The article comes off to me as though it assumes there was no inherent flaw in the message coming from the other side. That there weren't enough legitimate reasons to support Trump over Clinton in the election, and that Trump supporters all think the way they do because they were sold some great lie. Which I think is untrue, condescending, and a terrible starting position if the goal is to understand the opposition and try and change their minds.
> Find a wound common to many, someone to blame for it and a good story to tell. Mix it all together. Tell the wounded you know how they feel. That you found the bad guys. Label them: the minorities, the politicians, the businessmen. Cartoon them. As vermin, evil masterminds, flavourless hipsters, you name it. Then paint yourself as the saviour. Capture their imagination. Forget about policies and plans, just enrapture them with a good story. One that starts in anger and ends in vengeance. A vengeance they can participate in.
> In their mind it’s very simple: if you’re not among the victims, you’re among the culprits. In your case, you’re that modern bogeyman called the liberal urbanite hipster who thinks all cultures and religions are valid and equally worthy, who thinks of the working-class disparagingly. You are, in short, ‘a citizen of nowhere’ whose utopia is a massive, world-wide kumbaya with carrot chips, no church, and no soul either.
> Because, again, the problem is not the message but the messenger.
The article is horrible.