A warrant for violence? An analysis of Donald Trump's speech before the US Capitol attack

On January 6th, 2021, Donald Trump's speech during a 'Save America' rally was followed by mass violence, with Trump's supporters storming the U.S. Capitol to prevent the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the presidential election. In its wake, there was a great deal of debate around whether the speech contained direct instructions for the subsequent violence. In this paper, we use a social identity perspective on leadership (and more specifically, on toxic leadership) to analyse the speech and see how its overall argument relates to violence. We show that Trump's argument rests on the populist distinction between the American people and elites. He moralises these groups as good and evil respectively and proposes that the very existence of America is under threat if the election result stands. On this basis he proposes that all true Americans are obligated to act in order prevent Biden's certification and to ensure that the good prevails over evil. While Trump does not explicitly say what such action entails, he also removes normative and moral impediments to extreme action. In this way, taken as a whole, Trump's speech enables rather than demands violence and ultimately it provides a warrant for the violence that ensued.

Trump's COVID-19 diagnosis and presidential illness

President Donald Trump's COVID-19 illness, and the treatments he received, raise serious concerns about the adequacy of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to handle cases of transient presidential incapacity. This is particularly challenging when the president refuses to acknowledge any impairment and resists any attempt to constrain his powers, even temporarily.

Norm-violating rhetoric undermines support for participatory inclusiveness and political equality among Trump supporters

Over the last decade, the United States has seen increasing antidemocratic rhetoric by political leaders. Yet, prior work suggests that such norm-violating rhetoric does not undermine support for democracy as a system of government. We argue that, while that may be true, such rhetoric does vitiate support for specific democratic principles. We test this theory by extending prior work to assess the effects of Trump's norm-violating rhetoric on general support for democracy as well as for the principles of participatory inclusiveness, contestation, the rule of law, and political equality. We find that Trump's rhetoric does not alter attitudes toward democracy as a preferred system but does reduce support for inclusiveness and equality among his supporters. Our findings suggest that elite rhetoric can undermine basic principles of American democracy.

Unions, democracy, and Trump: Deconstructing the COVID-19 vaccination crisis of 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant challenges for U.S. workers, especially those in essential occupations. As most public health experts view vaccination as the only certain path to defeating the virus, this study examines how union membership, political participation, and support for Trump have affected adult vaccination rates. The analyses also explore how these interrelated factors intersect to either exacerbate or reduce the ongoing public health crisis. Using vaccination data from 3112 U.S. counties in July of 2021, this study finds strong support for claims that localities with high levels of support for Trump have lower percentages of adults vaccinated, while areas with higher union coverage and higher voter turnout are associated with higher rates of vaccination. Moreover, the results show that the positive effects of union density are enhanced in counties with higher rates of voter turnout and support for Trump, revealing a complex relationship between unions, democracy and partisan politics. The results suggest that workplace and political democracy can effectively facilitate individual and collective responses to large-scale collective action problems such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tubal adenocarcinoma: Report of 3 cases and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Tumors of the uterine tube are rare pathologies representing less than 1 % of all gynecologic cancers; they are dominated by adenocarcinomas. Secondary metastatic forms are the most frequent, whereas primary tumors are very rare and represent only 10 %, which suggests that the fallopian tube is an organ with low oncogenic potential.

REPORT OF TWO CASES

We report the two cases of a patients followed in the gynecology department C of the CHU IBN ROCHD CASA for a primary tubal adenocarcinoma.

DISCUSSION

The diagnosis of its origin is difficult preoperatively, the treatment and staging are the same as for ovarian cancer.

CONCLUSION

The treatment is also identical to the management of ovarian cancer, but their prognosis is better because they are most often diagnosed at an earlier stage.

"Things Will Get Worse Before They Get Better": LGBTQ + People's Reactions to the 2020 US Presidential Election

Introduction

Previous research has found that political discourse over proposed legislation that impacts lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ +) people serves as a distal stressor which is associated with poorer mental and physical health. This study sought to document responses to the 2020 US Presidential election among LGBTQ + people living in the USA.

Methods

Nineteen LGBTQ + people ages 20 to 76 (M = 47.20; SD = 17.66) living across the USA were interviewed via Zoom video conferencing software between October and early December 2020. The modal participant was female (36.8%), identified as gay or lesbian (47.3%), and White (84.2%). Interviews were coded using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith & Osborn, 2003).

Results

Seventeen codes emerged, which were grouped into three themes. Participants viewed specific political figures, namely then-President Trump and Supreme Court nominee Coney-Barrett, as symbolic of the potential loss of rights and disenfranchisement of LGBTQ + people. Participants exhibited uncertainty about the future; however, a Biden presidential win was viewed as potentially instilling complacency and leading to fracturing of the LGBTQ + community. While some participants avoided news, most were engaged with the political process as a means of coping with election uncertainty.

Conclusions

The findings have implications for better understanding the concerns of LGBTQ + folks as it relates to how they view political discourse and the future of the equality movement.

Policy Implications

Policies which beneficially impact and engage a diverse range of LGBTQ + people would facilitate mobilization of LGBTQ + political communities.

"We're led by stupid people": Exploring Trump's use of denigrating and deprecating speech to promote hatred and violence

In response to a call for criminologists to consider the impact of former President Donald Trump's presumed criminality, we analyze verbal-textual hostility (VTH) in Trump's campaign speeches. Politicians have particular power and reach with their speech and their use of VTH is an important part of the trifecta of violence. Using a framework informed by linguistic theory and previous analysis of hate speech in recorded hate crimes, we present the categories of deprecation and denigration, and discuss their relationship to domination. In context, these forms of VTH enhance and serve as precursors to more violent speech and acts.

LGBTQ-parent families: Diversity, intersectionality, and social context

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and trans (LGBTQ) parents become parents in a variety of ways, including via reproductive technologies, through foster care and adoption, and in the context of different-gender relationships. This review addresses research developments over the past 5-6 years, revealing that LGBTQ people continue to face barriers in becoming parents, especially those who are trans, of color, and have limited financial means. Bisexual and trans parents are increasingly centered in research, and have unique experiences of parenthood related to navigating (in)visibility and stigma in various contexts. Recent work has documented the impacts of sociopolitical events (e.g., COVID-19, the Trump presidency) on LGBTQ parent families, particularly those with multiply marginalized statuses. Likewise, an increasingly intersectional lens has exposed how axes of privilege and oppression impact LGBTQ parents' sense of belongingness in various contexts and social groups. Finally, recent work has continued to document the powerful role of context and family processes in the lives and adjustment of youth raised by LGBTQ parents. More research is needed on LGBTQ parents with marginalized identities that have been poorly represented in the literature, such as nonbinary parents and parents with disabilities.

The U.S. Global Gag Rule in Ethiopia: a foreign policy challenging domestic sexual and reproductive health and rights gains

BACKGROUND

Ethiopia's government and civil society have driven crosscutting initiatives in the last 15 years to improve sexual and reproductive health outcomes, including passing a 2005 abortion law that facilitated reduced rates of maternal death due to unsafe abortion. However, both the government and nongovernmental organizations have relied on external funding for sexual and reproductive health and rights, particularly from the U.S. government, which has been Ethiopia's largest global health donor. This article explores how the implementation and expansion of the 2017-2021 U.S. foreign policy "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance," also known as the Global Gag Rule-which attached itself to a nongovernmental organization's funding-impacted sexual and reproductive health and rights, including safe abortion care, in Ethiopia.

METHODS

This article is based on research conducted by PAI staff in Ethiopia in 2018 with follow-up in 2019. PAI held in-depth semistructured interviews with representatives of 30 organizations in Ethiopia's capital, Addis Ababa. Among these groups were U.S.-based and non-U.S. nongovernmental organizations, including community-based organizations, non-U.S. government donors, and Ethiopian government officials.

RESULTS

Nongovernmental organizations have been essential to sexual and reproductive health service provision and advocacy in Ethiopia. Because of the sector's reliance on U.S. global health assistance, these organizations; their activities; and, consequently, the wider health system were negatively impacted by the Global Gag Rule. Certain vulnerable groups, particularly adolescents and youth, have traditionally relied on the private sector for sexual and reproductive health services. PAI's research demonstrates that U.S. policy disrupted activities and service delivery, threatened the closure of private clinics, stalled mobile outreach, and impacted safe abortion training of health personnel. Additionally, the Global Gag Rule dismantled partnerships, affected non-U.S. government donors' investments, and caused confusion that limited activities permissible under the policy.

CONCLUSIONS

The Trump administration's Global Gag Rule forced non-U.S. organizations to choose between providing comprehensive care or losing U.S. global health assistance, ultimately impacting populations in need of services. Ethiopia provides a clear example of how the Global Gag Rule can threaten a country's domestic health agenda by targeting nongovernmental organizations that are vital to health service delivery and safe abortion care.

Deny or bolster? A comparative study of crisis communication strategies between Trump and Cuomo in COVID-19

This study applied the situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) in political crisis communication amidst the COVID-19 outbreak, a "sticky crisis" that is longitudinal and politicized, thereby involving multiple challenges and complexities. Considering the critical role of Twitter in the information transmissions during the ongoing pandemic, this study considered politicians' tweets as a proxy to access their crisis communication strategies and conducted a systematic content analysis to critically evaluate COVID-19 crisis communication strategies of two politicians, Trump and Cuomo, according to their perceived day-to-day circumstances during COVID-19. Three strategies categorized by SCCT, deny, diminish, and bolstering, surfaced with significance for both Trump and Cuomo. A new strategy specific to the political context, cohesion, was also identified. In addition, significant differentiation was observed in the strategic narratives between Trump and Cuomo, which reveals the evolving political dynamics in disease representation and crisis messaging. For example, Trump emphasized social exclusion and accusations of Democrats whilst Cuomo stressed care for vulnerable and minority groups and compassion delivery. Moreover, deny strategy, especially accusing other races, significantly boosted audience engagement for Trump. The results are discussed in relation to the idiosyncrasy of the complex COVID-19 pandemic and crisis communication in the political realm. Our findings demonstrate practical implications including online crisis messaging recommendations that foster public trust during politicized and polarized health emergencies and cultivate grounds for information exchange beyond partisan barriers.

science: How President Trump's war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation

During his campaign for president, Joe Biden vowed to “end the politics and follow the science” when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health and environmental crises. He was immediately criticized by then President Trump, who cast “listen[ing] to the scientists” as something only a fool would do, and warned that it would result in a “massive [economic] depression.” It is hardly surprising that Trump would take that position. After all, the Trump administration routinely prioritized economic interests, and worked tirelessly to remove what it viewed as unnecessary regulatory burdens on economic activity. The Trump administration regularly suppressed, downplayed, or simply ignored scientific research demonstrating the need for regulation to protect public health and the environment. The Biden administration has vowed to reverse course, but faces challenges in doing so due to the widespread assault on science led by former President Trump.

The Trump administration's efforts to undermine science are documented in the Silencing Science Tracker, an online database, which records anti-science actions taken by the federal, state, and local governments. Drawing on more than four years of tracker data—from Trump's election to Biden's inauguration—we show that the Trump presidency fundamentally changed how federal government agencies perform, use, and communicate scientific research. While the Biden administration has taken initial steps to undo some of those changes, it still has significant work to do to restore the role of science in federal government decision-making. Its task is made more difficult by the public distrust of science engendered by the Trump presidency.

Harmony between Man and His Environment: Reviewing the Trump Administration's Changes to the National Environmental Policy Act in the Context of Environmental Racism

This article aims to show how the changes to NEPA by the Trump Administration are an act of environmental racism, defined as "[i]ntentional or unintentional racial discrimination in environmental policy-making, enforcement of regulations and laws, and targeting of communities for the disposal of toxic waste and siting of polluting industries."

The rise in extreme mental distress among LGBT people during Trump's rise and presidency

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) advocates argue that President Donald Trump's 2016 election victory and his administration's agenda raised concerns about changes to legal rights and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Using data on more than one million randomly sampled people during 2014-2020, this study estimates event study and difference-in-differences models to examine whether the prevalence of extreme mental distress (the percentage who reported major mental and emotional problems in all 30 of the last 30 days) increased among LGBT people relative to non-LGBT people after Trump became the Republican presidential frontrunner in early 2016. The difference-in-differences estimate indicates that the extreme mental distress gap between LGBT people and non-LGBT people increased from 1.8 percentage points during 2014-2015 to 3.8 percentage points after Trump's presidency became a real possibility in early 2016.

Facets of the American Split

American society has always been characterized by heterogeneity and lack of internal unity. This was determined by the very process of the emergence, formation, and evolution of the American nation, in which all ethnic groups and races existing on the globe are represented. Dividing lines and associated group, ethnic, racial, social, and political conflicts, potentially able to cause internal division, have accompanied Americans throughout their history. However, being a classical society of group interests, American society has developed a mechanism for reconciling and regulating such contradictions. Democracy has become such a mechanism, aimed at finding an acceptable compromise between interested groups. From time to time, the lines of potential split made themselves felt. The modern era in this regard is no exception for the United States. Over the past three decades, a large-scale internal political crisis has been developing in that country. It is indicated by the deep polarization of society, accompanied by a sharp interparty split and intraparty riots. The Democratic and Republican parties, around which the political space in the United States was organized for decades, have found themselves in a crisis, which spreads to both the electorate and the party elite.

The ACA

Before his incoherent response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus of President Trump's health policy agenda was the elimination of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which he has called a 'disaster'. The attacks on the ACA included proposals to repeal the law through the legislative process, to erode it through a series of executive actions, and to ask the courts to declare it unconstitutional. Despite these ongoing challenges, the ACA remains largely intact as the U.S. heads into the 2020 election. The longer term fate of the law, however, is uncertain and the outcome of the 2020 election is likely to have a dramatic effect on the direction of health policy in the U.S.

Reducing mask resistance among White evangelical Christians with value-consistent messages

Public health experts have advocated for wearing protective face masks to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet some populations are resistant. Can certain messages shift attitudes toward masks? We investigate the effect of value-consistent messages within a mask-skeptical population: White evangelicals in the United States. An experiment within a national survey of White evangelicals (n = 1,212) assigned respondents to one of three conditions: One group was given a religious message equating mask use with loving your neighbor, another was given a message by Donald Trump saying mask use is patriotic, and a control group received no message. Those exposed to the religious message were more likely to see mask use as important and were more supportive of mask mandates. Republican evangelicals exposed to the patriotism message had similar responses. These findings show that messages that align with individuals' core values-in this case, religious tenets and patriotism-can shift certain views on mask use and government mask policies to combat COVID-19, even among a comparatively mask-resistant group.

#NotAllWhites: Liberal-Leaning White Americans Racially Disidentify and Increase Support for Racial Equity

Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election largely due to support from White Americans. This win created a new sociopolitical reality in which White Americans as a group became associated with Trump and his anti-egalitarianism. Four studies (N = 3,245) explored how liberal-leaning White Americans negotiate their racial identity to contend with group-image threat arising from the association between their racial ingroup and Trump. Trump-related group-image threat (i.e., White Americans' support for Trump's anti-egalitarianism or his continuation in office) led liberal-leaning White Americans to disidentify from their racial ingroup. In turn, racial disidentification predicted greater signaling of egalitarian beliefs (i.e., expressing intentions to advocate for racial equity and supporting policies designed to benefit racially minoritized groups) and behaviors (i.e., donating money to racial equity-focused organizations). These results suggest that the process of negotiating Trump-related group-image threat has implications for both White Americans' racial identities and ongoing efforts to achieve racial equity.

Deregulatory science: Chemical risk analysis in Trump's EPA

While critics cast the Trump administration as anti-science, requiring in response vigorous defense of science, analysis of the Trump EPA reveals instead a strategy to develop deregulatory science. In its first 3 years, the Trump EPA introduced and started to implement a variety of new frameworks to remake scientific risk analysis, changing how it assesses exposures, hazards and costs of chemical harms. The article focuses on EPA frameworks associated with the Clean Air Act, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule and Toxic Substances Control Act. The new approaches compel the agency to ignore many pathways of exposure and pivotal studies of hazards, include dose-response models that treat pollution as healthful and change how costs and benefits are calculated. Yet it justifies these frameworks in terms of evidence-based decision-making, transparency and the separation of science from politics. According to its political appointees, the Trump EPA stands for scientific integrity, because it is promulgating evidence-based approaches in risk analysis that show regulation to be neither necessary nor appropriate. This is not just rhetoric but represents an effort to engage science to delegitimize environmental regulation. There is continuity between the Trump EPA and past efforts to use science to justify regulatory rollbacks: defending science by demarcating it from non-science is just as much a strategy for deregulation as it is for regulation. A key lesson is that contesting deregulation by declaring it anti-science reflects an impasse, as deregulatory approaches then also seek to take the mantle of science. The alternative to engaging in debate over demarcation is to make explicit the values and interests shaping practices of regulatory science.

Risk avoidance, offsetting community effects, and COVID-19: Evidence from an indoor political rally

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deem large indoor gatherings without social distancing the "highest risk" activity for COVID-19 contagion. On June 20, 2020, President Donald J. Trump held his first mass campaign rally following the US coronavirus outbreak at the indoor Bank of Oklahoma arena. In the weeks following the event, numerous high-profile national news outlets reported that the Trump rally was "more than likely" the cause of a coronavirus surge in Tulsa County based on time series data. This study is the first to rigorously explore the impacts of this event on social distancing and COVID-19 spread. First, using data from SafeGraph Inc, we show that while non-resident visits to census block groups hosting the Trump event grew by approximately 25 percent, there was no decline in net stay-at-home behavior in Tulsa County, reflecting important offsetting behavioral effects. Then, using data on COVID-19 cases from the CDC and a synthetic control design, we find little evidence that COVID-19 grew more rapidly in Tulsa County, its border counties, or in the state of Oklahoma than each's estimated counterfactual during the five-week post-treatment period we observe. Difference-in-differences estimates further provide no evidence that COVID-19 rates grew faster in counties that drew relatively larger shares of residents to the event. We conclude that offsetting risk-related behavioral responses to the rally-including voluntary closures of restaurants and bars in downtown Tulsa, increases in stay-at-home behavior, displacement of usual activities of weekend inflows, and smaller-than-expected crowd attendance-may be important mechanisms.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11166-021-09359-4.

The Lincoln Project and the Conservative Aesthetic

This election season, a rogue band of Republican Party operatives has attracted considerable media attention, and the Twitter wrath of President Trump, with a series of negative advertisements attacking the incumbent. The Lincoln Project strategy demonstrates how social and cultural conservatives are attracted to a particular aesthetic, prompted by their psychological attraction to rhetorical forms that are threat-oriented, clear, efficient, hyperbolic, emotional, and authoritative.

Polarization and Democratic Accountability in the 2020 Presidential Election

In a year marked by a global pandemic, economic collapse, and social unrest, the most striking feature of presidential polling thus far is its consistency. The hyperpartisanship of this polarized era of American politics has made most voters impervious to changing conditions. This raises serious questions about the utility of elections as means of democratic accountability.

Online negative sentiment towards Mexicans and Hispanics and impact on mental well-being: A time-series analysis of social media data during the 2016 United States presidential election

Purpose

The purpose was to use Twitter to conduct online surveillance of negative sentiment towards Mexicans and Hispanics during the 2016 United States presidential election, and to examine its relationship with mental well-being in this targeted group at the population level.

Methods

Tweets containing the terms Mexican(s) and Hispanic(s) were collected within a 20-week period of the 2016 United States presidential election (November 9th 2016). Sentiment analysis was used to capture percent negative tweets. A time series lag regression model was used to examine the association between percent count of negative tweets mentioning Mexicans and Hispanics and percent count of worry among Hispanic Gallup poll respondents.

Results

Of 2,809,641 tweets containing terms Mexican(s) and Hispanic(s), 687,291 tweets were negative. Among 8,314 Hispanic Gallup respondents, a mean of 33.5% responded to be worried on a daily basis. A significant lead time of 1 week was observed, showing that negative tweets mentioning Mexicans and Hispanics appeared to forecast daily worry among Hispanics by 1 week.

Conclusion

Surveillance of online negative sentiment towards racially vulnerable population groups can be captured using social media. This has potential to identify early warning signals for symptoms of mental well-being among targeted groups at the population level.

Why "American Patients First" is likely to raise drug prices outside of the United States

Background: The Trump administration's 'American Patients First' blueprint proposes to reduce drug prices in the USA by increasing drug prices abroad, ex USA. The possibility of the Trump administration to raise drug prices ex USA through legal action via the WTO and bilateral negotiations with foreign trade partners was reviewed. Methods: A literature review was conducted through PUBMED, EMBASE, Media and grey literature to consolidate publications of the Trump administrations' policies and strategies towards foreign countries and drug prices. Results: The Trump administration has withdrawn from and halted major multilateral agreements including the TPP, Paris Agreement, TTIP, UNESCO, NAFTA (now USMCA), and NATO. The Trump administration has been successful in bilateral negotiations for pharmaceuticals' pricing, as seen with Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Mexico and Canada. Conclusion: The objective of raising prices abroad is attainable. Action through the WTO is unlikely, due to its nondiscriminatory principle. Bilateral trade negotiation have proven more promising. In this bilateral framework, financial security and military protection are strong assets for the USA to levy higher drug prices abroad. Although raising drug prices ex USA is possible, further questions as to whether this will directly translate into lower drug prices for American patients are raised.

The Group's Vulnerability to Disaster: Basic Assumption and Work Group Mentalities Underlying Trump's 2016 Election

Donald Trump's improbable political rise and unexpected capture of the US presidency during the 2016 presidential election is framed within Wilfred Bion's (1961) theory of groups. Bion's concepts of basic assumption phenomena, the group as a part-object mother's body, the function of specialized work groups, and the roles of introjective and projective identification are explored and elaborated upon in the context of the relation between Trump and his supporters and detractors. Basic assumption phenomena were activated in both groups as each defended against psychotic anxieties tied to work group activity and other threatening aspects of group experience. Trump-as-leader emerged through a neglect of projective identification due to both supporters' and detractors' regressive and dissociative tendencies as they relate predominantly to pairing group activity.

A qualitative study on the impact of the 2016 US election on the health of immigrant families in Southeast Michigan

BACKGROUND

Given the anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy proposals by President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign and afterwards, his election to president in November 2016 and subsequent policy changes has affected immigrant families. In this study, we aim to better understand how post-election policy change may have impacted the health and well-being, including health and social service utilization, of Latino immigrants in Southeastern Michigan.

METHODS

We conducted 28 in-depth interviews with frontline staff at two Federally Qualified Health Centers and a non-profit agency. These staff had intimate knowledge of and insights into the lived experiences of the mixed-status immigrant families they serve. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Our findings show three major themes: (1) An increased and pervasive fear of deportation and family separation among mixed-status immigrant clients, (2) The fear of deportation and family separation has resulted in fractures in community cohesion, and (3) Fear of deportation and family separation has had an impact on the healthcare utilization and health-related behaviors of mixed-status families. Staff members report that these three factors have had an impact on physical and mental health of these immigrant clients.

CONCLUSIONS

These results add to previous literature on the effect of immigration policies on the health and provide key insights for interventions to improve the health of immigrants within this socio-political environment.

Trump

Linguistic features of a person’s speech can change over time. It has been proposed that characteristics in the speech of President Donald J. Trump (DJT) have changed across time, though this claim has been based on subjective and anecdotal reports. A previous study of speech by Presidents of the United States identified an increase in the use of conversational fillers and non-specific nouns, and lower unique word counts, in the speech of President Ronald W. Reagan, but not in the speech of President George H.W. Bush. To empirically test claims of a systematic change in speech by DJT, we applied the same analysis by transcribing and analyzing publicly available Fox News interviews with DJT between 2011 and 2017. A regression analysis revealed a significant increase in the use of filler words by DJT over time. There was no significant change in numbers of unique words. The observed rise in filler words was significantly greater than filler-word change in President George H.W. Bush, and was not significantly different from the rise previously found in the speech of President Ronald W. Reagan. Identifying the reason for this linguistic change is not possible from speech samples alone, and the variables index linguistic change rather than being validated measures of change in cognitive ability. Nonetheless, features of the data such as the trajectory starting years before announcement of candidacy rule-out several potential explanations. To summarize, we find statistical evidence to support suggestions that speech by DJT has changed over time.

Trump and the GOP agenda: implications for retirement policy

This commentary provides background on the current state of American retirement, highlights recent efforts to reform retirement policy, and predicts what to expect under President Donald Trump. Retirement has not been a major focus of national policy makers in recent years. Early actions during the Trump administration to undo Obama administration policies may make it more difficult for individuals to save for retirement. While it is impossible to predict the future with any certainty, long-standing trends and recent political developments suggest that major action will not be taken during the Trump presidency to boost retirement security.

Collision course? Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and the fate of Medicare

The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States raises questions about the future of Medicare. How will Medicare fare under Republican-led government? There are several compelling reasons that the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans might avoid Medicare reform, including the political risks of taking on a popular program, the difficulties the party has encountered in trying to dismantle the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the importance of older Americans to the GOP coalition, and President Trump's views about Medicare. However, because of fiscal pressures and the commitment of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and other Republicans to entitlement reform, the GOP nonetheless could end up attempting to make major changes in Medicare. Alternatively, Republican efforts to repeal and undermine the ACA could unintentionally enhance the political fortunes of proposals to expand Medicare. Consequently, the fate of Medicare during the Trump administration remains highly uncertain.

Illusion as a Basic Psychic Principle: Winnicott, Freud, Oedipus, and Trump

Illusion can be viewed as a creative engagement with the world, and as a central psychic motivation and capacity, rather than as a form of self-deception. Winnicott and other Middle Group writers have understood integrative, imaginative illusion as an essential part of healthy living and psychosocial development. As such, it emerges and presents itself in a variety of ways, in transaction with the realities that support or degrade it. In its absence, varied difficulties in living ensue. To elaborate and illustrate this conceptualization, Freud's notion that the oedipus complex is resolved is reconsidered as a creative misreading of Sophocles' Oedipus trilogy, one based on the plausible illusion of a civilizing psychosocial development that would serve as a protective bastion against his experience of the political chaos and violence of the first decades of twentieth-century European history. Finally, the place of illusion and disillusionment among those most disillusioned by the recent election of Donald Trump in the United States is considered in relation to the recent right-wing populist turn.

Racism in Trump's America: reflections on culture, sociology, and the 2016 US presidential election

Despite much positive change in the post civil rights era, U.S. notions of racism and white supremacy remain powerful elements of American culture. The adaptability and enduring power of these forces can be seen in the emergence of a new historical epoch best describe as the era of Laissez Faire Racism. Prevalent attitudes among white Americans, certain theoretical arguments and hypotheses in American sociology, as well the election of Donald Trump rest upon the on-going operation of racism. In particular, I attribute Trump's electoral success to three critical dilemmas of race that defined contours of the 2016 presidential election: (1) worsening economic inequality in the presence of rapidly changing ethno-racial demography; (2) intensified political partisanship in the presence of well-institutionalized racially coded campaign strategies and rhetoric; and (3) the failure of the Clinton campaign to simultaneously champion the interests of working and middle class families and galvanize the previously powerful multiracial Obama coalition. I speculate on how to forge more effective multiracial coalitions in the future.

Brexit, Trump, and 'methodological whiteness': on the misrecognition of race and class

The rhetoric of both the Brexit and Trump campaigns was grounded in conceptions of the past as the basis for political claims in the present. Both established the past as constituted by nations that were represented as 'white' into which racialized others had insinuated themselves and gained disproportionate advantage. Hence, the resonant claim that was broadcast primarily to white audiences in each place 'to take our country back'. The politics of both campaigns was also echoed in those social scientific analyses that sought to focus on the 'legitimate' claims of the 'left behind' or those who had come to see themselves as 'strangers in their own land'. The skewing of white majority political action as the action of a more narrowly defined white working class served to legitimize analyses that might otherwise have been regarded as racist. In effect, I argue that a pervasive 'methodological whiteness' has distorted social scientific accounts of both Brexit and Trump's election victory and that this needs to be taken account of in our discussion of both phenomena.

American hybrid: Donald Trump and the strange merger of populism and plutocracy

Any effort to situate Trump's ascendance in the broader currents of cross-national developments, or in the longer course of American political development, must begin by recognizing it as a curious hybrid of populism and plutocracy. Although American right-wing populism has real social roots, it has long been nurtured by powerful elites seeking to undercut support for modern structures of economic regulation and the welfare state. American political institutions offered a distinctive opportunity for a populist figure to draw on this fury to first capture the nomination of the GOP, and from that position to ascend to the White House. Yet the administration's substantive agenda constitutes a full-throated endorsement of the GOP economic elite's long-standing demands for cuts in social spending, tax reductions for the wealthy, and the gutting of consumer, worker and environmental protections. The chasm between Trump's rhetoric and his actions justifies a more skeptical assessment of the breadth and depth of American populism, one that acknowledges how its contours are shaped by the nation's unusual political institutions, its intensifying political polarization and the out-sized influence of the wealthy.

The revolt of the Rust Belt: place and politics in the age of anger

This paper argues that the election of Donald Trump is the product of a confluence of historical factors rather than the distinctive appeal of the victor himself. By paying particular attention to the geography of unusual voting behaviour the analytical question comes into view: why did so much uncharacteristic voting occur in the Rust Belt states of the upper Midwest? It is impossible to answer this question adequately using conventional categorical attributes. The usual hypotheses of 'economic anxiety' and white revanchism are unable to account for sudden shifts in the voting behaviour of both white and black voters in post-industrial territories. Instead, it is necessary to turn to the history of the region and the institutional apparatus that connected voters there to the federal government and the Democratic Party. From this perspective we can see that the active dismantling of the Fordist social order set the region on a divergent path from the rest of the country. But this path had no political outlet due to the reorientation of the Democratic Party around a new class and geographic base. Due to this, the party pursued policies that would magnify the region's difficulties rather than alleviate its circumstances. Moreover, the elaborate institutional ties that connected the region's voters to the Democratic Party and the federal government meant that the political implications of regional decline would be muted. However, as these institutions frayed, Rust Belt voters were made available to candidates that challenged the policy consensus that had done so much damage to the region. The election was decided by a Rust Belt revolt that unified black and white working-class voters against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Health Equity in a Trump Administration

Donald Trump's rhetoric and leadership are destroying the "culture of community" necessary for progress on health equity. His one-line promises to provide "quality health care at a fraction of the cost" smack of neoliberal nostrums that shifted ever more costs onto patients, thereby preventing many people from getting care. The dangers of Trump go far beyond health policy, however; Trump's presidency threatens the political and cultural institutions that make any good policy possible.

Two steps forward, one step back: current harm reduction policy and politics in the United States

Harm reduction policies and attitudes in the United States have advanced substantially in recent years but still lag behind more advanced jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere. The Obama administration, particularly in its last years, embraced some harm reduction policies that had been rejected by previous administrations but shied away from more cutting edge interventions like supervised consumption sites and heroin-assisted treatment. The Trump administration will undermine some of the progress made to date but significant state and local control over drug policies in the US, as well as growing Republican support for pragmatic drug policies, motivated in part by the opioid crisis, ensures continuing progress for harm reduction.

Trump, Brexit, Right-wing Anti-globalisation, and An Uncertain Future for Public Health

Global public health is intimately linked with political, economic and social determinants. The current global order has been built on the assumption that the globalisation agenda shared by political elites of the last several decades will continue. Individuals, businesses and countries have all made decisions, many of them linked to health, based on this assumption. The election of Donald Trump to the US presidency and the vote in Britain to exit the European Union exemplify a recent wave of right-wing anti-globalisation, which has risen in much of the West. The right-wing anti-globalisation movement will substantially affect global health through four pathways. Restrictions on trade will dampen economic growth and could diminish food security and the availability of medical supplies. Xenophobia will harm mental health through the lived experience of minorities, and will elevate the risk of economic and military conflict between countries. Increased defence expenditure in a time of limited government budgets will constrict funding available for healthcare and the social determinants of health. Mistrust of international treaties, including for climate change, will undermine the Paris Agreement and hasten greenhouse gas emissions. Without rapid mitigation, climate change could devastate population health globally through a range of mechanisms, including diminished food security and increased violent conflict. These would amplify many of the other health effects of right-wing anti-globalisation. By emphasising the shared humanity of all people, population health offers an antidote to the narrow focus of right-wing anti-globalisation.

Can the Institute of Medicine trump the dominant logic of nursing? Leading change in advanced practice education

The Institute of Medicine (IOM; 2010) has called for a transformation of the nursing profession to lead the redesign of health care in the United States. It acknowledges the need for profound change in nursing education, particularly advanced practice education, to produce the next generation of leaders in sufficient quantity to expand access, improve quality, and reduce cost. Although the IOM provides welcome validation of nursing's significant role, most of the recommendations are not new and have been advocated by nurse educators for decades. What has prevented us from creating the nimble and responsive educational programs that would ensure a sufficient corpus of advanced practice nurses with the relevant knowledge and skill to transform our ailing health system? Conceptualizing nursing as a complex, adaptive system (J.W. Begun and K. White, 1997), this article explores three examples of the dominant logic, grounded in a historical legacy that has kept the nursing profession from realizing its promise as a potent force: (a) the continuing preference for experience over education, (b) the belief that only nurses can teach nurses, and (c) the hegemony of the research doctorate.