Why Trump
Won:
The limited
shelf life of governments and Obama’s ideological overreach
Herbert Grubel
Professor of Economics
(Emeritus)
Simon Fraser University
If you are not fed up with
the repetitive and self-reinforcing flood of pundits’ explanations on why Trump
won, you may want to read my own two explanations that are different from the
ones in the main media.
My first explanation involves a powerful law of politics:
Governments have a limited shelf-life because their appeal to the public
inevitably deteriorates with time, much like that of food on grocery shelves.
In politics this deterioration is driven by the fact that every policy a
government adopts makes some voters unhappy whiles another set of voters becomes
unhappy because the government did not pass policies they had wanted.
Through time these two sets of disgruntled voters grow
inexorably and after eight years typically their numbers have become so large that
they determine the outcome of elections. This explains why since 1981, every
eight years Americans switched between the election of Republican and Democratic
Presidents. The only exception occurred when in 1989 Republican President George
Bush Senior followed the Republican President Ronald Reagan, which might be considered
evidence of the working of the law of limited shelf-life.
The existence of large pools of disgruntled voters every
eight years suggests that the optimum strategy of candidates for election is to
have their campaign platforms dominated by the promise of change, which
captures the support of voters disgruntled by policies adopted by the past
president and of voters who expect to see their preferred policies enacted by
the next. This strategy was successfully used by candidates Barack Obama’s with
his slogan “hope and change” and Donald Trump’s with his slogan “complete
change”. To her disadvantage, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton could not
use this strategy because she had to support the Obama policies she had helped
to create as an administration insider.
The second reason for Trump’s win involves what Charles
Krauthammer considered to be “the most overlooked factor in the election”: the
historic and never ending battle between the political right and left in which “Obama
overreached ideologically”. The American system of governance has prevented
presidents from moving the lines of battle too much, even as it has moved
through time in small incremental steps to the ideological left.
Obama’s overreach involved the pursuit of policies in the
tradition of the political left, which sees a large role for governments in the
fields of national health care, climate change, foreign policy, income
redistribution, immigration and strengthening the rights of minorities. The evidence
that these policies represented an ideological overreach is found in the fact that
starting in 2012, four years after Obama took office, every election brought to
Washington more Republicans who had campaigned on the promise that they would stop
these policies, which ultimately led to Republican majorities in both Houses of
Congress.
Obama disregarded the signal these election results had sent
and pressed ahead with his legislative agenda with few changes or compromises,
forcing Congress to prevent the passage of most of his legislation and
producing the infamous Washington stalemate. Obama responded by using executive
orders to advance his agenda.
The American public became increasingly more angered by
Washington’s left politics that they believed caused unemployment, kept down wages,
worsened domestic and foreign security and interfered with their traditional
cultural and religious practices. Shortly before the election, the loss of
employment in coal-producing industries and regions and increases in medical
insurance premiums effectively reminded voters of this problem while large
numbers of voters dealt daily with the annoying and costly regulations affecting
their work on farms, as fishermen, in financial institutions, doctors’ offices,
hospitals, schools, accounting offices, manufacturing and many other forms of
employment.
Trump’s appeal to voters was due to his promise to end
the Obama’s ideological overreach by dealing harshly with the Washington
establishment, which had failed to respond to the message the voters had sent
through the election of a Republican majority of Congress. Clinton lost because
she had no choice but to promise continuation of the hated Obama policies. She
was part of the establishment that had created them, as Obama reminded voters throughout
the campaign.
In sum, Clinton lost in spite of Trump’s confrontational
and politically incorrect campaign and style resented by many voters simply because
she could not overcome the law of limited shelf-life of governments and the widespread
resentment caused by Obama’s ideological overreach.
No comments:
Post a Comment