NewsBite

Advertisement

Opinion

Trump’s win surprised many. But the real shock would have been if he’d lost

In the wake of every election, there is the temptation to read into it some seismic implication. Doubly so when that election involves so disruptive a figure as Donald Trump. It’s as though he is so overwhelmingly unconventional, that every vote for him must be, too.

The syllogism seems to run roughly as follows: Trump is racist/misogynist/dictatorial; therefore his voters are racist/misogynist/dictatorial and vote for corresponding reasons. And if America votes for him en masse, then it must fit this description, too.

Following the election, many pundits have tried to simplify the reasons for people voting for Trump.

Following the election, many pundits have tried to simplify the reasons for people voting for Trump. Credit: AP

This style of reasoning seems to apply both in victory and defeat. In this way, many allowed themselves to conclude that Biden’s victory in 2020 was some kind of repudiation of Trumpism that would have it receding into history as a footnote. Thus, 2016 could be rendered a kind of spectacular accident, possible only because the electoral college makes it possible to lose the popular vote and still win office.

Needless to say, anyone inclined to that sort of analysis is likely to be in a state of shock now, having discovered what always should have been clear: that Trump’s victory was no aberration. In the right circumstances, it is repeatable and expandable.

Against this background, the range of catastrophe-laden interpretations of Trump’s 2024 victory is to be expected. So, we read that it reveals the full-scale crisis of American white rage, despite Trump’s coalition expanding into racial minorities. Or that Trump’s success with male voters raises the urgent question of why American men simply hate women, when it might be better to ask why Kamala Harris did worse with women than both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton did – even when abortion was such a central issue. And we read fretful analyses that – given Trump’s refusal to accept his 2020 election defeat and his attempts to overturn it – Americans have finally revealed they no longer care about democracy.

Loading

All of these, I think, misread the situation. Or more precisely, they over-read it. Each makes the same error: they decide what Trump represents in a one-dimensional way, then construe the meaning of a vote for Trump accordingly.

So, for example, if you believe Trump is, above all else, a threat to democracy, it is easy to decide anyone who votes for him regards democracy as unimportant. The danger of this approach is that it tends to decide voters’ intentions for them – and often in spite of them.

While some genuinely serious trends are emerging in American voting, what if there is actually less to this election than meets the eye? All the truly consequential stuff – the increased Latino vote, the Democrats’ lost grip on the working class, the educational divide – has been building for decades. But as far as this particular election is concerned, if you can bring yourself to set aside the madcap Trumpist pyrotechnics, we’re left with a pretty conventional election result.

Advertisement

Last week, a historically unpopular government, presiding over a period of high inflation that saw food prices especially explode, got thrown out of office. There is quite simply nothing extraordinary about that.

There were some quirks along the way – Biden’s withdrawal, the overturning of Roe v Wade, Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally – but the essential grammar of the contest remained. Three-quarters of Americans said they were financially worse off than four years ago.

Frankly, the Republicans should be winning that election. It’s an anti-incumbent’s dream. Voters’ two biggest concerns – the economy and immigration – happened to be the Republicans’ two biggest strengths. We saw almost every demographic (black women the exception) in almost every county swing Republican.

That Trump would be the Republican candidate to benefit isn’t an endorsement of his every excess. Indeed, exit polls show that voters liked Harris more than Trump, giving her a slightly higher approval rating. But they overwhelmingly felt Trump was more likely to bring change, and America was desperate for that. Put simply, Trump’s excesses weren’t enough to reverse the fundamentals.

Loading

That doesn’t mean Americans voted for those excesses. More often, they felt they were secondary; distractions rather than definitive. Examining Trump’s huge success with Latino voters, NPR found that some were offended when Trump sounded off about Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs, and considered not voting at all, but ultimately cared more about their economic wellbeing.

Similarly, Democrats and some establishment Republicans urged Americans to conclude Trump threatened democracy. But it was entirely possible to deplore January 6 and still vote for Trump – not because you don’t value democracy, but because you believe it is strong enough to withstand him.

Take this reluctant Trump voter in Michigan, explaining to The New York Times why she doesn’t ultimately regard Trump as an existential threat: “He said he was going to lock Hillary up. Hillary is still running around talking the fact that he’s this, that and the other. She’s not locked up. They said that he wasn’t going to leave [the White House]. Yeah, there were a bunch of rowdy people who did some stupid stuff on January 6, but when January 20 came around, he left. I don’t think that one person can take down this country no matter who it is”. She chose Trump on the basis of the economy, too, specifically on his manufacturing policies.

You can regard such voters as wrongheaded or naive if you wish. You can object to their priorities. And in the fullness of time, if Trumponomics fails dismally or American democracy really is compromised, you might even be proven correct. But that doesn’t justify mischaracterising these voters’ motivations and foisting upon them an interpretation of their vote they wouldn’t recognise. Aside from anything else, it underestimates the prospects of Democrat victory in four years’ time.

When Barack Obama won the White House in 2008, his victory was more resounding than this year’s. Then, too, overstatement carried the day. America had forever changed, overcoming its racial history. When Hillary Clinton lost, it proved America couldn’t elect a woman, despite the fact she won the popular vote, and that swing states such as Michigan have a female governor.

The truth is often less spectacular than all that because elections are always marginal affairs. And perhaps that’s worth identifying so that things become more intelligible, the whiplash less severe, the world a recognisable place.

Waleed Aly is a regular columnist.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.

Most Viewed in Politics

Loading

Original URL: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/trump-s-win-surprised-many-but-the-real-shock-would-have-been-if-he-d-lost-20241113-p5kqdw.html