2024 Presidential Race Autopsy (Part I)
Why did Vice President Kamala Harris (D) lose? Why did the Democrats as a whole lose the Senate and (barely) fail to reclaim the House of Representatives?
There has been much “hand wringing” over these questions, as political scientists and professionals in adjacent professions dissect the election results and critique various tactical and strategic decisions by the Democrats, such as whether or not Biden should have dropped out (and whether or not such action was taken too late), whether Harris should have moved to the left instead of towards the center, whether the Democrats’ GOTV efforts were too old-fashioned, etc.
More important than addressing why the Democrats lost is why the Republicans won with a standard-bearer who is a convicted felon, was twice impeached as President, has undeniable authoritarian tendencies, is a pathological liar, and a sexual predator. Within this context, it is also important to answer why such a person actually outperformed down-ballot Republicans, most of whom do not have such moral scruples.
While there is much to glean from the pursuit of answers to these questions for future improvements, the most fundamental answer to both is also the most simple: Trump won because he is what the majority of Americans want.
The two main foundations of philosophy are metaphysics (what is real) and epistemology (what is knowledge). A secondary to these is ethics (i.e., “I know what is real and what is knowledge - now what do I do with it?”), with a tertiary being politics (i.e. “How do I apply my ethical code in my relationship with other humans?”). With some lapse of time, politics will always reflect the predominant ethical codes of the culture within which it is formed.
As such, Trump’s winning of slightly over 50% of the votes in what appears to have been a free and fair election is indicative of America’s culture and its ethical code. It can best be described as one where ethics are considered impotent and authoritarian government is desired. The latter part of this attitude was captured in a survey conducted by Allegheny College in 2023, which found that most Republicans, Democrats, and independents support the following statement:
“The only way our country can solve its current problems is by supporting tough leaders who will crack down on those who undermine American values.” (https://theconversation.com/large-numbers-of-americans-want-a-strong-rough-anti-democratic-leader-198578)
The only segment in which “most” cannot be used is with “lean Democrats”, but even among these, 49% supported this statement. The findings of this survey are backed by others, such as that from the Public Religion Research Institute which found that 38% of all Americans agree with the following statement:
“Because things have gotten so far off track in this country, we need a leader who is willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right.” (https://www.prri.org/research/threats-to-american-democracy-ahead-of-an-unprecedented-presidential-election/).
The fact of the matter is that the American people – their culture and their sense of life - after decades of kicking and screaming while being dragged to the altar of authoritarianism, is now proudly making marriage vows to it. This is especially true among the MAGA right, who attempt to dress their clear preference for dictatorship by couching it in terms of rationalizations or alternative facts. For example:
· I dislike the man personally, but Trump is against regulations, for lower taxes, and more individual freedom. This evaluation is based on alternative facts. During Trump’s first term, regulations were reduced by 0.21% (about the equivalent of regulatory reduction during President Bill Clinton’s [D] first term). While income taxes were lowered for most (particularly the upper class), these were offset by higher tariffs (the costs for which are passed along by foreign companies to domestic consumers, particular those in the lower classes). While there were a few specific cases of enhanced individual freedom (e.g., Trump’s pardoning of some drug users), there is practically nothing to speak of outside of these in a positive light, according to traditional Reagan-esque standards (e.g., Obamacare remained in place). By Goldwater-esque standards, millions of women lost control of their bodies at the hands of conservative activist judges (appointed by Trump) and millions more people almost lost their right to vote, due to January 6th (which Trump initiated, if not planned).
· Trump has his flaws, but what about Harris, who slept her way to the top? This rationalization, known as “whataboutism”, is moral egalitarianism, which considers all moral sins to be the same. Under it, a typical teenager’s “white lie” to avoid accountability for staying out late is morally equivalent to murder. Harris’ “sleeping her way to the top” at the beginning of her political career (if such allegation is accurate and correct) is just as bad as Trump sexually assaulting a woman at a department store - or, to put it more abstractly, consensual sex is just as bad as rape.
· Trump is immoral; so what? Bad men have done good things in the past. This is a popular rationalization among the religious right (couched in different wording, such as “God uses bad men to accomplish His works”) and, like the rationalization above, reveals more about the moral code of the subject than the object. By claiming that morality has no bearing upon a person’s political work and life, one is confessing their innermost belief that moral codes are impotent; they have no bearing whatsoever on the actions taken by a person in their dealings with others. A moral code is only important in some other dimension (e.g., an afterlife), but in this dimension, it means nothing. If a person sexually assaults another person, it does not matter; we can still expect that person to defend our liberties, even though he has personally and violently deprived another of theirs.
Why MAGAism won is that it has adopted a strategy and philosophy similar to that of the Nazis when they came into power in Germany during the 1930s. It has created a synthetic, albeit idiosyncratic, ideology which combines the philosophical fundamentals of Christian Nationalism, with the conservative populism of the economic policies of the alt right, wrapped in the primitive grievances of racism, sexism, and xenophobia. Such an ideology appeals to a wide demographic array of voters with diverging views on concrete issues, but who share the same one fundamental in common: the need for a strong man dictator to protect their “values” – values derived from a moral code which they, themselves, consider to be impotent.
Contrast this with the Democrats, who have not been able to formulate their own consistent ideology of authoritarianism, largely because it is comprised of a loose alliance of ideologies which have not been synthesized. These range from Marxism on the far left, to pragmatism in the center (“Blue Dog” Democrats), to recent appeals to the old neoconservative (Bush Jr.) and traditional (Reagan) conservatives from the center-right. These ideologies are allied based more on what they were against (MAGAism) than what they are for.
As such, Harris was only able to offer two things on the campaign trail: (1) platitudes without substance; and (2) an alternative to Trump based only the fact that she was not Trump.
In political campaigns, with all things being equal, the candidate with the most consistent message wins. In this race, it was Trump - though he did not win by the “landslide” that he and his team claim.*
The theory that Trump won because he appealed to the New American’s craving for authoritarianism is buttressed by the fact that he outperformed down-ballot Republicans. While there are certainly other factors to explain this (e.g., voters blamed Biden for inflation and were particularly focused on changing the administration, Trump has more charisma than other Republicans, etc.), it cannot be ignored that Trump won more votes than other Republicans because he embodies the very essence of authoritarianism. While there are plenty of Republicans who tote the same water (e.g., Kari Lake), these candidates have not entirely integrated authoritarianism into their very being. Most still have some connection with the Republican Party’s classical liberal roots.
Assuming that Trump does not become a dictator (unlikely) and there is another cycle or two of elections, Democrats, Never Trumpers, and others need to take a more holistic and long-term approach to reverse this authoritarian trend in America – and this author has some suggestions for them to consider, next time.
* With most precincts counted and factoring in rounding, Trump won 50% of the vote to Harris’ 48%. This is actually the worst showing of any GOP Presidential nominee who won the popular vote since 1880 (with the exception being 1968, but this is not comparable because there was a serious third party presidential candidate who won 13% of the nationwide popular vote that year).
His Electoral College victory, while the best of any Republican since 1988 and solid, is hardly in landslide territory. He’s likely to receive 312 votes. George H. W. Bush won 426 in 1988, Ronald Reagan won 535 in 1984 and 489 in 1980, and Richard Nixon won 520 in 1972. This is only the Republican-side. Barack Obama won 332 votes in 2012 and 365 in 2008; Bill Clinton won 379 votes in 1996 and 370 votes in 1992. Outside of Obama’s re-election total, Trump’s win this year is not even in the same ZIP code as these others.
