Winston Churchill (may have) said it best: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
The 2016 presidential election continued to confound up until its dying gasp. There was one point after the debates when Hillary Clinton looked to be building up an insurmountable popular and electoral lead; then came the FBI bombshell about additional emails being reviewed which reopened the entire trust issue dogging her relentlessly for years, thus allowing Donald Trump to refocus his attacks and close the gap; Director James Comey’s furtive letter to congressional leaders essentially reinforcing his earlier conclusion that the emails contained no new damning information. Finally, there was the high drama of election night itself, as it steadily became clearer and clearer as each state's results were tallied, that the improbable had occurred. Trump had won, and will, on January 20th, 2017, be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States.
We observed not just the victory of one man, but the defeat of two parties. One was the Democratic Party as represented by Hillary Clinton, the other was the old establishment Republican party of Ronald Reagan and the George Bushes. In effect, a third force, built on populist, isolationist views, has seized the reins of power and must now channel its rebel anger towards implementing policies and practicing good governance. What form this will take, is a matter of speculation as Trump savors his victory, puts together his cabinet, and embarks on a three month period of transition that spans election to inauguration day.
The futures markets have fallen into a deep swoon, and very likely so too will the rest of the stock markets across the world. Global exchanges hate uncertainty, and none had priced his victory into their calculations. No more Hillary 'Safe pair of Hands' Clinton. Hello, Mr. Orange (for his rather odd tan).
Pronouncements of doom and semi-histrionic polemics have erupted from the progressive quarter in the US and overseas, foreign governments publicly offer congratulations but privately question American voter sanity; their media outlets are more blunt, and equally incredulous. All lament the choice made by the American people and prophesy that the US will become a much more inward-looking nation which will quickly get caught up in a kind of twilight zone where Trump will try and run the country like an extended episode of 'The Apprentice.' Pundits predict that he will not "Make America Great Again" but instead get caught up in perpetual controversy and scandal, allowing China and Russia to step into the void and make their bids for world leadership much more overt.
This collective hand-wringing is premature. Nothing has happened yet. It may indeed come true, but for now it's important not to lose sight of the scale of Trump's triumph. Without being taken seriously back when he'd first declared his candidacy, without the backing of the Republican political establishment save Senator Jeff Sessions and Governor Chris Christie, without a definable 'ground-game' or conventional campaign organization, and in the face of amateurish missteps and misstatements that would have sunk any conventional candidate, Trump kept winning primary after primary, captured the nomination, then capped it all by mounting a comeback unprecedented in US history.
If all of that was not enough, there is one, undeniable fact: in a true democracy nothing validates a person more than winning a free election. That supersedes all other considerations. By whatever margin the final vote totals end up being, Donald Trump did it his way. And the American people have endorsed him for it.
We’ve been here before. One recalls the global shock at George W. Bush's 2004 re-election. How could the US be so stupid as to keep Bush in power? Reaching further back there was Bush's 2000 victory over Al Gore. The polls were wrong then too, and the results shocking for many.
The wonderful thing about truly (or largely) democratic elections is the essential unpredictability of the electorate and the fact that in unconventional years with at least one unconventional candidate as a major party standard bearer, conventional rules do not apply. Ask Barack Obama, the first of the now two renegades who have defeated Hillary Clinton.
Several reasons led to this initial conclusion:
-The fine de siècle vote: the last time an incumbent party won three straight presidential elections was 1988, when George H.W. Bush followed Ronald Reagan’s two terms by winning one of his own. Bush followed an enormously popular president who’d been widely perceived as having won the Cold War, the economy was still buoyant, and America was the unchallenged hyperpower. Every administration after that, has suffered from voter fatigue, either due to scandal (Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky for Bill Clinton), unpopular wars (Iraq and Afghanistan for George W. Bush) and financial downturns (Barack Obama).
-Weak successors: Reagan understudy George H.W. Bush failed in his bid for re-election in 1992, hobbled by a weakening economy and breaking his infamous pledge to not raise taxes; Al Gore sputtered out by running a surprisingly lifeless campaign (including losing the presidential debates), not leveraging Bill Clinton’s popularity; and John McCain, whose selection of neophyte unknown governor Sarah Palin was unable to counter Barack Obama’s sheer star power and the hangover effect of the 2008 financial meltdown. Hillary Clinton struggled to overcome the trust question, her own limitations as a campaigning candidate, and, in the end, the fact that she has been around politics longer than many voters have been alive.
-Change: rebellions are not only angry reactions against the status quo of perceived elites prospering at the expense of the middle/lower classes, they are also expressions of hope that a “throw the bums out”, anti-establishment backlash will someone bring about equitable change. George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump ran on change. By wrapping themselves in this word and its mystical implications, this gave them the opportunity to offer limited insight into how they would govern, while they went on the attack, capitalizing on voter fatigue, angst and loss of hope. Trump and Bernie Sanders saw the wave of anger from opposite political poles; Clinton could not run as anything else but her experience in a year where experience was a four-letter word. The fact that she could never settle on a simple, clear reason as to why she wanted to be president, likely did not help her cause.
-Voter turnout: there was a lot said about Clinton’s ground game, how Trump’s comments about Latinos, women, etc etc would bring out those groups in record numbers, yet this did not seem to happen. In fact, it actually appeared that the GOP succeeded in galvanizing their white, rural base to an extraordinary degree and overwhelmed that portion of the Obama collation which did vote for her. Coupled with the fact that Clinton lost ground among Latinos (she won 65% of eligible voters vs Obama's 71%) and blacks (88% turned out vs 93% for Obama in 2012) and 65% of Asians went for her ticket as opposed to Obama's 72% four years ago. Though whites are losing ground as a percentage of the overall population (70% of all Americans vs 72% in 2012), Clinton garnered 2% fewer voters than the incumbent president (37% to 39%) and had 5% fewer young voters aged 18 - 29 then Obama.
-The X Factor: a long time ago, political parties got together to vote for one of their own as a major party nominee. Thus, it was usual for a governor, senator, congressman or party grandee to emerge as standard bearer. With the advent of free media like television, the internet, Twitter etc. insurgents can now speak over the heads of the old political elites and appeal directly to the voting public with an ease previously unthought of. Trump’s genius lay in recognizing how he could capitalize on his celebrity to do just that. Time after time in the primaries the media and the pundits intoned that he was finished, that scandals and controversy which would have sunk any other candidate would surely finish him off this time. Yet he kept winning, enough to propel himself to the nomination first, then the presidency.
What comes next?
It is important to remember that the United States remains a nation of laws, with checks, and balances built into their system of government. Now, it is likely with a President Trump that many of the governmental institutions will come under considerable strain from the types of changes and policies he is likely to implement, but they are designed to be resilient. Ironically, not so long ago Republicans were urging their supporters to help their party retain control of Congress as a check against a Clinton administration. Now Paul Ryan, John McCain and other like-minded pragmatists may find themselves doing the same to a Trump White House. The Founding Fathers may not have designed a perfect process, but it has survived Warren Harding's ineffectiveness, Andrew Johnson and Bill Cinton’s impeachments, and perhaps most egregious of all, the Watergate mess with Richard Nixon.
Donald Trump has made winning his life’s code. Even when he’s lost he still spins it into a win. Having reached the pinnacle of power, he likely does not want history to judge him a failed (or mediocre) president. On the contrary, Trump is likely to want to prove all of his critics wrong (again) by becoming a truly transformational figure.
His initial statements, made after the white heat of his election victory had been called, have been encouraging in their generosity and gravitas. The question is, can he keep it up? And just exactly what are the specifics of his policies? Newt Gingrich or Bob Corker as Secretary of State? Rudy Giulliani as Attorney General? Mike Flynn for National Security Advisor? Stay tuned.
We will wake to a different world. The markets will recover. World leaders will adjust because they have to and they always do. Those who voted against Donald Trump, believing him to be a sexist, misogynistic demagogue will start the search for a new and more credible champion, all the while wondering what has, or will become, of their party and their nation.
Trump's supporters, having torn down the establishment they so loathe, will wait impatiently for its replacement, and indulge in a bit of hope that he will somehow fulfill his campaign slogan.
Winning may turn out to be the easy part. Governing, like comedy, is hard.