Focus on the electorate not the president

It’s one week since the US midterm elections. This time the pollsters and pundits got it more or less right. The Democrats gained a majority in the House while the Republicans increased their Senate majority. The President, although not up for election played a major role. His tweets and speeches sucked up much of the electoral oxygen to the distress of many confirmed Republicans. Now is the time to focus not on the man but on the conditions that generate his continuing support.

For the past two years, Canadian and other observers have tried to understand political and economic circumstances in the US. The news media have focused on Trump the man, and to a lesser extent on the officials handpicked by Trump at the cabinet level and as appointees to boards and courts. Less attention is given to the electorate which propelled him to power, but it is the motivation of the electorate which needs to be recognized and understood.

A large proportion of the electorate was attracted to the messaging of Trump and the Democratic-inclined Senator Bernie Sanders. Understanding why so many members from opposing parties coalesced to support Trump is a start to understanding conditions in the US. By Election Day in 2016 only Trump was on the ballot, and many Sanders supporters had no choice but to support Trump, as Clinton was seen as a less attractive candidate. Make America Great Again was a shorthand slogan for those who had only low wage jobs. Unemployment was low but the opportunity for well paid jobs was limited. This is what appealed to traditional democratic voters in Trump’s messaging.

Supporters of Trump and Sanders were those who felt that they have not benefited from the economic prosperity of recent decades. Of course, this does not apply to the wealthy but these represent a small proportion of the total electorate. They financed Trump’s campaign and were rewarded with tax breaks and measures of deregulation. However, a large number of Trump supporters are at the low-end of the income scale. They have a job but their income growth has been stagnant.

In order to understand the electoral success of Trump one needs to understand who votes for him and why, and less on the daily antics of the man. While the antics receive widespread attention, it is the ongoing support of a large proportion of the electorate that was relevant to getting him elected in 2016 and possibly re-elected in 2020.

The essence of Trump’s appeal is set out in Oren Cass, The Once and Future Worker (Encounter Books, 2018). Following is from David Brooks, column from the New York Times, Nov.8, 2018.

“This is still a country in which nearly 20 percent of prime-age American men are not working full-time. This is still a country in which only 37 percent of adults expect children to be better off financially than they are. This is still a country in which millions of new jobs are through “alternative work arrangements” like contracting or consulting — meaning no steady salary, no predictable hours and no security.

Working-class voters tried to send a message in 2016, and they are still trying to send it. The crucial question is whether America’s leaders will listen and respond.

One way to start doing that is to read Oren Cass’s absolutely brilliant new book, “The Once and Future Worker.” The first part of the book is about how we in the educated class have screwed up labor markets in ways that devalued work and made it harder for people in the working class to find a satisfying job.

Part of the problem is misplaced priorities. For the last several decades, American economic policy has been pinioned on one goal: expanding G.D.P. We measure G.D.P. We talk incessantly about economic growth. Between 1975 and 2015, American G.D.P. increased threefold. But what good is that growth if it means that a thick slice of America is discarded for efficiency reasons?

Similarly, for the last several decades American, welfare policy has focused on consumption — giving money to the poor so they can consume more. Yet we have not successfully helped poor people produce more so that they can take control of their own lives. We now spend more than $20,000 a year in means-tested government spending per person in poverty. And yet the average poverty rate for 2000 to 2015 was higher than it was for 1970 to 1985.”

 

To-date, Canada seems to have adjusted more smoothly to global political and economic changes than its southern neighbor. It is questionable whether this will last and whether the economy will be sideswiped by events affecting our trading partners.  Since the 1950s and the era of governments lead by Prime Minister Diefenbaker, and even before that, there have been calls by Canadian governments to diversify trade and investment away from the US. Except for minor changes, it has not happened, and I don’t expect it will happen…..in my lifetime!