I don't really like writing about politics on this blog, and I'm not going to enjoy making this one either. However, recently there has been a development that is difficult to ignore. This past Tuesday, there was an election for the Presidency of the United States. It was Kamala Harris vs. Trump, and Trump won.
As someone in the helping professions that supports people of all backgrounds and opinions, who is cognisant of his influential position and believes in democracy, I seldom make political commentary publicly. I believe that it is professional to maintain an image of neutrality to allow space for people with contrasting beliefs to express themselves.
I suppose this blog technically counts as public. I've made exceptions for Trump in the past though. Back when he had a bunch of peaceful Black Lives Matters protestors assaulted with rubber rounds, flash bombs and tear gas so that he could pose in front of a church with an upside down Bible, I made a post on that.
So if you've been following me long enough, you'll know that I am not a fan of Donald Trump, and I view his recent victory negatively.
It probably goes without saying, but one might question why I care about the US Presidency when I am Canadian. It's because they are the world's largest economic superpower and functionally our only neighbour, separated from the rest of the world by a wide expanse of ocean. Technically we have Iceland too, but come on.
Much of Canadian identity centres on how we are "not American". For example, globally we have a pretty mediocre medical system, but because it's better than America's we think it's top class. Canada is a world economic superpower in its own right, but we feel small and impoverished because we're next to the leader in that category.
They are our largest trading partner and vice versa. Trump has stated that he wants to impose a 10% tariff on international trades, which would cause inflation for us. What happens to them impacts us.
So I care about who is in their highest seat of power. I am ashamed to say that I was shocked by the outcome of their election. I was so confident in Kamala's win that I was reassuring other people as the ballots were coming in. The map was looking redder and redder, and I was saying that Republicans tend to vote in-person while Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, and that an early Conservative lead was expected, which would follow a blue wave.
I wasn't just saying this because it's what happened last time. There's this guy named Allan Lichtman. He has a system that he calls the "Thirteen Keys to the Whitehouse". He's been making predictions over the past ten elections, and has called nine of them correctly.
The one he got wrong was Gore vs. Bush, which was historically close. He's argued that he got that right too. He says that election was stolen by people intentionally misinterpreting ballots from Black people as "over-voting". Apparently there were two places that looked possible to indicate a selection, and a sizeable number marked their preference in both as an abundance of caution. This was to combat this very same form corruption that they had historically experienced.
I would argue that even if this is true, Lichtman's tool is the "13 Keys to the Whitehouse", not to a "Victory Under Fair Circumstances". If corruption is enough of a variable to make the difference, then there should be 14 keys.
He also sometimes gets challenged on his 2016 prediction. He said Trump would win, but he said he'd also get the popular vote, which he didn't. I don't care about that either though, because as I said, I only care about who gets the Presidency, and Lichtman was right about that.
He's said that the 13 keys hold up for centuries, but obviously he wasn't around for those so he's going in with confirmation bias and I don't take that seriously.
Still though, I'll give him a 90% accuracy with his only wrong prediction being extremely narrow. I was converted in my way of thinking, and started to believe that election results had less to do with campaigning and more to do with environment. I saw Lichtman go through each key and he called a win for Kamala, with the only variance being by what margin.
There's also a pollster named J. Ann Selzer who is considered the gold standard. She said that Kamala would flip Iowa.
That didn't happen, and the election wasn't even close. Well, it was in the way that almost everyone in the US is already locked in based on party loyalty and the only variance is some small percentage of swing voters. But Harris lost the popular vote, the first time that's happened to a Democrat since 2004, and Trump flipped four states.
Sometimes I get criticized for being pessimistic and gloomy. I really think it's the opposite. I have so much hope and optimism for humanity, which gets routinely crushed. This causes a sometimes dour demeanor.
Since the election, the strangest thing is that no one is talking about it. It feels like everyone was fixated on it, and then the next day no one I spoke to in person even mentioned it. Even I didn't.
Some family members have been talking about it on WhatsApp. Online, some left wing pundits have discussed it, but their videos have been mostly brief and dispassionate. People that came out of the woodwork to discuss politics even though it's not their usual thing have been totally quiet. I feel like even Conservatives have been pretty subdued in their boasting.
I had to be the one to break the silence with my mother and brother on the topic and their initial response was something like "Yep, it's bad", although they've both expanded on their feelings since. One of my coworkers asked me a day later how an American I know was taking the election results, which was my first entrypoint into having an actual, in-person discussion on it. She agreed that the silence has been deafening.
I really feel like we might be witnessing the beginning of the end of democracy as the global standard. Trump will likely be more unhinged than last time as he won't have to appeal to prospective voters. This is because he'll either have reached his term limit, or he'll have managed to eliminate that as a barrier to his continued rule.
Another reason is that the political environment right now is much more vulnerable to abuse. Before I get into this, I want to say that I'm not all that savvy when it comes to talking politics, and I'm venting more than anything, so I might get some of this wrong.
During his first term, Trump installed three right wing Supreme Court Justices. During Biden's run they've managed to enact two pretty damaging bills to the checks and balances that keep democracy functional. The first one allows the President to fire as many people as he likes from his office. The implication here is that you could remove people with expertise and replace them with propagandists. The second one allows the President to bypass the Supreme Court's rulings when making official acts. There have been almost no parameters given to the definition of an "official act", although it does offer any and all use of the military, which Trump has already stated an interest in using on US citizens. It would be easy to imagine this being used to dispatch future political rivals as well.
These are the kinds of moves that make democracy fall apart. Putin needed to win his first few elections fairly, but was able to destabilize the system to the point that it's an open secret that he is pre-ordained to win every term by a wide margin. President Xi in China has managed to eliminate term limits in the not-so-distant past as well.
So why are the US citizens handing power over to Trump again, when even he says that he'll be a tirant on the first day but then stop? I don't feel confident in speaking on this, as my prediction for the election results turned out to be incorrect. But I have looked at some speculation.
First of all, despite a complete victory, Trump didn't get as many votes this time around. Harris just got a lot less than Biden did. This implies that Trump didn't convert more people to his side, just fewer people, mostly Democrats, chose not to show up.
In 2020, record numbers of people went to the polls and Biden got more votes total than any President in the history of the US. I think that was due to desperation to get Trump out of office. Now that we've had four years of relative normalcy from the States, I guess voter apathy has kicked in again.
The elephant in the room is that Kamala's demographics may have come into play. She would have been the first woman of colour, and the first woman at all to take the position. The sample size for how this impacts voting decisions is too small right now to come to a conclusion. But at any rate, I think there is enough data to suggest that having "woman-like" traits has been viewed as undesirable to the American people.
In recent history, the vast majority of Presidents have been over six feet tall. Even though that doesn't influence a person's ability to govern, I actually worried that Kamala wasn't "Presidential height". I've heard complaints that she isn't good at public speaking because she has a "nasally voice", but really, it isn't outside the spectrum of normal for a woman.
Other prominent nations such as the UK, Germany, and New Zealand, have had women at the highest level of power. But in the USA, they seem to want a manly figure to tower above the rest of the world.
There's also the fact that most undecided voters choose their candidate based on the economy. I've heard a lot of annoying bickering on whether or not Biden was good or bad for this. My understanding is that, post-COVID, globally we have fallen into a recession. While the US has done a comparably good job of staving this off, they have not been untouched. Their citizens don't see themselves as one piece of a larger picture, and instead compare what they have now to what has been.
This logic can be faulty as well, in that there is often a lag between when a policy decision is made and when its impact hits. This means that Presidents are often credited for their past rivals actions.
There has been a lot of people speculating that Biden shouldn't have dropped out of the race, or that he should have done so earlier. It's hard to say how that would impact things.
One hot take I have is that I don't believe Biden has dementia. I remember lots of people making fun of him for being old, which made sense as he was the "return to status quo" candidate with the long political resume, while Trump was the pro-change guy who was new to the scene. Even though they weren't too different in age, I could see Biden embracing the traditionalist image, which would get mocked for coming across as "old".
When he debated Trump, it was the first time where I thought "Uh-oh, we might have a problem". I'd come in about an hour late so I figured he'd just run out of steam. But watching from the beginning, I saw that he never fully had it together.
Still, he was the oldest sitting President in history, and he was sick and had a speach impediment. I can't guarantee he didn't have age-related illness, but I felt his performance was explainable by those things without the needed addition of dementia.
Some people have said that Kamala's decision to continue to support Israel in their ongoing conflict with Palestine alienated their voting base. I kind of sympathize with this perspective. It's been a hot topic, and for some reason, it's been the only one that both parties have united on. So if you're pro-Palestine, you were left without a voice.
I've also heard that globally, there is an anti-incumbant trend. So this means that regardless of which party is in power, people will be switching to the other side. So while this means the US and Canada will be shifting right, many traditionalist places are turning left.
I hesitate to say that Trump is the worst politician in history. However, he has set a few records in that he's:
- First to be impeached twice
- First convicted felon to achieve the Presidency
- The oldest person to hold the position
I hope my more pessimistic viws don't come to fruition. In these circumstances I very much hope to be wrong.