What Just Happened: An Election in Five Theories

Disclaimer: I did not vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

The U.S. presidential election has come and gone, and after witnessing days of hair-tearing and hand-wringing from some and schadenfreude and victory yelps from others, the only certainty is that there is no certainty. Everyone has his or her own pet theory about the outcome, ranging from aware to solipsistic, credible to conspiratorial. Here are but a few of them:

1. The Conventional Wisdom: People Wanted Change

The Theory: This view holds that every decade or so, voters tire of the status quo and seek to take the country in a new direction. As a particular party’s successful candidate becomes more of a known quantity, the benefit of a doubt recedes and best hopes are replaced by more realistic (if not outright pessimistic) expectations. And as the president lives under constant scrutiny, one who wins reelection has eight years to make mistakes and bad decisions, become embroiled in scandal, or simply wear voters out. Thus – excepting diehard partisans – voters who backed one party’s candidate in a given election may find more reasons to go a different way eight years later.

Analysis: My father is an advocate of the idea that the country’s political inclinations are like a pendulum in constant motion, gradually swinging one way for several years before reversing course and swinging the other. Given all the shenanigans in the run-up to Decision 2016, this explanation seems almost too simple to be true, but the last sixteen years indicate that it very well may be. In 2000, Al Gore lost states that Bill Clinton had won in 1996, thus ending eight years of a Democrat in the White House. But even though voters returned George W. Bush in 2004, by 2006, they had tired of Republicans enough to vote in Democratic majorities in the House and Senate before putting a Democrat back in the White House in 2008. Obama, in 2008, won several states in the West and South that went for Bush four years prior. Though voters reelected him in 2012, in 2014, they gave Republicans control of the Senate to complement a stronger Republican grip on the House. Based on these trends, what happened this past Tuesday shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise.

2a. Personality Power: Hillary Clinton Is Especially Terrible

The Theory: This view holds that Hillary Clinton, despite her political longevity and experience, lost the election because she was a uniquely horrible choice. Factor out sexist voters who wouldn’t support a woman regardless or partisans who wouldn’t vote for a Democrat if a gun was held to their heads, and Clinton still leaves plenty to hate. For some, it is the scandal-ridden Clinton brand and all its attendant baggage. For others, it is Clinton’s personality and character or perceived lack therefor. For others still, it is her conduct: the e-mail fiasco, the “stolen” Democratic primary, etc. And some oppose her strictly on policy grounds, be it criticism from the left (war hawkishness, chumminess with Wall Street, NAFTA support) or right (enthusiasm for gun control and Obamacare). Given such an odious option, voters who previously supported Obama and would have supported Sanders swung to Trump or stayed home.

Analysis: It’s hardly revelatory to suggest that Clinton was a flawed and controversial candidate and for many, a bad option. But it is naïve to suggest that she was a uniquely bad option. Disappearing e-mails were a feature of the Bush administration as well, and Trump stands accused of deleting several pertaining to a lawsuit he was facing, in defiance of a court order. In a sea of crooks (some larger, some smaller), “Crooked Hillary” is just another fish. Besides, even if one assumes the worst about her, this isn’t necessarily a reason why so many voters turned out for Trump. After all, in 1991 voters were given a choice for governor that came down to a corrupt Democratic establishment figure (Edwin Edwards) and a white nationalist outsider (David Duke). They voted for the crook, not the racist.

2b. Personality Power: Donald Trump Is Exceptionally Great

The Theory: This theory holds that Trump won out because unlike both Clinton and his primary challengers, he is not a politician. He is a successful, charismatic businessman, and as a Washington outsider, a good choice for shaking up the established order.

Analysis: This theory does not hold up to rational scrutiny. Though he may have name recognition, Trump is not a particularly successful businessman as his six bankrupt hotels and casinos attest. In terms of character, Trump possesses many of Clinton’s negatives (dishonesty, opportunism) to an even greater degree than Clinton herself, something that was painfully apparent to anyone who watched even one of the debates. Granted, Trump’s “outsider” status probably did appeal to some voters, but the idea that he won simply because he wasn’t “from Washington” and in spite of his many, many flaws treats the entire electorate as a single-issue constituency.

3. The Whitelash: Trump Drew Bigots to the Polls

The Theory: This idea holds that Trump exploited the fears and prejudices of disillusioned working-class white Americans by scapegoating Mexicans, Muslims, and others who aren’t like them. His rhetoric, under the guise of addressing problems head-on and breaking the shackles of political correctness, empowered bigots, driving them to the polls in a determined effort to “take the country back” while they still could.

Analysis: There are undoubtedly bigots among Trump supporters. His candidacy enjoyed open support from white nationalists that he was slow to repudiate, and in the days following his election, numerous accounts have been shared of harassment and intimidation aimed at minorities. But 60 million people voted for Trump, and it is a mistake to assume that all, or even most of them, share that mentality. After all, Trump himself is a socially tolerant (his opposition to abortion being skin-deep and politically expedient) New Yorker with a Jewish son-in-law and an immigrant wife. And despite the appeals to white identity politics, he received more votes from black and Hispanic voters than Mitt Romney did in 2012 and an endorsement from civil rights elder statesman Charles Evers. Furthermore, taking the view that Trump supporters, if not bigots, were at least “comfortable” with bigotry implies Obama supporters to be comfortable with drone strike assassinations and those who backed Bill Clinton to be comfortable with perjury and sexual misconduct. Lastly, this theory conveniently grants some leftists political cover for their own bigotry: witness the vitriolic (and, sadly, unironic) attacks on whites – and white women, in particular – for supporting that bigot, Trump.

4. The Silent Majority: Trump Addressed Issues That No One Else Did

The Theory: In this view, Trump spoke for disillusioned working-class Americans who felt betrayed by NAFTA, were worried about the security of their country, and were tired of being told to check their privilege when all they saw was a lack of it.

Analysis: This theory is decidedly more plausible for several reasons. First, it presumes a certain degree of economic illiteracy, specifically regarding the benefits of free trade. Inasmuch as Trump picked up a lot of support from non-college educated voters, that isn’t that much of a stretch. Second, it doesn’t assume that voters saw Trump as an ideal candidate but rather as a vehicle for bringing their concerns to the table. They were voting for the message, not the man. Third, though there are substantial differences between them, Bernie Sanders struck a few similar chords, embodied the same anti-establishmentarianism, and drew a lot of Democratic support. “The system is broken/people are getting screwed” may not seem like much of substance to run on, but this appears to have been a message that resonated.

5. The Bubble Theory: Voters Immunized Themselves to Competing Worldviews

The Theory: This theory holds that voters tend to huddle around their ideological compatriots. To Clinton voters, who turned to mainstream media (a deeply problematic term that I’ll stick with here for the sake of convenience) and left-of-center commentators for information, Clinton was a clear frontrunner and Trump stood no chance. To Trump voters, who obtained information from Brietbart, the alt-right media, and Wikileaks, Clinton never stood a chance. The latter bubbles happened to be larger than those in the former realized.

Analysis: There is quite a bit of support for this theory as well. For all of his significant shortcomings, Trump proved to be a masterful self-promoter, and he played the mainstream media with ease. Every time he said something ignorant, untrue, or outrageous, the media would report it, which he and his cheerleaders like the Brietbart crowd would spin as evidence of media bias, which in turn energized his base. The mainstream media also empowered him by exercising poor editorial judgement. There is a journalistic obligation to speak truth to power, yes, but when you run a spread listing all the people Trump has insulted while simultaneously allowing the Clinton campaign to influence how she is covered, you’ve ceded the ethical high ground. Moreover, the occupants of both bubbles failed to exercise critical thinking. If those in the Trump bubble can be castigated for soaking up alt-right conspiracies aimed at destroying Clinton (of which there are many, of varying degrees of inanity), then those in the Clinton bubble can be similarly called to task for their willingness to readily believe things (like Trump supposedly mocking veterans with PTSD) that, in context, turned out not to be true. Through this lens, the 2016 election in some way mirrors the 1972 election where New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael infamously remarked that she only knew one person who voted for Richard Nixon. Those who didn’t see Trump coming are her ideological offspring.

As noted, it is hard to pinpoint any one reason why the election turned out the way that it did but rather there was a confluence of factors at play. If you are among those displeased with the outcome, you can look to those factors and hopefully learn from them. Recent history says that control of Congress will change no later than 2020 and the presidency no later than 2024, but do you really want to wait that long?

Unsettled Dust: Barack Obama and Presidential Legacies

Perhaps it’s a testament to how badly their successors have bungled things, but the past few American presidents have enjoyed some serious image upgrades after leaving office. Richard Nixon, the jowly Watergate-tainted hippy hater, was later recognized by no less than Noam Chomsky as “the last liberal president.” Ronald Reagan went from being denounced by opponents as the Great Prevaricator and the Teflon President to someone whom Democrats berate Republicans for not being more like. Bill Clinton, once viewed with scorn as a cancer upon the White House, was later praised by the likes of conservative media icons David Horowitz (Front Page Magazine) and Christopher Ruddy (NewsMax) for his centrist domestic and economic policies. Even George W. Bush, derided as everything from an ineloquent buffoon to a war criminal, is now being credited by former critics for his compassionate approach to immigration.

            It is highly likely that Barack Obama will enjoy a similar reappraisal after leaving office. Of course, there are those who believe that no such reappraisal is necessary and that Obama has acquitted himself well during his time in the White House, but the rest of us, troubled by everything from drone strike assassinations to the botched implementation of the Affordable Care Act and the swirl of lies that preceded it to multiple attempts at executive overreach and end-runs around Congress, are going to take some convincing.

Still, it would take either a profoundly unimaginative mind or a troubling degree of irrational rage not to envision Obama’s eventual legacy in a better light, no matter how grim one’s present perception. With that in mind, here are the five things that we will likely come to appreciate about our 44^th president.

He was temperamentally well-suited for the office.

Even before he took office, Obama had garnered a well-deserved reputation as a compelling and inspirational speaker. This is a point that his critics often concede, usually with a disclaimer that his style masks a lack of substance, that he should not be trusted precisely because he can nail a speech. However, faulting a president for talking a good game is nothing if not myopic. After all, Reagan’s ability to inspire and uplift through speech craft was at the crux of his appeal. He did not single-handedly fix America’s economy or win the Cold War, but he made many Americans believe these things were possible. Similarly, regardless of its substance, “Yes We Can” worked to energize the electorate and invite hope.

Like his ability to speechify, Obama’s calm affability is both widely noted and curiously polarizing: the unflappability of “No Drama” Obama is sometimes taken for apathetic detachment, the sign of one too aloof and disengaged to lead. This too is an oddly selective criticism, especially when considering the antithesis. Lyndon Johnson threatened, cajoled, intimidated (and, reportedly, exposed himself to) others to get things done, but he left office highly unpopular, and the Democratic coalition that he tried to keep together through force of personality splintered and collapsed by 1968. Obama’s comparatively easygoing nature has not only allowed him to avoid inspiring personal (political is another matter) acrimony a la the temperamentally unsuited Johnson and Nixon but has enabled him to win the respect of political adversaries like arch-conservative former Sen. Tom Coburn. It is reasonable to demand that a president do more than talk and play nice, but thirst for the former should not blind us to the value of the latter.

He was the least crooked president in more than twenty years

Obama’s presidency has been far from scandal-free. As mentioned previously, he lied to the American people about the Affordable Care Act, and the conduct of those in his administration was considerably worse. During his presidency, the IRS also inappropriately targeted conservative groups, the fallout from the ATF’s “gunwalking” operations resulted in an (admittedly partisan) contempt charge for then-Attorney General Eric Holder, and then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s now-infamous mishandling of e-mails reeks of incompetence if not also impropriety.

Thanks to his predecessors lowering the ethical bar, however, the scandals of Obama pale in comparison to the scandals of those who occupied the Oval Office before him. Mishandled e-mails and the inappropriate use of an executive branch entity (the Justice Department instead of the IRS) to target political opponents were both featured during George W. Bush’s presidency as well, and his administration added manipulation of intelligence and an appalling defense of torture to the mix. When Bill Clinton wasn’t busy perjuring himself regarding his affair with a White House intern, his administration engaged in dubious fundraising and the pardoning of campaign contributors. Go back further and you’ll find administrations that sold weapons to America’s enemies (Reagan), partook in illegal wiretapping and breaking and entering (Nixon), and were the fruits of vote fraud and organized crime “assistance” (Kennedy).  That Obama, a product of notoriously corrupt Chicago, would preside over an administration that was, relatively speaker, cleaner than those of several of his predecessors is quasi-miraculous. That it will likely be cleaner than that of his successor is depressing.

He got bin Ladin

It is patently preposterous to personally credit Obama with the successful takedown of Osama bin Laden, but doing so would be in keeping with a longstanding tradition of recognizing presidents for things in which they had no direct hand. Thus, if we are to acknowledge that SEAL Team Six deserves the plaudits for doing in the erstwhile al Qaeda leader, then we must also acknowledge that Bush had relatively little to do with toppling Saddam Hussein (“Mission Accomplished” iconography to the contrary), and that Reagan did not bring the Soviet Union to its knees. Inasmuch as we are going to continue to reward presidents for the victories that happened to occur on their watch, however, Obama deserves credit here.

He’s leaving us with a better economy than what he inherited

In 2009, a Time magazine cover depicted a fedora-wearing Obama cruising in a 1930s roadster, a classic Franklin Delano Roosevelt pose. For Obama’s supporters and opponents alike, the parallels are obvious. Obamaphiles hoped that the 44^th president would mimic the 32^nd president by taking bold executive action upon entering office while Obama skeptics dreaded the same. Like Obama, FDR inherited a bleak economic situation. His response, the New Deal, ruffled a lot of feathers, but it did not actually end the Great Depression. Similarly, within his first 100 days in office, Obama championed and signed a stimulus act that cost $831 billion yet did not have the short-term impact on unemployment that was promised.

However, while Obama was not the economic savoir that some supporters hoped for, he was also not the radical socialist despot that his detractors made him out to be. While it may take years for the impact of the Affordable Care Act to be fully realized and while the debt to GDP ratio continues to grow at an alarming rate, several other indicators show an economy that is healthier now than it was eight years ago. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate is down from 7.8 percent in January 2009 to about 5 percent now. According to the Office of Management and Budget, federal spending deficits, which jumped from $458 million in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009 in the thick of the recession, are back down to an estimated $615 million, still depressingly high but nevertheless trending in the right direction.

Of course, the earlier point about crediting presidents with things not of their making still holds – presidents don’t “run” the economy and cannot be expected to singlehandedly “fix” it – but again, precedent shows that legacy is largely a product of happenstance. In 1980, Reagan famously asked voters if they were better off than they were four years ago. The answer, for many, was no. That their discontent was arguably a product of a global energy crisis that had its roots in the Middle East did nothing to absolve incumbent Jimmy Carter of his perceived failings. Were we to put that question to voters today, the answer for many would be yes: unemployment is down, and gas is cheaper. How much of that is actually the president’s doing is as immaterial now as it was 36 years ago.

  He brought U.S.-Cuba relations into the 21^st century

One area where Obama did have a more active hand was in the Cuban Thaw: a series of diplomatic maneuvers that included a relaxation of travel restrictions and the normalization of relations between the two countries. Critics were quick to blast this move as appeasement of a dictatorial regime. However, this ignores the fact that the sanctions that were in place for more than half a century not only failed to topple said regime but actively aided it as a propaganda tool. As Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) noted, allowing Americans to travel abroad is an expression of freedom for Americans, easing restrictions on trade and remittances has improved life for Cubans, and since the thaw began, the island’s private sector has grown considerably. Obama may have failed in his quest to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, but he deserves credit for breaking with outmoded Cold War thinking and pursuing positive change that benefits both countries.

            From the time he emerged on the national political scene, Obama has been subject to a slew of ridiculously conspiratorial innuendos and smears. He has been denounced as everything from a Kenyan-born secret Muslim to an anti-white racist to faith-hating atheist, and his administration has been accused of conspiring to confiscate guns from citizens and imprison them in FEMA-run concentration camps. These ludicrous assertions detract from the Obama administration’s very real failings: a president willing to overstep the boundaries of his office when it suited him, an executive branch that has appeared at various times incompetent or dishonest, and a signature healthcare law that is looking worse every day.

            Despite these shortcomings, Obama is likely to be missed in some ways, even by those who once held him and his presidency in the lowest esteem. We’ve already seen this from rightwing media star Glenn Beck, who recently lamented his “freaking out” over the Obama years. As America braces itself for the onset of Donald Trump - he of the lawsuit-addled business empire, grossly misogynistic personal conduct, penchant for crass remarks, and disregard for anything other than his own authority - others will likely reach similar reappraisals. The dust of history is yet unsettled, but as an orange storm looms, it is not hard to see what form that dust may eventually take.