I was wrong.
For years, beginning in 2016, I have argued that Trump's populist authoritarianism was not really popular enough to win the popular vote. After all, he lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020. This indicated to me that although he had a solid base of 35 to 40 percent of the voters, he did not have a majority, although he could win in the Electoral College. That's why I predicted that Harris would win the election yesterday.
So, now that Trump has won the popular election, we face two questions. First, will Trump be the kind of populist authoritarian that he has promised to be?
If he does fulfill this promise, he will use his power as Commander-in-Chief to use the military to punish "the enemy within"--those who disagree with him. He will use his pardoning power to protect himself and his supporters from criminal prosecution (including the January 6th insurrectionists). He will also act vigorously within the immunity from criminal prosecution for "official acts" recently granted to him by his Supreme Court. He will use the military to help him in forcibly deporting over 10 million illegal immigrants. He will raise tariffs on imports so high as to impede international trade and create what will be effectively a high sales tax on imported goods. He will establish an isolationist foreign policy that weakens the NATO alliance and withholds support for Ukraine in its war against the Russian invasion.
Trump and his supporters have said that he is God's Chosen One to save America. After all, didn't God miraculously intervene to turn his head away from the assassin's bullet? If they believe this, will they treat Trump's opponents as evil enemies of God?
If Trump carries out these and other promises for acting as a populist authoritarian, that will raise a second question: will the Americans who voted for him say yes, this is just what they wanted? Or will they regret their choice?
Actually, I see no evidence that Trump's supporters voted for his populist authoritarianism. But I do see evidence that they voted against the inflation during Biden's term. In the summer of 2022, the inflation rate was over 9 percent--the highest inflation rate in 40 years. Overall, consumer prices have gone up over 20 percent under Biden. Home prices have gone up 37 percent. Gasoline prices 33 percent. It is true that over the past year, the inflation rate has dropped to about 2.4 percent. But notice what that means: Prices are not dropping. But the rate of increase has slowed.
Among voters who said that the poor economy--and particularly high inflation--was the primary issue for them, the great majority (60 to 70 percent) said that they were voting for Trump. This would explain the Latino and Black male vote for Trump.
Yesterday, the Associated Press released its AP VoteCast--a survey of more than 120,000 voters nationwide--that shows the primacy of the high-inflation issue for the Trump voters.
My mistake was not seeing that the American voter's hatred of high inflation will defeat any candidate who is identified as responsible for inflation. Harris pointed to the indicators of a growing economy with low unemployment. But she could not escape responsibility for inflation.
One of the Trump campaign's most effective tv ads juxtaposed these comments from Kamala Harris:
VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS, 2024: Everyday prices are too high... Food, rent, gas, back-to-school clothes.
HARRIS, 2023: That is called Bidenomics!HARRIS, 2024: A loaf of bread costs 50% more... ground beef is up almost 50%... There's not much left at the end of the month.
HARRIS, 2023: Bidenomics is working!
HARRIS, 2024: The price of housing has gone up. It feels so hard to be able to just get ahead.
HARRIS, 2023: We are so proud of Bidenomics!
That one ad might have been enough to defeat Harris.
How could Harris have answered this charge that Bidenomics caused high inflation? She could have argued that Bidenomics was an extension of Trumpenomics. Four years ago, the Biden administration and Congressional Democrats enacted the American Rescue Plan that pumped $1.9 trillion into the economy, which included $1,300 payments to American families. As predicted by economists like Larry Summers, this overstimulated the economy and created a surge in inflation starting in 2021 and peaking in 2022. But Harris could have argued that this ARP stimulus was simply adding to the $2.7 trillion in pandemic relief spending enacted under President Trump. So, if this was a mistake, it was a mistake made by both Trump and Biden.
Nevertheless, the American economy has recovered from the pandemic economic downturn faster and more robustly than any other economy in the world. And the rate of inflation has gone down dramatically in the past year, although Americans are now suffering from the overall increase in prices of over 20% over the past four years.
When Harris was asked whether she would have done anything different from what was done during Biden's term, she said she couldn't think of anything she would have done differently. What she should have said is "Yes, of course, the big spending programs supported by Biden--and by Trump!--drove up inflation. So, I promise to keep inflation low, and if inflation rises during my term, I promise that I will not run for a second term."
Harris could then have argued that if Trump were elected, voters would quickly become dissatisfied with Trump when his policies (such as high tariffs on imports) create a new surge in high inflation. The U.S. is the world's largest importer. The value of imported goods and services is over 3.8 trillion dollars a year. Imagine the higher prices that would come from putting tariffs of over 20% on all of that.
If this happens, the voters will turn against the Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential election, just as they turned against the Democrats in this year's election.
ADDENDUM (November 21)
On election night, Trump claimed that he had won an "unprecedented and powerful mandate."
As more late ballots have been counted, we now know that that is not true. In fact, Trump did not even win a majority of the national popular vote. His percentage now stands at 49.87 percent.
His popular vote margin over Kamala Harris now stands at 1.62 percent. That's about a half-percent smaller than Hillary Clinton's national popular vote margin over Trump in 2016. By comparison, Obama won the popular vote by 3.9 percent in 2012 and 7.2 percent in 2008. George W. Bush won the popular vote by 2.4 percent in 2004.
We can now say that having run for the presidency three times, Trump has never won a majority of the popular votes. That's not an "unprecedented and powerful mandate."
13 comments:
What if the military defeat of the major fascist governments in the 1940s wasn't biologically or philosophically preordained, but was rather just a fluke or random luck?
And what if the anti-fascist ethos, that arose from the trauma of WW2 and the Holocaust, has now, 80 years later, finally petered out?
What if "chimpanzee politics" is really the human norm, punctuated here and there briefly by anomalous leaders and event?
Hmm, inference to the best explanation: America either contains 72 million fascists, or 1 hysterical delusional academic.
This blog contains a treasure trove of information and analysis pertaining to philosophy and evolutionary biology, the likes of which is found nowhere else.
I don't think the Trump voters voted for populist authoritarianism. I have added four paragraphs to this post arguing that most of the Trump voters were voting against high inflation.
To your question: “If Trump carries out these and other promises for acting as a populist authoritarian, that will raise a second question: will the Americans who voted for him say yes, this is just what they wanted?” -
You answered it in saying “American voter's hatred of high inflation will defeat any candidate who is identified as responsible for inflation…”
As long as inflation is lowered, and Americans believe lower inflation is caused by Trump policies, then they will allow whatever authoritarian actions he may take, violent, coercive, or otherwise.
The analysis in this blog post about Harris losing because of high inflation certainly seems very credible.
In general, I think it is safe to assume that many voters barely knew what Trump's political philosophy and role models are, and they were merely voting against Harris and Democrats. I assume that polling and other research will bear that out.
But I would like to point out another pattern that seems relevant.
When Trump's rival in 2016 was a female, Trump won.
When Trump's rival in 2020 was a male, Trump lost.
When Trump's rival in 2024 was a female, Trump won.
No one seems to ever talk about the fact that the USA has never had a female president.
Nations like the UK and Germany have had top leaders who were female.
But the USA seems not ready to turn over the keys of the kingdom to what the Bible calls the "weaker sex."
The USA is an NFL nation, and there are no female quarterbacks.
The "chimpanzee" nature that is dominant in many voters simply can't feel secure with a female, with her shorter stature, her high-pitched voice, and her commitment to being nice and fair to all, trying to defend and lead the whole American nation.
During the campaign Trump focused on exhibiting masculinity and aggressiveness in everything he said and did. I think that was deliberate and planned. I think Trump understands the "sexism" that prevails in many or most voters and he used that to his advantage. Trump is lacking in morality, but not in street smarts.
Biology is a strong factor. Biology doesn't care that we condemn things like "sexism" or "racism." (Though I myself do condemn them and hope for progress against the odds.)
I agree with you that the natural bias favoring alpha male leaders is part of the explanation for Trump's victory. But that's not a sufficient explanation, particularly since Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016.
I suffered a huge shock when, starting in 2016, I saw men, who had a longstanding and sincere commitment to probity, decency, rationality, and morality, suddenly being converted into zealous, irrational unbalanced, ridiculous apologists for the bold, infamous practitioner of "chimpanzee politics," Donald Trump.
I concluded that if there was to be any hope for human civilization, we needed thought leaders who would see and describe the dynamics of the human world as they really are (i.e. what modern science shows us), and not only see the world through rational-philosophy-colored glasses.
Yes, beginning in 2016, I began writing a series of posts on Trump's "chimpanzee politics" in using bluffing displays to rise to alpha male dominance, which can create a cultish following. Now, I need to think more about that.
It seems to me that Trump has his MAGA base plus those who plug their collective noses to vote for him. It's a vote against leftist economics, yes, but also against soft on crime positions, illegal immigration, and what they see as the irrationality and illiberality of DEI, transgender activism, and leftist antisemitism/pro-Hamas positions -- positions advanced not by persuasive argument but by shouting, epithets, slogans, and threats.
What's difficult to separate are: Trump specific factors, the working class realignment, the Hispanic male vote, economic/political cycle timing, the weakness of Harris as a candidate, and the depth of anti-leftist sentiment.
THE PERPETUATION OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
The inauguration of the new president will be on Monday, January 20, 2025.
Coincidentally, it was also in late January that Lincoln delivered his landmark speech "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions," on January 27, 1838.
Many people have written and spoken about how that Lincoln speech is a very specific prophecy of and warning about Trump and the Trumpist movement.
I propose therefore that some suitable persons make arrangements for an appropriate person to publicly deliver the full text of that Lincoln speech, verbatim, on the Mall in Washington, D.C., in front of the Lincoln Memorial, shortly after the new president delivers his inauguration speech that will implicitly be a call-to-arms for permanent Trumpist/Caesarist changes in the structure of governance.
Possibly some media outlets, hungry for something inauguration-related to cover, will give this Lincoln speech some coverage.
I think many Americans will be stunned to hear and see that Lincoln, the person who was arguably America's greatest or most significant president, foresaw and worried about the rise of Trump, Trumpism, and the Trumpist mob.
The major media outlets hardly ever offer philosophical analysis of current political events. Let this event be an exception.
Trump and his mob-like followers in the Congress and in the streets are furiously working (some out of ignorance; some with full understanding) to carry out the "NON-Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions."
What better time to inform the nation about what Lincoln said about "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions"?
I think many people felt that Kamala Harris did not have a "commitment to being nice and fair to all". In fact, lots of people don't think females are automatically like that. Lots of people certainly didn't feel that way about Hillary, e.g., the way she trashed women who accused Bill of sexual bad behavior.
I think lots of people feel that Harris and her supporters were trying "to carry out the "NON-Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions."" I suspect there is a large overlap between those people and those who were not surprised by the Hunter Biden pardon.
Post a Comment