It’s been a week since Donald Trump’s stunning victory over Hillary Clinton and
most people are still in shock. Pollsters, journalists, political pundits, citizens in
general: everyone got it wrong. This article seeks to do four things: Explain how it
happened, why it happened, what’s at stake, and lastly, some concluding thoughts on how Trump might be defeated in 2020.
HOW IT HAPPENED
To understand politics in America one starts with demographics. And in America, any discussion of demographics starts with race, something the Republicans have been good at exploiting since the 1960s’ with their opposition to civil rights legislation. Add gender, college education, geography (rural versus urban) and social conservatism as other factors and you get an even more interesting picture. Here are some revealing numbers:
- 58% of whites voted for Trump;
- Non-college educated whites preferred Trump by a margin of 39%;
- 53% of white women voted for Trump;
- 49% of whites with college degrees voted for Trump as opposed to 45% with college degrees who voted for Hillary;
These numbers helped Trump take 306 electoral votes compared to Clinton’s 232, making it a clear and decisive victory, at least in regard to the electoral map. Apologists for Clinton argue she attained more popular votes than Trump, but even there, it was by a slight margin. In short, many pollsters and journalists saw Clinton winning by a more decisive popular vote, while potentially taking two thirds of the electoral votes.
The America political process is based on the electoral-college system, making 270 votes the magic number for attaining power. It’s the only country in the world with such a system, and no doubt yet another example of American exceptionalism. How it works is simple: Each state is allotted a certain number of votes, and the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote receives the entire block of electoral votes. While this system may seem undemocratic, it certainly gives individual states a certain political importance with regard to choosing a president, regardless of size. Call it federalism at work.
Clinton lost three key states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, all states which President Obama easily carried in two presidential races. These states have a combined total of 46 electoral votes. Had Clinton taken them she would now be the president elect. So why didn’t Clinton win any of these states?
WHY IT HAPPENED
All three states are largely white and blue collar. And as it turns out, white blue collar workers did not take to Hillary Clinton’s message, assuming she had one. A look at the electoral map shows Clinton doing poorly in states that are close to 80% white, except for New England and the Northwest (Washington and Oregon). It seems that Hillary Clinton like George Herbert Walker Bush is a bad campaigner. Yet no one expected her to lose so convincingly. For starters, she had the backing of the party establishment as opposed to Trump who had the entire party establishment opposed to him from the very beginning. In the end, voters rejected both party establishments.
Clinton never excited the electorate despite being the first woman with any real chance to become president. But more importantly, she came with a lot of baggage which the Sanders people made clear during her bid to seal the party’s nomination. At the top of her liabilities was the inability to use good judgment. Let’s start with the war in Iraq. Unlike both Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama, then senators from Vermont and Illinois respectively, Hillary Clinton supported George W Bush’s ill-fated decision to invade Iraq in 2003. The consequences for Iraq and Syria are there for everyone to see. Both Iraq and Syria are mired in a vicious civil war which has left hundreds of thousands dead and millions stateless, while making it possible for terrorist groups like Islamic State to rampage through both countries. Most experts agree that while Saddam Hussein was certainly a dictator, he at least kept Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds from slaughtering one another.
Then there’s Libya. Clinton encouraged a reluctant President Obama to help overthrow Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator, by bombing key sites. Again, the end result is a vicious civil war where thousands have died and all semblance of civil society has collapsed. Throw in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision not to beef up security at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi while under attack, resulting in the death of her ambassador, and we see yet another example of bad judgment on her part.
But Hillary Clinton’s ability to make bad judgment calls continued even once out of office. Witness Clinton’s subtle criticism of President Obama for his handling of the Syrian conflict. She simply wasn’t able to contemplate that a greater US presence and overthrow of the Assad regime might have made matters ten times worse.
Both the Russians and Iranians are heavily involved in helping the Syrian dictator,
Bashar al-Assad, stay in power. Did it ever make sense to create a scenario where
US planes might shoot down a Russian plane? Would a greater US presence not
simply have escalated the level of violence and possibly led to the complete
breakdown of the Syrian state? Few people doubt Assad is a dictator. But is a
country divided along sectarian lines ready for democracy?An argument can be made that a Clinton victory would have re-ignited a new cold
war between the US and Russia. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a travesty and
a violation of international law. But is it worth risking a war with Russia? What
more could President Obama have done as Clinton seemed to suggest, whether in
Syria or Ukraine?
Of course we could also talk about Hillary Clinton’s emails. This like everything
else about her shows bad judgment rather than any illegal activity. A Harvard
educated lawyer should know better than to use her personal server for
governmental matters or to delete emails in the way she did.
Her close ties with Wall Street also upset many in the Democratic Party. In short, she was seen as a defender of powerful economic forces as opposed to one who would protect the interests of blue collar workers. In other words, socially progressive but fiscally conservative, or what we use to call a Rockefeller Republican.
Hillary Clinton thus had the enthusiastic support of Wall Street, Venture
Capitalists, Free Trade Advocates, and Silicon Valley. Minorities also voted for
her, but not in the same numbers or by the same margin that voted for President
Obama. But most importantly, she lost the white working class vote which her
husband, Bill Clinton, easily took. Her support among young people was also not
as strong as it could have been. Arguing that someone should vote for you because
the alternative candidate is frighteningly worse is not a recipe for winning a
presidential election.
WHAT’S AT STAKE
Let’s start with Donald Trump’s personal qualities. He’s been described as sexist, racist, and misogamist. Is this a role model for the nation’s young people? Is his style of campaigning suddenly the new norm? Do personal qualities still matter?
Trump is also criticized for not having any political experience. This is his first
elected job, something that would be considered inconceivable in countries with
parliamentary democracies, like Canada and the UK. Eisenhower also never held
political office before assuming office as President, but he was Supreme
Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II.
Trump denies global warming, has said he won’t respect the Paris Accord on climate change, and is threatening to reduce the power of the US Environmental Protection Agency.
He prefers what he calls Fair Trade to Free Trade and has suggested that he may scrap or at least revisit NAFTA. Trump is also not likely to support the Trans Pacific Partnership. Is the end of globalization around the corner?
Trump as everyone knows is on friendly terms with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. This means no new cold war will likely occur between these two superpowers. But this relationship has the Baltic States worried. Is a Russian invasion imminent? Will the US simply stand by and watch this occur? Will the US respect it obligations as a member of NATO and defend member states from foreign invasion? Is the alliance with NATO effectively over? Does Trump’s coziness with Putin mean the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a fait accompli? Who Trump selects as his foreign relations team will no doubt provide answers to these questions.
More frighteningly, there’s the real possibility that Trump’s unthinkable victory may make it possible for extreme groups like the National Front in France, led by Marine Le Pen, to one day assume power. Trump won by appealing to white working class voters who feel marginalized by the country’s political and economic elites. Isn’t that how white working class voters in France feel? Trump’s voters also distrust the presence of so many foreigners, in this case, Hispanics. Don’t millions of French voters feel the same way about Muslim immigrants from North Africa? The unthinkable has occurred in the US (Trump) and Britain (Brexit). Why can’t it happen in France?
As for China, expect frosty relations with regard to trade issues. Trump has
repeatedly criticized China for allegedly engaging in unfair trading practices, and
may see trade restrictions with China as a way to re-vamp manufacturing in the
US. A rapprochement with Putin may also lead to a US/Russia attempt to curtain
Chinese influence whether in Asia or the rest of the world.
On the domestic front, we can expect Trump to nominate judges hostile to legal abortions, affirmative action, gun control, and environmental protection. Nominees will also likely be pro-business, anti-union, and weak on environmental protection. The US Supreme Court is evenly split between 4 conservatives and 4 liberals. With the Senate in Republican hands, a President Trump can now nominate a conservative judge to replace Antonin Scalia. Add the fact that 4 of the remaining judges are well over 75 and we have a scenario where the US Supreme Court may be dominated by conservative judges for the next 20 years.
And lastly, he has threatened to deport 11 million illegal immigrants though he hasn’t said how he’s going to do it, or how he’s going to get the Mexican government to pay for the construction of a wall along the US-Mexican border. Trump claims at least 3 million of them are criminals. Did any of them receive a fair hearing or trial?
SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The American electorate has spoken and we’re hopefully all listening whether in the US or abroad. For starters, voters showed a lack of enthusiasm for both candidates. Family dynasties are out. Jeb Bush never had a chance in the Republican primaries much to the complete surprise of the Republican establishment. Many no doubt voted for Trump simply because they could not tolerate a compromised candidate like Hillary Clinton. The same occurred vice versa.
The white working class which once aligned itself behind the Democratic Party no longer feels the Democrats represent their interests. Hispanics and African- Americans meanwhile showed up in low numbers, feeling no doubt that their support by the Democrats is taken for granted. Indeed, the last president to seriously make any attempts to help the poor and the working class was Lyndon B Johnson (1963-1969). Since then the Democrats have become moderates, meaning socially progressive and fiscally conservative, which is not a way to galvanize the electorate.
But the Republicans should not be gloating. They just narrowly won Pennsylvania and Michigan. Republican fortunes are perilously tied to white voters who today make up 70% of the electorate. But America is set to become a majority minority state by the end of this century. At that point it might become impossible for the Republicans to ever win a presidential election. African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians can’t be ignored once they’re in the majority.
A key ingredient to Trump’s victory was his ability to appeal to social conservatives. A Trump voter is most likely to own a gun, oppose abortion, do military service, live in a small town, attend church on Sundays, and be opposed to equal rights for same-sex couples. He or she is also less concerned about climate change, likely doesn’t own a passport, and is more likely to be an isolationist and protectionist with regard to trade. A Trump supporter is finally more likely to have negative views on immigration, especially illegal migration, and to feel unconformable living in a multi-ethnic country where no one ethnic or racial group dominates. Interestingly, the states carried by Donald Trump could, if they were ever to secede from the US (except for Alaska), form a nation with a contiguous border.
So what should the Democratic Party do in the meantime? Is there a candidate who could defeat Trump in 2020? Absolutely and her name is Elizabeth Warren, senator from Massachusetts, and former Harvard University law professor. Senator Warren is clearly a progressive on both social and economic issues, has consistently questioned the power of large financial institutions, and unlike Hillary Clinton, comes with no baggage. She also has a compelling personal story, having been raised in a working class family and experienced poverty. Elizabeth Warren would appeal to those working class voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania who helped elect Donald Trump. Add Sherrod Brown, a liberal senator from Ohio, another key electoral state, and you have a formidable team for Trump to confront in 2020. The only question is whether the Democratic Party’s establishment and supporters on Wall Street are willing to step aside and allow the progressive wing to present a liberal ticket. Only time will tell.
