Contradictions of the American political landscape?

[Spajjder]

Hello fellow forumites. Like everyone lately, I've been following American politics closely, but I've noticed something that seems quite contradictory to me. (Yes, of course that's not unique to the American political landscape but, hear me out)
From my perspective, and please correct me if I'm wrong, there is one group, which I think Trump is especially targeting, who are anti-establishment, pro-guns, pro state sovereignty to keep their own laws. In a sense, it's a felling I think is illustrated in Rockstar's Red Dead Redemption quite well, where a bigger government is slowly taking that life away. This life, being characterized of a person being able to take care of oneself, without government intervention, can in this viewpoint seem contradictory to a bigger government.

What seems contradictory to me however is that this same group seems to be for a bigger military, think that Edward Snowden is a traitor, and that a powerful and free media is dangerous.
For example, Trump seems to be targeting this group, and has said that Snowden could be executed, and that the internet should be censored, he has expressed reluctance to talk with many media outlets, and he thinks that some groups of religious practitioners should be monitored. Although he has said he thinks the defense of overseas allies should be payed by them.

First the military. USA used to have no standing army. Whether that was to protect the union from being a militarized state or not I cannot say, but the point is, that the argument to have guns to protect oneself from the government seems unreliable at best if the Union gets an ever bigger military all the time. Also, the military is extremely establishment, and one of the most powerful tools to keep the status quo or to let the government kill threats to it.

So, how can one be pro military, but anti-establishment?

Second, the thing about Edward Snowden. Snowden revealed just how large the establishment is, and how it makes up new rules for itself. NSA is/has been monitoring all communications and has routinely lied about not doing so. I'm not as sure about this one, but according to Trumps comments, if he is appealing to this group, they seem to think he is a traitor.

If one holds the view that the government is too big and too secretive, shouldn't Snowden be considered a hero or something?

Third the media: if you want the government to be held accountable, so that it doesn't act without considering the will of the people, and the benefit of them, isn't an independent media, with big resources to research and evaluate the government's behavior in your interest? Just like the NRA has organized itself into an establishment, and in their story, in order to counter moves from the government establishment to take away guns from the American people, isn't an independent media an establishment to counter/ hold accountable the power players of government?

Is there any rationale behind this? I would be very interested to hear if anyone holds this views and can explain their reasoning, or refer me to some paper digging deeper into it.
Again, if I got this group wrong, if it in fact is many different groups with widely different opinions, please let me know. I'm just trying to chart the political landscape.

[Mayer]

You'd have to vote the Libertarians for anti-government rhetoric. Trump is a nationalist who wants a strong USA.

[Spajjder]

You'd have to vote the Libertarians for anti-government rhetoric. Trump is a nationalist who wants a strong USA.

Then.. what does that mean? He is pro establishment? What does he stand for regarding to what I've written about? Which group is he appealing to?

[Mayer]

Opponents of political correctness, open borders, NAFTA & TPP trade deals. People who think Black Lives Matter and Islam are hate groups which cause terrorism. Trump also wants to improve relations with Russia.

[Pathfinder]

They're not anti-establishment (the establishment includes the military for one). In every country there are people who take more strongly to the state's propaganda than the state actually wants. Then they turn on everyone who isn't as radical as they are - which is just about everyone. They didn't come up with their beliefs - they're as contradictory as US policy and rhetoric, because it's just that, amplified.

[Abdülmecid I]

Well, to be just, I think that the OP somewhat over-generalizes a bit, but it's true that a large percentage of the American people do indeed hold such obviously contradictory views. That phenomenon can be explained by the contrast of two different misconceptions that were propagated to the American public, which did willingly accept them, during different and more prosperous times. The first one is that of individualism, the glorification of achieving success with clearly selfish means, without the limiting intervention from the authorities, which were supposed to let the person free to develop its virtues, the perfect example of the American dream. That ideal was, in turn, compared to the other opposite of the spectrum, the authoritative Soviet Union, which endorsed principles of statism and rejected the potential of any private initiatives. The second one is that of nationalism, that the beloved homeland should be allowed to fight against the malevolent foreigners (again the usual suspects, the Soviets), without being prohibited by the naive, delusional, treacherous and generally evil fifth column of pacifists, unpatriotic weaklings and communists. In fortunate times, these self-undermining ideas coexist harmoniously, but when someone's quality of life decreases, he may react against whom he perceives as responsible for his misery, the big, bad government, the foreigners or both...

[jockmcplop]

Its almost impossible to have a consistent, non contradictory political viewpoint today without being an extremist on one side or another. Sometimes you just have to look at the contradiction in your views and find out whether or not its something you really want to address.
For example, the hard left can be very insistent about women's rights and how they can be improved in the West, but if the conversation moves to the middle east and their treatment of women, and how that relates to our immigration policy the conversation tends to break down. I myself struggle with this one, its a difficult thing to get your head around.
These contradictions are inbuilt to our current system, given how extreme the complexity of a worldwide political landscape is. You can't escape them with clever linguistic tricks or smart logical arguments, they will always be inbuilt.
It takes the smartest people to be able to navigate this stuff which is why having Trump in charge doesn't make sense.

One small thing that might help with the OP's example is the 'us vs them' mentality fostered by neocons for the last 30-40 years. The basic idea is that the USA is the best thing in the world and that anyone who criticizes it or fights it is evil. With a little tweaking to compensate for people's current fears and frustrations the political establishment can be labelled as 'them' while the USA is still 'us'. The military is then identified with the USA, not the political establishment.
Snowden's leaks were an attack on the USA, which also makes him one of 'them;.
This is ridiculously over simplified but its also an effective way of controlling opinion and getting votes.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

So, how can one be pro military, but anti-establishment?

The reason is quite simple - american political system has a certain degree of dogmatism about it. US citizens, unless they label themselves as libertarians or progressives don't look around the world to see how much do other countries spend on military, both in terms of actual number or the percentage amount of their budget. If they see that the US spends more than Russia, China and few of their allies combined, they don't apply critical thinking about it - to do so, would in their mind, lead to join invasion of Alaska by Russia and China, Iran would annex Tehrangeles, and ISIS and other terrorists would use their own (non-existent) Air Force and Navy to invade Texas.

If one holds the view that the government is too big and too secretive, shouldn't Snowden be considered a hero or something?

Even if something is good for the US citizens, it is bad unless US government does it first.

Third the media: if you want the government to be held accountable, so that it doesn't act without considering the will of the people, and the benefit of them, isn't an independent media, with big resources to research and evaluate the government's behavior in your interest? Just like the NRA has organized itself into an establishment, and in their story, in order to counter moves from the government establishment to take away guns from the American people, isn't an independent media an establishment to counter/ hold accountable the power players of government?

No, the media need to make profit, it is the only reason for their existence. Advertising brings profit, without it there is no reason for life, money is love, money is life. One cannot make profit without advertising, and one get advertising without good viewing ratings and one cannot have those without access. What is access you might wonder. Well, let's put it this way: Imagine there is a very bright, successful politician, let's say his name is Louie Gohmert, no scratch that, Jim Inhofe.

In order to get good viewing ratings you need repeated access to Senator Inhofe, something you will only get unless you don't call him out on any possible inaccuracies or even lies he might make in his statements. Long story short - don't make fun Senator Jim Inhofe when he brings a snowball in the US Senate and uses it as a proof about global warming being a hoax - if you want access to him and other politicians or agencies, and with it the only thing worth living for, the monies - money is love, money is life.

[sumskilz]

It's simpler than all this. To social conservatives, the military is seen as distinct from the political establishment. The military is seen as pragmatic, honorable, and reasonable, which progressives on the left seek to corrupt with their SJ values while neocons on the right want to send the military off to kill and die for their own interests rather than the interests of the American people.

EDIT: About the media, it isn't considered independent. The leaked email in which a journalist is running a story by the DNC before submitting it to be published felt like confirmation of what a lot of people on the right already believed. Trump supporters also consider Fox News to be a mouthpiece of the neocon Republican establishment. Actually I think most Americans only consider the media they agree with to be unbiased and independent.

[Sir Adrian]

Regarding media: That's more or less true for Europeans as well. Fox News opened a Pandora's box and now the market is flooded with copy-cats mouthpieceing for every possible side in every possible debate.