Since the November 11, 2016 posting, Why?, this writer has been reviewing some of the factors that
influenced our last presidential election.
In doing so, he has relied on an article by George Packer for the
information on which these postings were based.
In general, the article and the postings placed a heavy emphasis on the
disaffection of the white working class.
Their estrangement is mostly based on the loss of manufacturing jobs due
to national and global labor markets that provide manufacturing firms cheap(er)
labor options. There is also automation.
This segment
of the electorate was considered, in years past, the base of the Democratic
Party. Their disaffection began with the
Reagan presidency – reference to the Reagan Democrats. With Donald Trump’s direct appeal to them and
his promise of bringing back the jobs, Hillary Clinton lost a handful of “blue”
states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Wisconsin. In all, the difference, among
these states, amounted to about 70,000 votes and enough electoral votes to give
Trump the victory. These “unconnected” voters
cost her the win.
Other related
factors were explained: Clinton’s
ineffective messaging and, unfortunately, a racial element that was/is directed
against immigrants and African-Americans.
To the extent this is true – this racism – is the extent to which the
Democrats have a daunting challenge. And
it’s at this point that this writer must betray his intent. The exercise to review the election was
motivated by illustrating the need for federalist thinking among our citizenry
and among our efforts in civics and government classes.
In describing
this concern, it should be pointed out that a healthy federal union should
promote and support a healthy conservative-liberal debate. Each of these ideological positions represents
honest and legitimate interests that participating entities in the union bring
to the political table. Those who
support individual liberty, economic, entrepreneurial interests, and
traditional social dispositions need to be heard and listened to. The same can be said for those who support
egalitarian aims, workers’ interests, and diverse social-cultural dispositions.
These are
opposing political camps and a healthy political environment allows for its
politics to withstand the give and take between these two segments of the
electorate. It’s what makes up honest
political debate over the issues and policy questions of the day. But when one or both sides begin to
radicalize their arguments; when they begin to argue past each other; when they
engage in obscure and dishonest practices – fake news for example – then the
politics become unhealthy, un-federal, and dangerous.
This blog has
dedicated a great many words to describing and explaining the current problems
facing civics education – those problems that relate to the content of the
civics curriculum. Generally, it has
made the argument that such instruction has promoted a natural rights construct
and, in turn, has enabled a shift toward an extreme individualistic social and
political discourse and policy orientation.
This writer cannot escape the observation that the winner of the
election, at least in style, catered to that extremism.
He constantly
reminded his audience that he represents the best in whatever topic the
campaign brought up. This blog has
avoided expressing direct political preferences, but in this case, the facts
are what they are and there is no way to avoid how thoroughly the
president-elect demonstrates negatively the concerns of this blog. Hopefully, all of that reflected on the part
of his campaign an understanding of how individualistic the electorate has
become and, in order to win, how necessary it was to reflect that style and
disposition in the images and language that were used in the campaign.
Irrespective
of how one aligns in relation to the conservative-liberal debate, one has a
challenge: to help the nation return to a healthier discourse. Packer refers to the current discourse as
reflecting a tribal mentality – oh, if it were so communal. Trump’s nationalist rhetoric is not geared
toward a nationalistic target. It is
geared to that displaced, disaffected, unconnected individual. And what is needed is a way to re-federate
the electorate. Of course, this blog is
dedicated to civics education’s role in this, but more is needed.
Should
Democrats cooperate with Trump when the soon to be president strives to create
jobs through infrastructure investments or should they play the role that
Republicans played during Obama’s years and oppose everything the administration
proposed? The former is the federated
option; the latter is the natural rights, self-serving option. The road to healthier politics is long and fraught
with short-term sacrifices. Hopefully,
both parties can now see the consequences of short-term politics and choose the
healthier path.
