A divided America

I have written previously on the theme(s) I believe underpinned the recent 2016 US presidential elections which elected Donald J. Trump-a central debate over an internationalist versus America-centric conception of the United States of America. I argued that this central debate manifested in four dimensions – in relation to borders and immigration; jobs and economic policy, faith and values; and national security and terrorism.

Across all these four dimensions, the “internationalists” took positions essentially in favour of open borders and unrestrained (or barely restrained) immigration; supported economic globalization and offshoring as inevitable and unstoppable phenomenon even if it resulted in loss of American jobs; believed in multi-culturalism and “new” so-called universal values in support of LGBT(Q) rights, abortion, legalized marijuana, euthanasia, gun control and secular and atheistic thought rejecting any notion of America’s legacy of Judeo-Christian values; and were tolerant or at least sanguine about Islamic terrorism, mass inflow of refugees and other real or perceived threats to American security. The chief apostles of this “global America” were outgoing US President Barack Obama and defeated Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. The logical projection of the internationalist view is that it would result sooner or later in the end of the US as a nation state, at least as we know it today.

The position of the “America-First” coalition which facilitated Trump’s victory over Clinton was the exact opposite of the internationalist view-they wanted stronger borders and more effective immigration enforcement; believed that economic policies should be anchored on protecting American jobs and growing the US economy, and were particularly riled by the phenomenon of American firms shifting manufacturing and production activities abroad to Mexico, Asia and other economies; they affirmed US values of faith (founded on Judeo-Christian notions hence the evangelicals affiliation with this coalition), life, right to bear arms, traditional marriage and traditional values; and they were very concerned about global terrorism and its home-grown variant and linked immigration especially from Islamic nations with insecurity and terrorism. Donald Trump found a way to give voice to and articulate this coalition’s concerns against conventional and establishment reluctance and political correctness. I have argued that similar concerns as in America decided the UK BREXIT vote.

The elections and its aftermath show that America is divided down the line-while Trump won an apparently comfortable electoral college victory with 306 votes representing 56.9% to Clinton’s 232 electoral college votes (43.1%), that tally masks the fact that Trump secured relatively narrow wins in Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina. Clinton on the other hand has a 2.6 million lead in the “popular vote” tally with 65.38million votes (48.2%) to Trump’s 62.75 million (46.3%) votes. The liberals have sought to make much of Hillary’s popular vote lead, but that may offer scant comfort just like a losing football team arguing that it won in terms of possession, shots on target or fewer fouls committed! Unfortunately what matters in a football game under FIFA rules is goals scored, just like the US Constitution prescribes the only way to victory in a presidential contest is through electoral college votes. Trump may be right to argue (just like a football team that won on goals scored in spite of lower possession) that if the rules were different, he would have played a different strategy. Without doubt if the election were to be decided by popular votes, Trump would not have by-and-large ignored California and New York which were presumed Democratic.

What is significant about the 2016 election is that America used to contest elections at the centre, with victory usually going to the candidate who is able to draw voters to a central position that is not based on ideology but pragmatism and common sense. What I think has happened is that Obama drew the US to the far left during his eight years in power with Obamacare, gay marriage, the rise of ISIS and his reluctance to condemn Islamic terrorism, the acceleration of globalization and his desire to further the trend through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, climate change policies especially restrictions on oil and gas explorations and pipelines and a seeming intent to subject the religious freedoms of Christians to the rights of LGBT(Q) persons. These policies provoked a backlash from the right and independents resulting in the 2016 elections being contested not at the centre, but at the margins! The fact that the next president is likely to decide the appointment of possibly three or more Supreme Court justices (and therefore resolve some of these controversial policies) and the fact that middle America which is predominantly white may have felt the liberal, internationalist, multi-cultural agenda would be irreversible after an “Obama Third Term” increased the strategic stakes of 2016.

I disagree with the lazy, liberal dismissal of Trump’s victory as based on racism, misogyny, sexism, and other emotional isms! The evidence does not support such notions. As has been pointed out by more thoughtful analysts, Trump won the election because a few hundred thousand voters in swing states who had voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 switched their support to the Republican candidate in 2016. It is impossible to rationally describe those voters as racists! Did they become racists only after voting twice for Obama?

What has been worrying is that rather than draw together after the elections, it does seem especially from the liberals who have acted like very sore losers that America is drawing further apart! Just like in the BREXIT vote, the left appears determined to reverse the expressed will of the people through protests, recounts and legal challenges and Trump who appeared to want to tone down his unfortunate rhetoric after his victory may now be returning to his bombastic mode. The liberals who expressed outrage at Trump’s suggestions that he might challenge the poll outcome now look like hypocrites, becoming suddenly tolerant of exploratory recounts that are not founded on credible allegations of wrong doing. Sadly the media (CNN, NYT, Washington Post, FOX etc.) are reinforcing division rather than seeking closure and unity.

America has to return to a new centre based on common sense rather than ideology. In four years there would be a new election and the voters will have another chance to decide the country’s direction.

Opeyemi Agbaje