If only as a post-mortem of an ugly chapter in global politics, it is interesting to think about how it happened that they chose him in such numbers this time round. 2016, his initial election, we can put to one side as it was clear he had a successful image and without a political track record. 2020, he was very well known by his words and actions in the political sphere. His voters would know some of these. It might not be a unique thought but I would say that what they were voting for was not him as a person, but his force to restrain the change towards pluralism in a country that was evolving towards recognising its own diversity and giving the required seats at the table to address it.
It is an ugly thing that his side took the national symbols of flag, the name America, the anthem, and even the chant "USA" as a partisan weapons. But it is emblematic of a war to define what is American, and to exclude others from being so. If I were free to muse I'd say that like any entity or individual, that has had a good run of it, there is a feeling of Providence, of their own personal superiority that led to them being great. The United States has had quite the run, and as of today is still likely to be running for quite some time into the future. The America that was "Great" has been interpreted as that built by apparently capitalist, white protestants and their innate virtues (but without adding the introspection of the vices). This is embedded in the programming of the way they speak, make TV and movies and interpret events. That does not mean it is racially oriented, although it is easy to manifest itself or be perceived in that manner. There are plenty of people of all races that aspire for these values, and identify with Trump.
Previous presidents tended to actively profess the need for inclusion, even if tacitly indicating that the minority voices needed to follow terms of inclusion. Trump verbalised this explicitly, though, often in racial terms: black people should be grateful to "America" and not protest; children of immigrants can go back to "their countries" if they are unhappy, as those countries aren't as "great" as America; judges of non-white ethnicities cannot be trusted to judge fairly (as if white judges have no prejudices). This could be heard by those 140 million ears but in a way where Trump was the one defending the founding principles of the "Great America" from adulteration. They might even agree with statements with racist premises, such as that black sportspeople owing the country, even though not seeing it as a double standard. Or that white people have the Second Amendment right to carry a gun, but a black person with a gun could be shot because they are a danger. Trump stood up to defend these principles that they have been told are the secret sauce of American strength.
He pressed the "socialism" button, too. Since its take on capitalism (forgetting all the socialistic aspects) is another thing that made "Great America", standing up for capitalism, or portraying those "coming in" as being socialists, or framing the opposition as controlled by socialists is another way to tap back to that threat to the mainstream.
Nationalism as a response to pluralism isn't necessarily an evil thing, just a naive one: some without a scope of history might feel they were never consulted, or fully informed, about the changes that globalisation, modernisation and immigration would bring. When Trump talks about how China has "taken away" the jobs from people, it is a pain that is felt; they were sacrificed for a reward for the whole (of which Trump inherited). No-one wants to be sacrificed. There is no room for some utilitarian thought that for every American losing a job, ten Chinese were lifted out of poverty. Or the long term view that the prosperity of the nation was enhanced by turning those ten Chinese into consumers, or cheap technicians that allow them to have cheaper products that enhance their lives. Their nation gained prosperity in the 1800s collaborating with other empires to bring imperial China to its knees, driven by the same capitalist, white protestant values, causing untold suffering that is still remembered today.
The same core mainstream existed in New Zealand, too. Don Brash was the obvious one, where he very uncharismatically, and much more politely, did basically did the same as Trump. Maori people had to agree to the terms of inclusion, to something they should never have been excluded. But the mainstream still felt his call to the core of what they thought New Zealand was as a strong attraction. The vague analogy is that the mainstream was averse to Maori tino rangatiratanga, and no real compunction that they hobbled iwi from the time of the Treaty, in the same way that African Americans had been hobbled from slavery, to Reconstruction, to the Jim Crow era to even present times. (Any racists should be amazed that inferior people can get through all these and still be strong, smart and push for their betterment.)
It's an understandable desire to hold that mainstream view, a stable worldview that apparently lead to something great. But the times have changed to the complexity of pluralism, local and global, and they need to know that the greatness is but a dream.
