Foundation revisited

The 2016 presidential elections reminded me of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation, the famous science fiction trilogy. 

The Galactic Empire had been on the decline for many years which only Hari Seldon, the preeminent sociologist, had realized.  He had mapped a way to both reduce and shorten the chaos that was bound to ensue.   Seldon’s insight and plan were made possible by psychohistory, a new social science combining sociology with statistics, which he had invented. Yet all of Seldon and his vast team’s efforts were nearly wrecked by the appearance of the Mule, a mutant endowed with extraordinary para-mental powers.

The US have never seen a candidate like Donald Trump, and while he doesn’t have the Mule’s mental powers, he has read the electorate like nobody else.  Reagan saw America’s longing for a change and infused it with his optimism and confidence.  Bill Clinton offered youth, moderation and the promise of “a new beginning”.  Trump sensed the people’s rising frustrations with a mediocre economy, a dysfunctional political establishment and widening social and cultural gaps.

All presidential campaigns have had their nasty moments, but where the Clintons had been insinuating, Trump was crude, in your face and openly aggressive.  Soon, TV ratings took off, with viewers smelling the blood-soaked sand of the Coliseum, cheering for the candidate’s political incorrectness, sneering at the embarrassed faces of prominent journalists and anchormen.

Facing Trump was Hillary Clinton, a long time establishment figure, backed by a very strong organization, extensive party support won over many years, but ill at ease with crowds and beset by too many skeletons in her closet.

In the end, against all odds, Trump pulled a surprise victory. What happened?  What of the future?

In my view, the crux of these elections was the dichotomy between message and messenger.

The most insightful commentary, attributed to financier Peter Thiel, a Trump supporter, is that the media [and the elites] always took Trump literally but never seriously, while a lot of voters took him seriously but not literally.  He went on to say that “when these voters hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment... what they hear is we’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy”.

The preliminary results give Trump 306 electoral and 60.4 million (47.3%) popular votes to 232 and 61 million (47.8%) to Clinton. 

In appearance, this was a very close contest.  Our foremost political pollster Nate Silver calculated that, had 1% of the people who voted for Trump chosen Clinton instead, she would have won the contest 307 to 231. 

But Democrats suffered a bigger defeat than the above numbers show.

First, many Republicans, who largely shared Trump’s views (bombast and hyperbole aside) but objected to his persona, didn’t vote for him but did vote for the rest of the Republican ticket.  This explains the Republican Party sweeping in the House and the Senate.

Second, voter turnout, while lower than in the most recent elections, was higher than the average of the last 40 years, and, importantly, was lower in traditionally Democratic states, about the same in Republican ones and higher in the swing states that Trump won.

Finally, these elections were a referendum on the last eight years.  While President Obama is liked personally, many voters didn't absolve him from the Washington gridlock, were unhappy with soaring Obamacare premiums and uneasy with his stance on terror.

All this means that, depending on what President Trump does, he could tap on an additional reservoir of support beyond the 60 millions who voted for him.

What of the future?

Americans want results, more and better jobs.  Hopefully, Trump will not make the single biggest mistake Obama made, which was not to give absolute priority to economic growth.  There should be room for consensus there.  But he will also have to deliver on many of the promises which propelled him to the White House.  Even if people understand that there was much hyperbole, it will be difficult.

Trump’s appointments will be the first test of his ability to build an effective cabinet without losing his popular support.  The presidential campaign has shown that he is driven more by a desire to win than by ideology.  His business career also shows that he has greatly reduced the level of risks he is willing to take.  I would say that it is premature to plan a move to Canada.

America is a country which gravitates to the center, which prefers reforms to revolution.  It is also one where federal powers have been distributed among three institutions, independent of each other.  It does best when it sticks to these fundamental tenets.