Both camps, media, political analysts, Internet folks have come up with several reasons for Trump's victory:
1. 'Fake news' promoted on Facebook platform
2. Clinton's email controversy resurfaced by James Comey, FBI Director, just the weekend before elections day
While the above factors may have contributed to influencing voting choice, I agree with Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's CEO, that people vote mainly based on their lived experiences. Cognitive political preferences and biases are developed from a young age and over a prolonged period of time. A Clinton supporter is unlikely to change his or her mind over the email controversy; a Trump supporter who does not find misogyny an offence or a deal-breaker would not be turned away by any number of his leaked tapes on groping women. A decisive individual who supports neither is more likely to vote for an Independent or not vote at all, than be convinced by news to vote for either. People who are on the fence, the swing voters or the Undecided, only make up a minority of the population and can hardly influence the outcome of election.
Here, I look at a more structural explanation:
Misguided White feminism, detached liberal elite representation (Clinton) < Solidarity of White conservative rural working-class, losers of globalisation who are left behind by the race of globalisation (Trump)
I couldn't help but notice a parallel between U.S and Thai politics. It has more to do with the demographics of a population than the maturity of a democracy. Trump's rural working-class supporters mirrors Thaksin's rural support majority, while Clinton's well-educated privileged supporters is a reflection of the urban Bangkok elite minority. Anek's 'Tale of Two Democracies', which proposes that democracy means differently to the rural and the urban, foretells the results of U.S. presidential elections. Given the strong correlation between residence (rural or urban) and education level, one would also logically put the rural and uneducated in one camp and the urban and educated in the opposing camp.
I was almost convinced that education level is what split the votes between Trump and Clinton. A highly educated person, who is more likely to have postmaterialist concerns for gender and racial equality, would condemn Trump's racist and misogynist remarks and be more inclined to support Clinton's #ImWithHer. A less educated person, on the other hand, is more concerned about bread-and-butter issues and easily swayed by radical electoral promises, no matter how unrealistic or impractical they sound.
However, the exit polls highlighted a much graver issue that drove the elections: immigration. Similar to Brexit campaign, immigration problems are what the locals loathe the most. The locals associate immigrants with most things negative - crime, competition for jobs and resources, overcrowding, infrastructural collapse. Few thank the immigrants for adding diversity and vibrancy to the society. As immigration dominate the concerns of voters, the candidate who capitalises on this topic would gain their attention and support better.
Trump did.
"BUILD THE WALL," he exclaimed and his supporters chanted after him. Trump had successfully tapped on the anger of people who feel marginalised and threatened by immigrants.
On the other hand, Clinton claims that US-Mexico border is secure and plans to support a path of citizenship for immigrants.
While Clinton's proposal is sound and logical, people have been too fed up to listen to her and believe her. People cannot stand political correctness anymore.
That's when campaign rhetoric becomes a powerful force in shaping voters' choice.
Trump promised the Americans that he would 'make America great again'. To that, Clinton's camp dismissed that America is weak now and instead incited people to be 'stronger together'. Honestly, Trump has a catchier and better slogan.
People who lost their jobs due to relocations of big companies, to low-wage immigrant labour, to globalisation as a whole, are frustrated. They want to believe in the American Dream again. They want someone strong who can stand his ground and bargain to the benefit of America. They want CHANGE (that Obama didn't deliver and Clinton couldn't promise to deliver).
I sound like I support Trump but I don't. I simply find merit in his campaign. People are easily bought by emotive words, not by logic. No president ever lives up to his (safe to use 'his' here instead of a gender-neutral pronoun in American context) campaign promises. Trump may have said a lot of crazy, unthinkable things but would he really act on any of them?
The wall? The deportation? The trade war? The withdrawal from NATO?
Many political analysts have expressed hope that President Trump would be a different person from Candidate Trump. (Then what's the point of voting for him right? I know. But this is politics for you.) There are reports of Trump being more subdued when he was meeting President Obama and in his interviews with the media. We shall see what happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment