Criticism In Politics, By Arnold Kling's The Three Language Of Politics

We as humans are given a great gift, the gift of language. We can transmit complex thought by simply uttering a few sounds. These ideas have helped build American cooperation; Americans do love to work with one another. However, when it comes to big “P” politics, we cannot be more divided. In The Three Language of Politics written by Arnold Kling, Kling states, we tend to divide ourselves in one of three tribes (Kling 2017). Though Kling state his libertarian leanings he still gives the other views just as fair repetition. Kling, divided the main political view into a three-axis model, those being: progressives, conservatives, and libertarians. It is from the language used in each of these respected tribes that we form the base of our political
However, Kling does state these are not to be take as a one-to-one correlation for everyone, but merely a general overview (Kling).
For progressives, their ideal hero is the champion of the downtrodden. The ideal hero, cannot stand idly by and watch some people who are indifferent to the oppression of women, minorities, and the poor. conservatives, hero is a person who champions Western values. Their hero, does not tolerate people who do not cherish American moral virtues and American traditions which form the bedrock of our civilization. Lastly, libertarians, hero is always fighting for one’s individual rights. Their hero, will always resist government constricting an individual’s right to make one’s own choices (Kling 2017). Kling mentions, what is called the “The Donald Trump Phenomenon.” Which is how Kling and others were completely surprised how Trump was a true dark horse candidate; later becoming president. Kling goes on to state that that three-axis model does not apply to Trump, and even going on to create his on axis of “populist versus elite” (Kling 2017). However, when examining Trump from the lens of conservatives, are divided into two sub-factions, one is against him on the grounds he could destroy the party and the other state that he is better option than Hillary Clinton (Kling
During the focus group, the question was asked: “If the election was held again today, who would still vote for him [Donald Trump]?” All but a few raised their hand, stating he failed them on some level. Shortly after those comments were mean, everyone stated arguing only three minutes in. Luntz states, every time he does these kinds of groups everyone starts arguing when Trump is mentioned. Showing that even people in the same part cannot make a consensus on him (Smith, S, J Tyrangiel, T Clancy, J Kaplan, and M Haeringer