Trump to direct feelings of loss and shame into anger. So when he came to Kentucky, five, he came with policies, and he came with a. And the policies in his first term brought them nothing. But he also brought a story, and that was a story about how to shape feelings into rage. And then he, I think he did this through a four moment anti shaming ritual. And the Democratic half of America reads one half of the ritual. I think the Republican half of America reads the second part of the ritual. Moment one, in that ritual, Donald Trump says something transgressive. Haitian immigrants are eating your pet cats and dogs. Okay? Moment two, the punditry shames him. Moment three is Donald Trump becomes the victim of the shamers. Oh, look how they're looking down at me. They're picking at me. They're criticizing me. Don't you. My followers know how terrible that feels? You know, don't they look down on you, too? Actually, they want to do to you what they're doing to me, but I'm taking your shame on my shoulders. So he's the victim. He's the Christlike figure of taking your shame away, carrying himself. And moment four, very unchristlike. He is the retribution, the revenge at the shamers. So I feel like the Democratic half of America has been listening to moment one, the transgressive statement, and two, the shaming and thinks the story ends there. But the Republican half of America, here's the taking of the shame and the retribution. So I think the end point is anger, David, but it's a journey we need to trace that gets it there. I don't think they start with that.

[David Leonhart]

I want to play a tape of a conversation that you had with a man named Roger Ford, who's a resident of Eastern Kentucky. He's in his late 50s, and he leads an energy startup. And you asked him about a poll in which most Americans describe Trump's first three months in a office this second time around as chaotic. Here's what Roger had to say about that.

[Roger Ford]

It looks like chaos. He's coming at you from six directions all at once. But it is not chaos. It is very methodical, and it's all about making the deal. I draw correlations with what he's doing right now early with what was proposed at the end of World War II between Churchill and Roosevelt.

[David Leonhart]

Here's what I want to ask you about Arlie. So I absolutely take the point that he is channeling the anger and the shame, as you say, of millions of Americans, and that they have real reason to feel that anger and shame.

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

Yes.

[David Leonhart]

What's less clear to me is why it has worked for so long. We're talking now about a decade. He has had a chance to make a difference, to improve their lives, and he has largely failed to do so. And yet Roger, and many people like Roger, stand by President Trump. Why is it that the last decade of experience has not loosened their loyalty and caused more of them to look at him as now part of the problem?

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

You know, that's the key question here. And to answer it, I think we need to learn to be bilingual in the sense of reading. One language is rationality and the other is emotion. We need to read what's happening emotionally, because basically, the part of America that have been the losers of globalization and automation, that part of America has looked to both the Democrats and the Republicans for answers to their local problems and have not found answers to their local problems. So they have, in desperation, turned to a charismatic leader. And we keep looking for real policies. That's not the thing. He offers veneer of policies and a story. And we've got to tune in to the effect of that story on people who feel like the world's melting, like it's sinking. And the question is how people on the left can emotionally re gear and re energize themselves.

[David Leonhart]

I think you and I are both really trying to understand this anger in a searching, empathetic way. I mean, it is the core of your work, and your work has. Has helped me think about these things. I assume you would also agree with me that there is a fundamental disconnect from reality in a bunch of the things that we're hearing from these Trump supporters. I mean, Roger Ford said that he's acting like Churchill and Roosevelt did after World War II. I just don't think that's true. And yet when I try to extend my empathy, I think about the huge number of Democrats over the last few years who also looked at something that was obviously not true, namely that Joe Biden could still be President of the United States and was not too old and was not aging in obvious ways, and they persuaded themselves of a story that I think clearly wasn't true and we now know really wasn't true. True. And I wonder if you've ever thought about some of the parallels between the false stories that Democrats tell themselves and the false stories that people in Eastern.

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

Kentucky tell themselves Yes, I think you've articulated very well. And actually I think the stories are on the right are easier to ridicule, but that the stories on the left are more serious and seriously wrong. There isn't a kind of a mobilization on the left center that I think we need. And part of the false stories that the left is telling itself is, oh, I don't need to think about this. This will go away four years later. You know, we'll have our turn and we'll go back to normal. And increasingly, I think that's not the case. So there are lots of kinds of denial. I've gotten really interested in denial, you know, this isn't happening yet, or thinking it's not so bad it will end. I think that the left is very inward turning. It's talking to itself. It's more bubbleized, and in that way, too, it's not facing the music.

[David Leonhart]

I think an example of that is how the left has talked about race in the context of Trump. I think initially there was a view that Trump's appeal was overwhelmingly about racism. And I want to be clear, Trump traffics in racism.

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

Sure.

[David Leonhart]

But what we've seen over the last decade and the decade that you've been thinking about these questions quite directly is we've seen real increases in support for Trump and the Republican Party among Latino voters, among Asian voters, among black voters. What do you think that is about? And how have you thought about the rightward shift of Americans of color during the decade of Donald Trump?

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

Yeah, I think they are identifying with a strength, that there's kind of a pragmatic, let me go with the winning guy. I think that's part of it. And I also think that at the heart of that are a lot of men who feel in crisis. And I think part of that is men of color feeling, gosh, we're downwardly mobile too. And it could be. This is a scary thought. Okay, so arm yourself for scary thought.

[David Leonhart]

Okay.

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

That the rise of AI could do to the middle class, a lot of men in it, what the loss of coal did to the blue collar class. So we have to think about resilience in the face of loss and the appeal of the strongman, what lies behind it. And we have to remember that America isn't the only place this is happening in. I think globalization really scrambled the status systems of the world's big countries. White men especially are feeling loss. You know, their whiteness doesn't cash in for much and their, their maleness doesn't, their heterosexuality doesn't. So Those are kind of hard to talk about, losses that lead them to feel, hey, I'm a loser, you know, in a winner game.

[David Leonhart]

The last section of your Times essay really takes squarely this question of what should the Democratic Party do and what can it do to win more support? And honestly, it should be an important question even for many moderates and conservatives, because at this point, the Republican Party is increasingly authoritarian. And so if you believe in democracy, at this point, we have only one party that is clearly pro democracy. And so I want us to spend a few minutes talking with you about your thoughts on what Democrats are doing wrong and what they can do better and to do. So I want to play another recording for you. This one comes from a Democratic House member named Marcy Kaptor, who's in Ohio, right over the border from Kentucky. And she just keeps winning reelection in a district that Donald Trump has won.

[Marcy Kaptor]

America has gotten off course. The far left ignoring millions illegally crossing the border and trying to defund the police. The far right taking away women's rights and protecting greedy corporations at every turn. I'm Marcie Kaptor, and I'm fighting for what matters to us, like stopping illegal immigration, bringing our jobs home, and growing new jobs right here.

[David Leonhart]

I think that's a fascinating clip for two big reasons. So, first of all, she talks about growing jobs, not benefits, which connects to the dignity point you and I have already been talking about. But, but she also talks about some issues that are traditional weaknesses for the Democratic Party, and particularly immigration. And you talked about denial. I think one form of denial among the Democratic Party is that if only they can change the subject to economics and keep all of their socially liberal positions, they can somehow persuade people to vote for them. And I don't think that's what you see when you look at Democrats who actually win places that Donald Trump does, like Alyssa Slotkin, the Michigan senator whom we had on the show a couple weeks ago. And I'm curious for what you've heard in Kentucky. Do you agree with my view that the sort of thorough social liberalism, elite liberalism of the Democratic Party is a major problem in places like Kentucky and Louisiana and even in places like Ohio and Michigan?

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

Yes, I agree with you. And what I would add is that there, there is surprising room for crossover. And let me tell you what I mean, the very man that you gave a clip of, Roger Ford, told me, you know what? We really need a new party, a kind of a more moderate party. And what he is especially interested in is the renewable energy. Here we are in the center of coal country. And he's a guy who's for renewable energy. Now, he gives no credit to Joe Biden for giving 75% of billions of dollars of government funds to red states to build battery factories and solar panels. But that's an issue he cares about. And a lot of other people there, too, think, hey, that's a chance for us. So it's crossover territory. The most popular guy in Pikeville, Kentucky, he predicts the weather, and he's organizing something that organizes rescue for people who've been flooded out of their homes. That's an opportunity for the left to say, hey, that is a real issue. Good for you. You're doing a good, proud thing right there. And the Democratic Party can help you, it can support you.

[David Leonhart]

And it's an example of a communal solution, which traditionally is the real centerpiece of political left thought, which is that if we come together, we can do things that we can't do individually.

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

That's right.

[David Leonhart]

The Marcy Captor ad that we just played was very heavily focused on immigration. And you and I are recording this on Thursday, June 12, during a with these protests in Los Angeles and the Trump administration's extreme response to them. You just mentioned that Roger Ford, one of the people you interviewed, has talked about this idea of a party that represents the broad middle. I'm curious if you imagine a kind of sensible middle policy that is less open than Joe Biden's border policy and less nasty than Donald Trump's policy. What might that look like?

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

It would use the word control. We control immigration now. We may, in our control, decide that it's a good deal to have certain immigrants allowed in and to make a deal that people who were born here would be treated differently than those who weren't. It would be our own kind of. Of art of the deal to work out compromises. You would get most Americans agreeing with that, I think, but the word would be control.

[David Leonhart]

And as you point out, it's not just both sides. There are a broad group of Americans who, on many issues, I think, including immigration, actually have a set of views that often make sense. Right. Which is the idea of we should control our immigration system. We should admit some people and not everyone.

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

Yes, yes.

[David Leonhart]

Let's close by my doing something a little unfair, which is ask you to predict the future. It seems to me that while it is obviously true that Donald Trump has retained extremely high levels of support from the people who voted for him, it's also true that American politics changes, and often changes more rapidly than we expect. In the moment, we didn't see Donald Trump coming. And I don't think we are in a permanent era of Donald Trump. We may well have entered a profoundly new political era, but there's going to be a new politics. I think at some point more people really will see that Donald Trump has failed to deliver on his promises. When you think about the time that you've spent in Kentucky and in other places that are similar, do you have any sense of the ways in which American politics might be most likely to shift over the next decade, given just how profoundly it's changed over the last decade?

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

So you're asking not about what we could do, you're asking about what will happen. And my answer is sort of putting those two things together. I think a lot of what will happen depends on what we do. In other words, I don't think there is some iron law of history that is unfolding and this is the era of autocracy and nothing to be done. No, I think what we learn is that there are a lot of actually failed efforts to establish fascism and it all depended on what people did. So how effectively people of conscience mobilize themselves. And so I think I agree with what you're saying. We're not going back to the status quo ante. But now is a period and I think all hands on deck to actually help shape our future by actively joining the conversation, running for office, reaching out to other groups. And so to answer your question, what would this mixed beast kind of look like if the last continues just to shun and castigate and separate itself from the white blue collar class? Then I think we could slide further in the direction of autocracy. Because whatever the policies, they're following the story and the emotional payoff of that anti shaming ritual. So we have to stop the story, reverse the story. Nobody stole your pride. We're restoring it together.

[David Leonhart]

Well, I'm struck as you describe that that much of your political advice don't shun, treat people with respect and empathy, listen to them, talk with them, also doubles as pretty good advice for leading a rewarding life. And if we stop thinking about politics as something totally separate and instead think about it as part of our national life in all kinds of ways, Maybe that's part of how we start to get out of this grim and worrisome period. Arlie, thank you so much for doing this.

[Arlie Russell Hochschild]

Thank you very much, David.

[Narrator]

If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple or wherever you get your podcasts. The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur Vishaka Darba, Christina Samulewski and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Aman Sahota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. The director of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.