Don't Laugh, It's Our Fault
The 2020 US election result shows populism works, and it could happen here.
The US election result was not what many left-leaning commentators would have hoped.
Although Joe Biden is likely to win the presidency, Donald Trump’s sustained popularity despite his various gaffes and failures demonstrate ‘Trumpism’ is here to stay.
Trump has not only remained popular, but has powerfully flipped the script on right-leaning politics.
Not only has Trump made traditionally “Blue wall” states competitive. But more than any other Republican president, Trump has attracted significant support amongst minority voters.
Given these numbers, don’t be surprised if we see a shift in discourse amongst centre-right parties globally as they dabble in Trumpism.
Whilst an exact Trump-like figure is unlikely to rise in Australia (a bit too garishly commercial for our taste), certain aspects of his political style are likely to prove just as successful.
So what is Trumpism? Why does it work? And, most importantly, how can we stop it?
‘Out of Touch Elites’ - Trumpism 101
Trumpism is really just a variant on political populism.
Populism isn’t an ideology which fits on the left/right spectrum, but rather a style of doing politics.
The general academic view is that populism does two things:
Claims to speak on behalf of ordinary people.
Rallies these ordinary people to stand in opposition to an elite establishment which stops them from fulfilling their political preferences.
Although endless commentary has been spent pointing out that Trump is a spoilt millionaire, far removed from ‘ordinary people’, these takes often miss the point.
Trump works because he isn’t a “millionaire’s millionaire” - he’s tacky, arrogant and unprofessional. He doesn’t behave like a rich person normally does in public.
There is an insightful thread on Reddit where conservatives are asked why they voted for Trump, and this comment nicely explains his appeal:
Imagine being picked-on by a group of private school kids your whole life. They called you stupid. They said your church teaches bigotry and your family teaches racism. They took 20% of every dollar you earned, then they shipped your brother off to die in Afghanistan.
Then some guy from Queens moves in next door. He laughs at those private school kids. He pushes them around until they give back some of your money. They call him a bigot too, but he doesn’t seem to care. He promises you another of your siblings will never come home in a box.
The ‘elites’ targeted by populism are usually decision-makers with institutional authority: judges, politicians, journalists, academics etc.
In ‘right-wing populism’ - which is what Trumpism is - this rhetorical style is used to support classic conservative agendas: anti-immigration, tax cuts, anti-abortion measures etc.
Why Does It Work?
Over the last few days, many have tried to grapple with the election results with most American progressives blaming structural white supremacy, the appeal of toxic masculinity amongst minorities or some other ideological impurity.
I think that there’s a much easier explanation: Trump is right.
Far too often there is a view that Trumpism is just a form of anti-intellectualism: wanting to reject the pursuit of knowledge in favour of an ideological fantasyland filled with personal prejudices. But what if the opposite is true?
What if we who spend far too much of our time obsessing about “justice” and “progress” have built hefty political constructs that can’t be crammed through in a democracy?
The political philosopher Bernard Williams was one of the more erudite critics of American liberalism and its tendency to make politics an exercise in “applied morality”.
He argued in favour of building consensus, where institutions are justified not because of abstract moral reasons (the prejudice of the elites) but actual acceptance by the people.
This idea of value pluralism and open democracy is often viewed as completely unacceptable by politically engaged intellectuals as it means that all ideals: fairness, civil liberties, human rights, etc are contingent.
However, Williams argues that this contingency is necessary in order to ensure that the fundamentals of political authority are upheld: order, protection, safety, trust, and the conditions of cooperation (what he called the ‘first political question’).
Our progressive intellectual prejudices therefore not only stop us from understanding what voters actually want, but ultimately undermine real democracy in practice.
Is it not our prejudice for “applied morality” which has made progressive politics gradually more authoritarian? Far more likely to use institutional force to shut down the bigoted and those “on the wrong side of history” than accept value pluralism?
Now more than ever it’s important to listen to voters and not try to read moral failings into their choices merely because their interests don’t fit our convenient progressive narratives.
Actually Listening To Voters
It turns out when you listen to what voters actually want, meeting their needs isn’t all that hard.
Key themes from the exit polls indicate most US voters care about improving their economic position and feeling safe - pretty fundamental interests.
Whether we like it or not, the Trump presidency was largely an economic success story particularly for minority groups.
Similarly, whilst his rhetoric on Black Lives Matter and ‘Antifa’ related rioting may have hurt him with black voters and progressives, it played very well with voters concerned about security.
Too often centre-left parties focus their time on identity and cultural issues, or “big picture” social programs, rather than clearly articulating how their policies will improve economic wellbeing and keep people safe.
On a personal-professional note, I’m very supportive of progressive criminal justice reform but I’m constantly having to explain why such reforms are actually about violence prevention, rather than “sympathy for criminals”.
This isn’t helped when much progressive intellectual discourse on criminal justice reform is framed around “civil rights” - applied morality which most voters do not care about.
Economic messages within progressive intellectual circles are similarly confused.
Much commentary is spent on the lowest rung of society - the homeless, welfare recipients etc. However, that means that broader “economic growth” messages which benefit everyone are seceded to the Right.
Accordingly to the exit polls, the economy was the number one priority for most US voters and it seems the Democrats did not have a strong enough economic message.
—
Ultimately, Trumpism is the result of failures on the left. We are out of touch elites who need to do better. Democracy isn’t our own personal morality project.
Here’s hoping that a near Trump win gives people the shock they need to cultivate a new way of thinking about progress, with focus on core issues voters actually care about.