LBJ or Ronnie Reagan or Harry Truman, anyone?
I wouldn’t put Reagan in there, but I think you make a point that LBJ, Truman, and Trump could be “grouped”.
Of course, both LBJ and Truman were a bit more aware of when to show their “stuff” and when to hide it, and neither had access to social media. If they had, we may think of them differently.
The anti-Trump angst comes because he is culturally unlike the class of opinion-makers and thought-leaders that is the American intelligentsia. His speech patterns themselves are an affront to the university set.
Precisely. SOMEHOW, Trump ended up with a very blue-collar way of expressing himself. I suppose dealing with construction-level people his entire life had something to do with that.
This same thing is playing out across collective minds of the intelligentsia / literati of America. Academia perceives itself as better than the society it is in. Trump’s accomplishments — making billions of dollars, becoming famous, becoming president — don’t sit well with them, because Trump is someone who represents people who are supposed to be inferior.
Reminds me of a famous quote by Roxanne Barr when she was married to Tom Arnold. Something to the effect of “We’re America’s worst nightmare; white trash with money.”
So fortunately or unfortunately, it is not “a tempest in a teapot”.
To be more accurate, my point is that the majority of the anti-Trumpsters don;’t think this deeply into the matter. To them, all they need to know is that he is an admitted “pussy grabber”, and please don’t sully their tiny little minds that Clinton and JFK were as well. To THEM, this is a media-driven teapot tempest.
Sociologically, however, you’re exactly correct. We’ve now had, prior to Trump, 18 years of presidents from one of two Ivy League Universities. It would be difficult to imagine a more extreme lack of diversity, but of course, if the lack of diversity is something you approve, you don’t worry about it. :-)