Agreed. Trump's campaign isn't inspiring fear. As you say, it's using and amplifying existing fears to form and strengthen a relationship with as many people as possible -- to establish itself as a member of the voter's in-group.
Expanding on my earlier premise, notice how this activity resembles a sociopath who is attempting to control a target or, perhaps as a more concrete example, an abuser in an new relationship. The isolation and alienation map fairly well. This then proceeds on to the campaign then making policy promises that sound like very good things to those it has captured all while moving the goal posts to ensure those promises needn't be kept.
Of course, because they needn't be kept, these promises are distractions for whatever goals the campaign might actually have, if any. It would be refreshing to have, in office, someone who simply wanted the power of it and wouldn't know what to do with it once gained. Actually, that's terrifying.
The methodology is clever, if you can call it that, in that most it targets of it are willingly blind to it, but it's also quite transparent if you know how to interpret it. Ever spent some time with a couple who have a terribly manipulative co-dependent relationship? Much of politics is like that. Sadly, those who buy into the charade will have the dismissive statement, "you're too cynical," or, "you always see the worst in them," ready for use if you have a moment to talk about it with them -- no matter the party or policy, so long as it's their party or policy. Such is humanity. I may be cynical, but since when has that ever been a reason for dismissing an argument?
Of course, most campaigns (read, sociopathic entities whatever they may be - be they a corporation or a single person) work this way. It's the easiest and most efficient way to gain control in, around and over any group of humans. The really terrifying thing is, once you've realised what's going on, you can never unknow it. I suppose that learning to cope with that realisation is something most people never really have to do whether through ignorance or, well, not coping with it.
Expanding on my earlier premise, notice how this activity resembles a sociopath who is attempting to control a target or, perhaps as a more concrete example, an abuser in an new relationship. The isolation and alienation map fairly well. This then proceeds on to the campaign then making policy promises that sound like very good things to those it has captured all while moving the goal posts to ensure those promises needn't be kept.
Of course, because they needn't be kept, these promises are distractions for whatever goals the campaign might actually have, if any. It would be refreshing to have, in office, someone who simply wanted the power of it and wouldn't know what to do with it once gained. Actually, that's terrifying.
The methodology is clever, if you can call it that, in that most it targets of it are willingly blind to it, but it's also quite transparent if you know how to interpret it. Ever spent some time with a couple who have a terribly manipulative co-dependent relationship? Much of politics is like that. Sadly, those who buy into the charade will have the dismissive statement, "you're too cynical," or, "you always see the worst in them," ready for use if you have a moment to talk about it with them -- no matter the party or policy, so long as it's their party or policy. Such is humanity. I may be cynical, but since when has that ever been a reason for dismissing an argument?
Of course, most campaigns (read, sociopathic entities whatever they may be - be they a corporation or a single person) work this way. It's the easiest and most efficient way to gain control in, around and over any group of humans. The really terrifying thing is, once you've realised what's going on, you can never unknow it. I suppose that learning to cope with that realisation is something most people never really have to do whether through ignorance or, well, not coping with it.