As a consequence of the recent election, a hundred plus years of progress is threatened more than ever. As a government employed scientist, agricultural researcher and academic, I have felt the ignorant, anti-intellectual, anti-science, and anti-government pressure building for many years. Layered over this backdrop, election outcomes were likely influenced by ongoing economic conditions, white privilege, continuing voter disenfranchisement, democratic turnout, Comey’s interference and the electoral college. Now, we have to face the future together. As we do, I request that you please indulge me in this brief reflection.
Nearly 2 and a half decades ago, Bill Clinton pushed congress to ratify a NAFTA deal signed by Bush I. This agreement, which was opposed by labor and, to a lesser extent, environmental groups, received more support from congressional Republicans than Democrats. Displeasure with this deal decreased union support for Clinton, though he still garnered key union endorsement in 1996. Opposition to NAFTA spanned the political spectrum, yet was concentrated on the left. Leftist concerns were inadequately addressed with ineffectual side agreements, and their votes were taken for granted as Bill Clinton pursued a centrist strategy in 1996
Following the 1996 election, there was a debate about why Bill Clinton won. Borosage and Greenberg argued that “Democrats' fortunes are tied, and indeed should be tied, to the concerns of working Americans, the noncollege-educated, and middle- and lower-income working people”. They then asked the following questions. “Are today's progressives enlisting in the process of alienating people from the government and dismantling social guarantees? Or are they, like their forbears, focused on taking on ‘unaccountable private principalities’ in their modern guise, empowering people in a changing world, and affirming the interests and values of working people?”
As more trade pacts developed, organized resistance increased. In 1999, the divide between international business interests and the diverse interests pushing for increased inclusion of labor, environmental, human rights and national sovereignty concerns came to a head at the WTO meetings in Seattle. There, much of the attention went to groups considered as anarchists as confrontations and property damage escalated, though it may have led to increased coverage of relevant issues by an otherwise sensationalistic media labelling opposition as anti-trade. Going forward, the movement was considered misguided, yet they might have been correct on many issues.
As an aside, indymedia got started at this time. This was my first lesson that social media is not all it is cracked up to be. It’s great for organizing and sharing information, but demands on attention, anger, trolling, shouting, insults, disregard for others, and preaching to the choir have so far limited the utility of these sites as forums of in depth discussion, respect, reconciliation, and compromise.
Anyway…
After 9/11, war became a primary focus of the United States. Afghanistan was promptly invaded, and Iraq became a target soon thereafter. In an understatement, many people opposed the impending invasion. International demonstrations drew millions of opponents of the impending invasion. In the U.S., dissenters were widely labelled as unpatriotic appeasers of terrorists and dictators. Congress authorized military force, but the Bush administration still had to lie in order to follow through on their predetermined decision to invade Iraq. Since then, hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions have been displaced, the region has been destabilized, and terrorism continues to plague the region and world. Some of the largest demonstrations in history were belittled and ignored as Democrats sought to be pragmatic and electable.
To bring this back to the just completed election, Donald Trump attacked Hilary Clinton on these issues from a more populist position that was also readily accessible from the left. In fact, the last three presidential elections were arguably won by the more populist of the final D and R candidates. Obama criticized trade deals and offshoring, while promising to get our troops out of Iraq and shut down Guantanamo. He gave many hope and brought us closer to universal health care.
To be fair, Clinton laid out plans for more progressive taxation, more affordable access to college, and further Wall Street reform. However, correctly or not, Bill Clinton’s support of trade deals and Hillary Clinton’s speeches and fundraising with financial institutions raised doubts about her intentions to follow through on these proposals.
For decades, income has remained largely stagnant for all except the top quintile, many jobs and careers have been lost, and pensions are under threat. In the recovery since 2008, gains went disproportionately to the wealthy and banks were bailed out while less affluent people lost their homes.
Perhaps centrist, pragmatic approaches were required for a couple of decades in order for Democrats to maintain the seats they held as a minority in a gerrymandered congress. Even if that were true, it opened up avenues of attack on these issues from the populist right.
A view of Trump supporters based on exit polls shows that they tended to be white christian men and less educated white women who believe that international trade takes away U.S. jobs and are most concerned about immigration and terrorism. Many had reservations about Trump or disliked Clinton, and voted for change. Those with lower incomes voted for more for Clinton. I don’t see if that applied to poor whites.
Taking these results together, Republican feeding on fear has been confirmed, while Democrats have not sufficiently addressed the concerns of less educated middle income Americans. The racial component is important and troubling. Given Trumps history and rhetoric, along with Clinton’s experience, it is understandable why non-whites voted more for Clinton. Beyond the rightest populism exploiting trade and security threats, I do not understand why whites favored Trump? Would whites have been more willing to vote for Hillary Clinton if Democrats had done more for middle income, working class folks since 1992? Or, do the results of this election illustrate wide spread, generations old racism that found an outlet in Donald Trump?
Whatever the reasons for voting for Trump, there is little or no chance that Trump will not reverse the growing wealth gap. Nor will he decrease terrorism or strengthen ties with allies. His brand of populism is dangerous in that it scapegoats others. If it works, the superiority of the favored will be amplified. If it fails, scapegoats will be blamed. These divisions might fall along racial, national, or class lines. Force and intimidation may be acceptable.
On his own, Trump will be ineffective. The impacts will be determined by how much he signs off on Republican congressional agendas, and how much they all resort to institutional and militia based intimidation, punishment and violence.
In my own white family, I would not be surprised if my brothers voted for Trump. Some of them are first responders who work closely with minority colleagues and communities. I don’t think that my family feels superior, but there is some resentment of perceived preferential minority advancement and a push for diversity that appears to equalize conditions by bringing whites down as much as minorities are elevated. In addition, racially charged terms (e.g. thug) are thoughtlessly applied disproportionately to blacks in situations such as demonstrations or arrests for violence. There may be racial bias, but my family has worked with people of all colors and saved their lives and homes without bias. Significant contributors to any resentment, I believe, are the threats to pensions, shifting to part-time, hourly employment, and use of first responders as props by politicians, including largely democratic city politicians. Minorities are not blamed for the decisions, but are seen as competitors and threats to white middle-class existence. Divide and conquer tactics of powerful elites are seen less and more nebulous, and, therefore, are less blamed.
My career in science and technology illustrates the issues faced by my family and others. I could feel bitter about difficulties faced in trying to land a permanent academic or technology job, and I could blame Chinese and Indian immigrants for taking my opportunities. I have decided to work in solidarity with other workers. It would be easier in the short term to blame others, and I can only imagine that it would be even easier for those in more limited industries where middle class opportunities have been gutted. How do we change perceptions nationwide? Do we just tell people to stop blaming others and accept their plight? Or would there be fewer racists if Democrats had stood up more for working class people?
In conclusion, many complex points were raised in this post. None were adequately addressed and all were oversimplified. The emphasis was on the things people oppose. Most notable, addressing whether the opposition or the subjects of opposition were accurate or correct was mentioned in passing, but is beyond the scope of this review. The point is that populist opposition is a political force, and feelings of being marginalized and ignored are common. In the end, we have to figure out how to unite and prevent Republican destruction of progressive government institutions. Hopefully, we can reverse the tide and continue to build on egalitarian alternatives. I am certain that Hillary Clinton would have done more than Trump, though it is unclear if the left would have been appeased or further taken for granted. My purposes here were to posit that the more populist candidate has won recent elections, and to explain how failures to support the working class may have contributed to this populism based in fear and anger. Racial divides need to be addressed, but it’s not clear to me how much is long standing bias and what can be attributed to recent misplaced resentment resulting from economic conditions.