We mustn’t eat from Trump’s menu of fear
Voters looked at his list of extreme proposals and chose the ones that fitted their taste and agenda, writes Kevin Doyle
‘He spoke of the danger felt by the white man who had lost his grip on power, and the harm caused by the political and media establishment’
APOLITICAL earthquake was how this newspaper and others described our own election last February. Fine Gael and Fianna Fail got less than 50pc of the popular vote for the first time as Independents and left-wing parties made their presence felt. Then came the Brexit “shock”. Few in the media predicted that the Brits could be so reckless.
And despite that twist we moved on to assess the US elections and concluded that Donald Trump was a joke candidate.
Now juxtaposed with the shifting of political plates to our east and west, our earthquake was barely a shudder. It was a mere warning that a new political order could take hold if ordinary people don’t feel listened to.
In the US, readers are accusing media outlets of be- trayal. Why did none of the “experts” foresee Trump’s rise to White House supremacy?
Why weren’t they warned? Maybe they could have done something about it.
The media has a case to answer but it is not alone. So, too, do the political leaders who have allowed populism overtake pragmatism.
And the voters who feel the need to be notified in advance of what the result might be must take some responsibility. They don’t interact unless they have a genuine fear of the status quo being upset.
Trump tapped into a more organic type of fear. He spoke of pain suffered by a forgotten middle America, the danger felt by the white man who had lost his grip on power, and the harm caused by the political and media establishments.
Speaking to people in New York on polling day, it was obvious his message had not just broken through the din, it had hypnotised millions of newfound followers. Most Clinton voters cited her experience and the fact she wasn’t Trump as the logic for giving her their vote but Trump supporters devoutly echoed his words.
Trumpites spoke of the threat of immigrants, of the need to stop the Washington elite and their want to “Make America great again”.
Clinton’s “Stronger Together” message was devoid in a campaign based on nasty, crude and offensive rhetoric.
Despite all his talk of building walls, deporting immigrants and grabbing women by the p***y, Trump was helped over the winning line by Hispanic and female voters.
Common sense suggests the vast majority of them should have lined up for Clinton but billionaire Trump did better among Hispanics than the 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Almost one in three voters who were born outside the US backed Trump.
Part of this might be explained by the fact that while some undereducated people were mesmerised by his stage performances, other sections of society felt able to pick and choose from his menu of extreme proposals. They could filter out the promises that offended them and focus on the bits that fitted their agenda.
Look at the quotes from some Irish expats elsewhere in today’s Sunday Independent describing how they don’t really believe the president-elect will follow through on his threat of mass deportations.
Strangely, Clinton drew a smaller percentage of women’s votes than outgoing President Obama did in 2012.
Young people backed her in big numbers, but, as happens the world over, they were outweighed by their elders.
I’ll never forget the scenes at what was meant to be Clinton’s victory rally last Tuesday. Tears and fear, everywhere. It was the sort of debilitating grief normally reserved for the sudden death of a child rather than the termination of a decades-old political dynasty.
A 10-minute walk away in a hotel, Trump supporters were equally shocked as the results rolled in. Earlier in the evening, they had been spinning excuses to journalists for his close-but-no-cigar result.
Clinton chased easy wins while Trump went after a constituency that couldn’t be relied on to vote. And in doing so she took many voters, including the Irish, for granted.
On the front page of its election supplement on Thursday, the New York Times reported how prominent supporters asked the former first lady to follow in the footsteps of previous presidential candidates and address a prestigious St Patrick’s Day gathering at the University of Notre Dame. Barack Obama and Joe Biden had been keynote speakers in the past, as had Bill Clinton.
But Clinton’s campaign declined the invitation, telling organisers that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to reach out to. She would have been glad of extra votes from them on Tuesday.
The risk is Trump’s election is dismissed as a blip created by misplaced anger and an ineffective Clinton campaign. There is every possibility that Trump or the people around him will moderate his views once he takes over in January.
His gracious, if rambling, acceptance speech suggested that, as president, he will strike a more considered tone and try to reunite America.
On the other hand, his reaction to protests that have swept parts of the US was to attack the freedom of the press and the right to peaceful assembly. He tweeted: “Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!”
Admittedly, the protests are uncalled for, given that democracy has played out — and some did turn violent.
Although he did later send a tweet praising the protesters’ “passion for our great country”, it all encourages the divide and lack of sensible debate that has gripped America.
In response to some of what I’ve written about Trump, I’ve received emails accusing me of “typical left-wing bullshit”. One writer said: “He is not at all racist. Islam is a real threat to the lifestyle of free speech you enjoy, trype (sic) as it is. You idiot. Open your eyes.”
Another reader phoned to call me a Nazi for suggesting Trump acted like a modern-day demagogue.
The extreme is fast becoming the norm. Prolonged economic stagnation and the refugee crisis have seen the far right rise in many countries. It’s not unimaginable that Marine Le Pen and France’s National Front could rise to power. Austria has toyed with the idea, and Germany could go down that route too.
At home, too, we can see that the pendulum seems to be swinging in a different direction, and Sinn Fein or the Anti-Austerity Alliance could find themselves in government — if they’d actually step up to the plate.
So we must watch what Trump does carefully. Populism has take over America and it might just be coming for the rest of us.