Lessons from America
This is not an authoritative analysis of the outcome of the US election. It is very much a personal view. It attempts to understand why the majority of the voting public could elect such a flawed individual as President of the most powerful nation on earth. The outcome is entirely understandable and reasonable. It serves as lessons for our leaders that they would do well to learn. At the end of the article is a reading list of some of the articles that I read over the last few days on the subject and which contributed to my thinking.
Former Prime Minister John Key predicted that Donald Trump would win the Presidential election in the US and supported him. He was right. He was talking from an economic perspective. His comments attracted a storm of criticism. One critic was Simon Wilson (Quelle surprise!!) and I wrote about it here.
In that post I observed that I found it astonishing that out of a population that contains the wealth of talent present in the United States two such mediocre candidates have been nominated for the most powerful office in the world. I also noted as follows:
“The problem with Trump is that he is a crook. He lies, he has no respect for the Rule of Law, he is authoritarian and has little time for democratic principles or for the Constitution which he has previously sworn to uphold and, if he wins, will swear to uphold again on Inauguration Day. The damage that he might do to the US system could be immense as he attacks “the enemy within” and he will allow the dictators and fellow authoritarians in Russia, North Korea, Iran and China to flourish and become more powerful.”
Despite those grave shortcomings he not only obtained a sizable majority of Electoral College votes. He also secured a majority of the popular vote – 74,708,357 or 50.5% as at 11 November 2024.
To that very sizable proportion of the American voting public his shortcomings did not disqualify him from the Presidency. Clearly his personal foibles were put to one side. And his likely attacks on the “enemy within” – that may in the long run be seen as a plus.
So what was it that enabled 50.5% of the voting public to put those shortcomings aside and vote for a Trump Presidency. The explanation may be that it represents, as Bryce Edwards put it, a major political realignment.
John Key stated:
“Truthfully, there is a movement happening around the world… You can feel, you know, all sorts of emotions about that, but you can’t deny it.”
Key was deliciously vague and light – if not ephemeral – on detail. But he certainly had something.
The outcome of the US election seems to represent a disenchantment on the part of the electorate with the status quo and importantly the institutions that are part of the status quo.
The commentariat has been rife with analysis. Matthew Hooton sees the result as a blow of working people against liberal elites. He concludes:
“It is extremely unfortunate that their legitimate demands to be respected but left alone have been expressed through a person as dangerous to the world’s strategic and economic stability and survival of the American democratic republic as Trump.”
Andrea Vance supported the proposition that Trump’s election represented a massive realignment in politics, demographics and class. Not just in the United State, but throughout the West.
The problem in America was that many people were not happy with the status quo. In the New York Times for 9 September that feeling was clear. It was reported that more than 60 percent of likely voters said the next president should represent a major change from Mr. Biden, but only 25 percent said the vice president represented that change, while 53 percent said Mr. Trump, the former president, did.
There was clearly dissatisfaction with the status quo. Couple that with a perception (although it is a reality) that the institutions that we would normally rely on are failing or have failed and that dissatisfaction is enhanced.
And this is not just a problem for the United States. Sam Freedman graphically describes the problem in his books “Failed State: Why Nothing Works and How We Fix It”.
\Freedman focusses on problems facing the State in Britan. But the symptoms he describes have a universal quality about them. It is harder than ever to get a GP appointment. Twelve hour waits in A & E are routine. Burglaries go unpunished – often uninvestigated. Streets and harbours are overrun with sewage. The Court system is creaking. The prisons are full. It is almost impossible to get anything done. Bureaucratic red tape means that projects are past their use by date before they are built. And the completion of projects takes forever.
But instead of addressing these important issues (the commentariat describes them loftily as “existential” – of or pertaining to existence) our representatives seem more concerned with ephemeral or “woke” issues that seem to focus more on the way we live our lives. The focus seems to be on the Word Economic Forum, the World Health Organisation and the “climate change” industry rather than the things that affect us day-to-day.
It is not unreasonable to expect that a coal miner in West Virginia, struggling in a job that has been in his family for generations, with a family to support, children to educate and a mortgage to pay is not going to vote for a climate change policy that will put him out of a job and destroy the future of his family.
The problem becomes exacerbated when Governments become distracted by issues such as ESG (environmental,social and governance) issues as well as the ever present DEI (diversity, equity [ which is different from equality] and inclusion) rather than focussing upon delivering service to “we the people” their employers who put them there.
As far as the US election is concerned all this and more was part of the status quo that had been developing for years and seemed irreversible. The dissatisfaction that many Americans had with the direction in which the country was heading was ignored by the Harris campaign.
Perhaps as symptom of the depth of disease may be seen in the way in which some academic institutions responded to the election. Classes were cancelled by lecturers who were too depressed to continue and so that students could grieve or go to counselling.
Two books – “The Coddling of the American Mind” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Heidt and “The Cancelling of the American Mind” by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott – analyse the nature of the problem. In essence this sort of lack of emotional resilience is part of the push back that has taken place on the part of 50.5% of the US electorate.
But there is more to it than that. The middle class has been struggling for years. Inflation has hit hard. People feel that their financial situation is in reverse. Let’s get back to the reality of the American dream. Let’s make America Great Again. This message resonated in the minds of many for whom the American Dream had become a nightmare – where America had deserted “We the people”; where Washington DC had betrayed its constituency
Harris had no economic policy. Her approach and that of the Democrats was more of the same. Rather than focusing on what she would do she personalized the election, casting Trump as the villain. She offered no pathway forward. No remedy for the daily ills of society. No hope for the future. And America was fed up with more of the same and an arrogant Left (and Harris is well to the Left of Biden) telling them how to live their lives, think and speak.
Harris failed to properly “read the room” and get the message. And she relied on mainstream media to get her message out whereas Trump blitzed all the digital communications outlets. He gave three hours to Joe Rogan because he understood – and Harris didn’t – that Rogan’s audience was a constituency in itself.
In voting as they voted the American people, motivated by a souring economic position, a depressing outlook and the threat of outside controls over which they had no say decided to push back. Enough of this, was the cry. Enough of the woke approach. Lets get back to basics.
The problem is that this does not seem to be understood by Governments even now. As Bruce Cotterill noted in the Herald for 9 November 2024
“Freedom of speech is being challenged somewhere around the world daily. In Australia this week we’re seeing the Government attempting to introduce a ‘misinformation’ bill.
We’re seeing governments having a crack at individuals because of something on social media. But as we’ve learned, the disinformation is seldom coming from “we, the people”. As we reflect on the Covid pandemic, we know that much of the disinformation is peddled by governments. And as we consider the recent outcomes of the US election, we also know that the major TV networks are as guilty of misinformation as anyone.
And so, as times get tougher, and as a result of these overlapping crises, the people, understandably, are pushing back. Centre-right parties across Europe have led the way in most of the year’s electoral contests. In South America, El Salvador’s new president has taken an extreme response to their crime wave, and Argentina’s new president is one of the most aggressive in pursuing economic reform. The new Dutch Government is pushing back on immigration and others are following.”
The lessons would seem to be clear. The question is whether or not they will be learned. Shane te Pou writing in the Herald for 10 November 2024 (and who I never thought I would quote) puts the case for the lessons for the Left. He says:
“People don’t want the status quo with minor, technocratic changes. If the left doesn’t offer real hope (think Obama, Tony Blair, and Jacinda Ardern) they’ll go to the right, who promise tax cuts and to burn down failed institutions, or they’ll just not vote.
Others will argue the solution is to tack to the right. A mate messaged me: “Biden pivoted too far left and tried to be the next FDR. There’s only so much Harris could have done; responsibility ultimately lies with him.”
But haven’t we seen time and again that if you only offer voters a choice between right-wing and right-wing-lite, they’ll go with the real thing?”
And the lesson for National/ACT/NZFirst – well there are three strands there.
NZFirst (read Winston Peters and Shane Jones) seem to give the impression that they are reading the room and let’s face it, Peters has resurrected so often he would make Christ envious. But do they really get it. In many respects Peters (who is just a little older than I am – we were in the same class at law school) is a bit long in the tooth and perhaps too much of a “politician” to do what needs to be done. Shane Jones needs to learn to speak to the people – he comes across as a bit lofty, a bit “talking down”. But a supportive back to basics approach would go far.
ACT and David Seymour are prepared to step into the firing line. The Treaty Principles policy in my view is a good one and it is a debate that is worth having. It may well be an issue where feelings run deep. Seymour is not out to burn the Treaty to a crisp. Far from it. He wants to have clear principles, decided upon by the people, as to how the Treaty should be applied going forward. This could be an issue where public opinion may be surprising. A six month select committee process will be interesting.
On other policies ACT favours getting the State out of people’s lives and that should resonate with the majority unless you are a State dependent.
As for National, it is abundantly clear that Mr Luxon cannot read the room. His approach to the Treaty Principles policy speaks volumes. One wonders what discussions he has had with middle New Zealand about the issue.
And that is the problem. The major parties seem to be disconnected from their constituents and from the public. Rather than introduce dramatic changes, dispensing with the arrogant molly-coddling of the Left with their focus on “feelings” and “safety” it is just more of the same.
They all really need to read the room. Because if they don’t they may well be surprised.
Reading List
Mark Lilla “Another Change Election” https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/11/07/another-change-election-mark-lilla/
Bryce Edwards “Democracy Briefing: Trumps win reflects a major political shift in the US and NZ
Bruce Cotterill “Trump’s triumph: How the working class reshaped US politics” https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/trumps-triumph-how-the-working-class-reshaped-us-politics-bruce-cotterill/WBHYLEEG5ZET7BVN2QHS5OIHHE/
Shane te Pou US Elections: Why Kamala Harris lost and lessons for NZ’s Labour Party https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/us-elections-why-kamala-harris-lost-and-the-lessons-for-nzs-labour-party-shane-te-pou/NS5FL2YSEZCXRAD2GMRPPX5EY4/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Heather du Plessis Allen “US election: Yes, Donald Trump is a bad guy, but he should be a better President than Joe Biden – Heather du Plessis-Allan” https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/us-election-yes-donald-trump-is-a-bad-guy-but-he-should-be-better-a-president-than-joe-biden-heather-du-plessis-allan/Q6KGLOIT45DZ5HPOJ5GCWEEDJ4/
Derek Thompson “How Donald Trump Won Everywhere” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/donald-trump-covid-election/680559/?utm_medium=cr&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=11_09_2024_election2024_post_election_roundup_resend_engaged_curated_prospects_large&utm_term=post_election_politics_actives_tta
Thomas Chatterton Williams “What the Left Keeps Getting Wrong” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/11/progressives-errors-2024-election/680563/?utm_medium=cr&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=11_09_2024_election2024_post_election_roundup_resend_engaged_curated_prospects_large&utm_term=post_election_politics_actives_tta
Spencer Kornhaber “Why Democrats Are Losing the Culture War” https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2024/11/right-wing-influencers-trump-rogan/680575/?utm_medium=cr&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=11_09_2024_election2024_post_election_roundup_resend_engaged_curated_prospects_large&utm_term=post_election_politics_actives_tta
Andrew Gold “Why I’m off the fence about Trump”
Frank Furedi “Trump Elected- But There Must Be No Let UP In The Fight To Defend Our Culture!”
Thanks David. I feel that your views concur with a stream of thinking I've been picking up as Ive read through the accumulating analyses of the US election results...... and I like your tie-in with NZ. Thanks also for the references for ongoing reading. Just a couple of points I had a response to, in the description of Trump (which I think was pretty accurate): that he is a crook, and authoritarian. I've heard and read a number of comments about Americans not liking the "lawfare" that was conducted against Trump as a political weapon by the Democratically-aligned, rather than from any real desire to uphold the law. A useful piece I read on this was by a senior lawyer and legal analyst called Elie Honig in an online magazine or platform called The Intelligencer. Trump may be a crook but in this case, it was opined, Americans didn't like the law itself behaving rather crookedly against him.
As for him being authoritarian, I would say that in the past few years the increasing authoritarianism of the Left across Western democracies, including the Democrat camp in the US, has stood out significantly by contrast. Such as been the impact on Americans, which you note, that Trump's authoritarian tendencies must have appeared insignificant.
Trump may be an idiot, but the man does what he says he’ll do. James Allen is a fan and he’s the best legally trained commentator I ever seen (no offence intended…)
But you are so right about Luxflakes. The man is proving to be both a coward & a fool. Seymour’s Bill will gain support from the public. There is a clear shift worldwide that would have come sooner but for the leftie media bias. But come it has. National will lose many votes over this. The majority of folk in NZ are decent family-focused folk. They had enough of woke BS. Rather late first my liking but at least they’re now waking up.
ps Haidt, not Heidt. Brilliant man.