Several things happened this week, but most relevant to future stability of the world, quite a few Americans voted for Donald Trump to be their next president, shocking the mainstream media and other observers, who had predicted his loss. The answer is simply that a lot of white men, blue-collar and educated, voted for him, as did many white women. Apparently, 29% Hispanics also voted for him as did some Chinese and Hindu Americans. What created this voter complexity requires some explanation of these factors that came together to create a perfect storm for Hillary Clinton.
First, for some of the states, such as Pennsylvania, that were surprise wins for Trump, economic decline began with the transfer of manufacturing due to trade processes put in place by President Reagan. Fracking was expected to boost these economies. But the low-price strategy employed by Saudis not only hit Saudis but also some states in America. A lot of white people who live in these states blamed it on their black President. It is interesting how race and economy connects for some. The economy does matter. One also cannot ignore the presence of underpaid workers such as those at Walmart who can’t afford to pay rent and have to rely on food stamps for sustenance. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-low-wage-employers-cost-taxpayers-153-billion-a-year/)
Second, and crucially, Donald Trump’s win is a victory of the idea of a strongmen, aka, patriarchy. Clearly, the world is not changing. The much desired transformative event did not occur; on the contrary, the voters showed their resistance to transformation. American elections reflected a phenomenon, which is apparent in rest of the world. Need for a strongmen is the dominant political theme and has been for a while. Trump, Putin, Modi, Xi Jinping, Duterte, Kim Jong-un are all beneficiaries of this perspective. The candidate Trump went as far as to suggest an admiration for Kim Jong-un who at such young age dealt with his tough generals. Kim Jong-un, in response, declared Trump a wise politician.
We live in a world where people are afraid of outsiders, uniquely defined by one’s community and its condition. We need strongmen who will stop dangerous elements from crossing over into our borders, through internet, through products, through food trucks, through poor migrants and refugees, into our families. It seems that globalizing forces add to such insecurities and makes many feel like minorities. This election was a victory of that sentiment, which was expressed by the white population of America, and apparently, some minorities who also favour strongmen. Women leaders, as experienced as they may be as in the case of Hillary, cannot provide adequate security for this population. She was accused of failing to protect Americans, via errors of classified emails, Benghazi, etc.
So why isn't Trump-Putin love affair a concern for Trump supporters? Apparently, as many Asians, Americans too live in the world of hindsight and historic greatness. For them, the bi-polar world of the Cold War was safer when Russians and Americans were dominant. They were the rational actors who controlled nuclear weapons and understood nuclear deterrence. Also there wasn’t much confusion about the identity of your enemy, where borders began and ended was quite clear and where things were manufactured was also quite apparent. This may be the foundation of Trump-Putin friendship; a desire for an era where the two countries dominated the world, ensuring strong borders and resources extracted from other parts of the world. After all, who doesn’t want to live in a great country.
Meanwhile, Hilary is a woman; therefore she is measured by standards different then those applied to men. She carries the burden of being a woman; weak, confused and irrational, and of course, is judged by her appearance. Meanwhile, Trump supporters ignored his behavior towards women as people in 1997 ignored Bill Clinton’s behavior. Bill’s approval remained high despite the scandal because of the presence of a strong economy; voters want a strong country and economy, which can only be provided by a man. Trump supporters included white women who saw him as a family man. For them, his relationship with his children made him a good family man and that was enough of a reason. His ex-wives were irrelevant. Hillary also bore the burden of lack of precedence, which can only be set when a woman wins.
In hindsight, had Hilary portrayed herself as a strong matriarch, she would have done better; should have moved away from the image of an experienced secretary of the state to an image of a strong mother. Asians know this as several of our women leaders, and we have many, are seen as strong mothers, supportive wives, and loving daughters. Bandaranaike, Benazir, Sheikh Hasina, and Indira Gandhi, et al. Indira Gandhi was often referred to as “ma” on the streets when she used to go campaigning. Rajiv Gandhi won a landslide victory in 1984 because his ma was assassinated.
And, finally, what does this mean for Asia since this blog is on Asia? Not surprisingly, same type of rhetoric already exists in Asia. Both Prime Minister Modi and President Xi rule on the promise of a strong country and a return to pre-colonial glory, and this election justified this. PM Modi will shake hands with President Trump who loves his Hindus. And the Pakistanis see both as made out the same cloth, calling out for preparations for the worst.
Meanwhile, President Xi used American elections to show his citizens, especially in Hong Kong where two elected candidates were denied their seats in the assembly, that strength is the way to go and democracy can bring to power anyone even those not qualified to lead. It is time to strengthen up ones force’s because Trump’s anti-Chinese and isolationist rhetoric could mean that US is a threat or it could mean South China Sea is up for grabs. These are the contradictions in Trump’s isolationism and his desire to make America great again. Looking forward to future blog potentials, btw.
One last question that stands out is: what the hell happened with main stream media in the United States who predicted Hillary’s victory, how did they get it so wrong? It is actually quite simple; theright social political sphere at the grassroots in United States moved to the decentralized social media sometime ago, away from the traditional mainstream media; even Fox was not sure of Trumps supporters, reflecting the split in the conservatives that is the Republican Party. NYT etc. were simply studying a limited segment of the population.
