by W.P.S. Sidhu
The 2016 US presidential election, probably the longest political reality show in the world, finally reached its dramatic climax yesterday and will put Donald Trump in the White House. With sub-plots, twists, and turns that would strain even the credibility of a Hollywood potboiler, the curtains came down on, perhaps, the most contentious and vicious hustings in the history of the United States. In the end it was not so much a contest to determine who was the more popular candidate but rather a competition to see who was less unpopular; it was, as one political commentator mused, “a race to the bottom”. The winner was merely just a little less unacceptable than the loser.
Nonetheless, Trump’s victory is historic. He is the first silver-spooned political novice, who has never held any public office in his life, to win the presidential election. In fact, Trump was only the second presidential candidate in the 160-year history of the Republican Party never to have served in any public, military or political office (the other was the 1940 nominee, Wendell Willkie, a lawyer and corporate executive who lost the election to Franklin D. Roosevelt by a wide margin).
Although Trump comfortably won the Electoral College votes, Hillary Clinton is projected to win the popular vote by the narrowest of margins, reflecting a deeply divided country and mandate. In fact, not only is the country divided but even the triumphant Republican party is split, with the traditional elite publicly opposed to Trump while the grass root members have overwhelmingly supported the real-estate mogul. While pundits had predicted a civil war within the Republican Party, the victory has put that on a hold for now. However, the deep divisions are likely to resurface and will be most apparent in the relationship between President Trump and the speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan.
Yet, based on the outcome of seats, for the first time since 1928 the Republicans will control the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate. This will potentially give them the opportunity to determine not only the composition of the Supreme Court but also make significant policy shifts (such as repealing Affordable Healthcare), even though many of these will not have the support of nearly half the US population. This in turn is likely to exacerbate the existing national divisions.
There are at least two possible explanations for Trump’s victory: one global and the other domestic. At the global level, the Trump phenomenon is part of the growing trend of populism, isolationism and narrow ultra-nationalism, which is a reaction to the globalization process that the world has witnessed since the end of the Cold War. The Trump victory is merely the biggest wave in the populist isolationist tsunami that saw the success of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. Like Brexit, the electorate was swayed not by facts and figures but by feelings, emotions and the promise of a nebulous better and brighter future.
At the domestic level, some experts note that Trump also benefitted from the growing trend of the population to migrate and concentrate in the areas with other politically like-minded people. Thus, Republican and Democrat voters chose to move to states and even areas within states where people similar to them live. This on the one hand dramatically reduced the number of so-called swing or purple states to a handful (scholars point out that in the 1960 election as many as 37 states were swing states). On the other hand, such single party dominant political constituencies (exacerbated by gerrymandering of voting districts) has increased the political divide, as politically homogeneous population pockets see no need and make no effort to bridge differences with those who oppose them.
At the same time Trumps’ victory was also supported by Clinton’s inability to attract minority voters – African-Americans, Hispanics and others – in significant numbers as President Barack Obama was able to. Even more telling, Clinton was also unable to hold on to those blue and white collar majority voters in swing states that had voted for Obama; almost all of them turned to Trump.
Just as Trump’s victory will lead to a power struggle among the Republicans, Clinton’s defeat is likely to bring into the open a similar tussle within the Democratic Party. In particular the center left of the party, represented by Senator Bernie Sanders, will question the party’s leadership in supporting the Clinton candidacy, despite the apparent flaws in the candidate. This conflict might turn out to be even more contentious than the opposition to the Republicans.
There are two possible scenarios of how a Trump presidency might unfold. In the first scenario Trump would seek to reconcile with the Republican Party leadership and reach out to some of the most respected and accomplished policy makers within the party to fill his cabinet. This would allow him to provide broad political direction but step back from the day to day running of the country and leave it to the experts. This model would be similar to the Ronald Reagan presidency who appointed some of the best and brightest policy makers (such as George Schultz and James Baker) to successfully carry out his agenda.
The second scenario would see Trump remain estranged or even at loggerheads with the Republican Party. Such an unreconciled Trump might not turn to the party’s talent pool but might look elsewhere. In this case he is likely to reach out either to family members or others in his close circle who are likely to be political novices like him. Such a kitchen cabinet, though more in tune with Trump’s thinking, might put his administration in direct conflict with the Republican-held Congress and could bog down his agenda.
It remains to be seen which of these two scenarios comes into being, but the indications at least from Trump’s running of the campaign and his personality is that he is more likely to opt for the second scenario. That option, however, would serve neither those who voted for him or the US well.
W.P.S. Sidhu is Visiting Professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs and Senior Fellow at the Center on International Cooperation.