Only two days to go and I am cautiously, very cautiously, optimistic about the election. Trump continues to foul his own nest, and Kamala is steady if less than inspiring. But it is deeply depressing to think that close to half of Americans are willing to play Russian roulette with our democracy and make a choice that is so dangerous for the country, so at odds with basic human decency, and, as far as I can tell, not in the interest even of his supporters.
Over the past eight years I, like many, have wrestled with the reasons for Trump’s popularity and his ability to take over an entire political party and retain unbridled enthusiasm among millions of Americans. It is a challenge, because it is hard not to become angry, frustrated, and often deeply embarrassed at the beliefs of many of one’s fellow citizens.
I have encountered many, many explanations for Trump’s success. Here are some of the most common:
· Working class anger at de-industrialization and loss of jobs and opportunity
· Resentment at ‘coastal elites’ and their disdain for the values and lifestyles of the less-educated
· Shift of the Democratic Party from a working-class base to an educated professionals base, leaving a large class of Americans without a political home
· Racism, nurtured over decades by Republicans and energized by Obama’s election
· Sexism, energized by Hillary’s campaign and declining prospects for young non-college-educated men
· Fear that traditional values and way of life associated with white, Christian dominance are disappearing
· Dislike of political correctness or ‘wokism’ imposed by educated elites
· Christian, especially evangelical, politicization and willingness to make politics an essential part of religious identity
· Trump’s unique personality combining celebrity status and unfiltered language, saying what people ‘really think’
· Right-wing media’s stranglehold on its audience and willingness to display rank partisanship
· Social media’s ability to silo and magnify opinions
· Outside intervention on Trump’s behalf by Russia and other foreign actors
· Loss of trust in institutions accelerated by Iraq/Afghanistan, the financial crisis, the opioid crisis, failure to stem rising immigration
· Vulnerability of traditional institutions—media, business, courts, parties—to bullying, the ‘big lie’ and constant norm violations
· Big money in politics financing longterm efforts to enable minority-rule (via electoral system, control of courts, one-party primaries, gerrymandering, exploiting political veto points such as the filibuster).
I too would love to find the ‘one thing’ that explains the Trump phenomenon, but looking at this list makes it clear to me (even though these overlap to some extent) that there is no single cause. So there probably isn’t any ‘silver bullet’ to counter it. Instead we have a tangled ball of twine that needs to be carefully and systematically unwound.
The closest we might have to a fix is if Trump himself is the necessary catalyst for the MAGA movement, and without him it will splinter and weaken. This is possible, but more likely I think is that after some jockeying a new leader will emerge to take advantage of the same underlying factors.
Even if Harris wins there is a big job ahead to address these sources of dissatisfaction, and just as important, to be perceived as addressing them. Biden has done wonders to boost American industry and create blue collar jobs, but has gotten little credit for it. Some of these are bad things that need to be confronted. Some are real problems that need to be solved.
Take immigration. Trump has seized on this as his #1 issue and made it the source of all our problems. Crime? Immigrants. Drugs? Immigrants. Rent too high? Immigrants. Terrorism? Immigrants. No job? Immigrants. Pet disappeared? Immigrants. Immigrants are ‘them’, dark-skinned outsiders changing your culture, your language, who your kids sit next to in school.
And they’re here because the rich elites want them here. Business wants cheap labor, at ‘your’ expense. Liberals want more immigrants to vote Democratic. Haven’t liberals said for decades that a larger minority population will produce a permanent Democratic majority? Well, that’s their plan.
At a certain point any society—even one that is relatively open to immigration and is proud of its history of absorbing newcomers, like the US—will be uncomfortable with high levels of immigration that don’t seem to have any end; in fact seem to be increasing. In the ‘golden age’ of immigration to the US, the post-Civil War period up to WWI, when we put up the Statue of Lady Liberty with Emma Lazarus’s great poem at her feet, the percentage of foreign-born population in the US peaked in 1890 at 14.8% and stayed there through 1910.
In 2024 for the first time the foreign-born population exceeded those levels, reaching 15.6%. In-between the US saw a huge backlash that produced tight restrictions on immigrant numbers beginning in the 1920s and continuing until the Immigration Acts of 1965 and 1990. The foreign-born percentage in the US dropped to a low of 4.7% in 1970, meaning it has tripled in the last 54 years.
The backlash after WWI was part of a nativist trend that saw the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, isolationism and refusal to join the League of Nations, and a sharp turn away from the progressive economic policies of the first decades of the 20th century. The lesson here is not that slamming the door on immigration is good policy, but that when people perceive that there are no serious limits on immigration, they will react negatively and will be receptive to broader illiberal movements. The prudent course is to preserve both a high level of immigration and support for liberal government via restrictions that are humane and broadly acceptable.
Easier said than done, when immigration has become a political football and one side is not interested in compromise. But liberals I think failed to anticipate the need to defang this issue and its potential to fuel demagoguery. Not just here, but also in Europe, where immigration has been the catalyst for the resurgence of far-right parties. We could take a lesson from Denmark, a bastion of social democracy which has adopted a tough stance on immigration that is boosting support for its Social Democrat prime minister.
Let’s hope for the best on November 5. And if we get it, the number one priority should be doing our best to reduce the polarization and distrust that has taken hold. It will take deft leadership, constant communication, and strategic thinking.