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?
No comments:
Post a Comment