Until 2016 elections, political pundits from left to right almost dismissed any chance of Republican party coming back to power. A combination of factors were attributed to the looming Republican disaster, such as Bush’s disastrous Iraq war legacy, post-Obama demographic shifts to the Democratic party (Black and Latino voters more leaning towards Democratic party), and the lack of policy coherence and consistency on the part of the Republicans to confront growing transnational threats (climate change, foreign policy etc.). Republican party was in shambles and no one was literally taking it as a serious threat to Hilary Rodham Clinton.
Having the electoral prospect doomed, what the then Republican party officials did changed the course of US electoral history: defying all orthodoxy in political culture, they demonstrated their willingness to accommodate (and allow) an “outsider”, a political “maverick” to contest for their ticket. Republican officials were wide open to accept the verdict of their electorates to chose an outsider no matter how politically “incorrect” he was or how “badly fit” or “outlier” candidate he may seem. Republican party’s openness to respect and accept the verdicts of their electorates had immediately had impact on the electoral prospects. It swiftly changed the tempo of the campaign, it changed the narratives, it changed the mood of the people, and eventually it changed the outcome of the elections. Donald J. Trump took oath of Office for the 45th President of the United States.
I was living in the US during those turbulent months preceding the elections and contrary to popular belief and analysis, I predicted Donald Trump’s win. My friends were all for the mainstream pollsters who were not even considering Trump a viable contestant. One of the main reasons I predicted Donald Trump’s win was my intimate observations of voters behavior—not through mainstream media but through my own networks and my personal observations. I had endless number of conversations with a section of American electorates. I run a little experiments among friends and colleagues who were prima facie apolitical or at least would not support Donald Trump publicly. My approach was to start the conversation, which you may consider a “treatment”, by praising Trump’s random policies or rhetoric. To my surprise, overwhelming majority of the people I spoke, quickly endorsed those views. I tried to profile the respondents and the findings were striking! I held a conviction that 2016 was not going to be a normal election year. Yes, my sample was small, but those were random—anyone I could associate, build a rapport, or manage to speak—I reached out. Though my selections could have limitations, they were unbiased, which was crucial.
As a social scientist, we do not always have the luxury to conduct a large survey or sophisticated experiments to understand a phenomenon which is complex, and demands immediate attention. Sometimes we just have to walk down the street, smell, and use sixth sense to observe the undercurrent of the society. The more we are able to read beyond your sensual feelings or observations, the more is the likelihood of a better understanding of the society. Sometimes, our intuition, observations are more indicating than the results from a systematic study. Besides, when the society’s pain is under the rug, masked by a cover controlled by elites, and people are afraid, fearful of their expressions, the researchers’ job becomes very difficult. In addition, very few studies can reveal us any truth when people are more afraid of responses that are socially undesirable, a taboo. Donald Trump was representing a phenomenon that run deep, unlikable by elites, and he was “the taboo” that mainstream media and society sanctioned. Therefore, with all my limitations, I began to suspect a lot of poll results that were so easily dismissing Trump. It was not in fact the dismissal itself, it was how easily they were doing it.
Anyway, fast forward, 2020 elections – I am making a case, a prediction for this year elections for an entirely different reason. I do not have the same access to the US electorate this year that I had in 2014-15. This prediction therefore is weaker, but still plausible. Here you go:
Republican party, when it was almost doomed electorally, showed enough courage and honesty to allow a maverick to display his unorthodox ideas. His style of messaging and communications struck, challenged the orthodox Republican candidates. They could not cope up with that. In principle, democracy may sometimes result in “bad” or “terrible” outcome but it is democracy nonetheless. Republicans had the courage to accept that truth and they did not try to manipulate the process or stop the maverick Donald Trump, who suddenly was building a new coalition among a section of White working class Americans with messaging that resonates their likely “cause” of social and economic deprivation and exclusion owing to the forces of globalization, howsoever obnoxious, “xenophobic”, “poisonous” that may sound. When society’s problems run deeper, either you approach surgically or you accept a defeat for your status quo approach. Republican party went for the extreme at whatever cost, with someone unbeknownst, someone “refreshingly” invigorating to an angry electorate group.
In contrast, Democratic party went for “political correctness” in 2016, and they have repeated the same mistake in 2020 as well. Entire Democratic “party establishment” did everything at their disposal to stop Bernie Sanders’ nomination, who were more likely to address the same anguish of the agonized working class Americans thus would have neutralized any effect it may have on electoral outcome. They were so concerned that Bernie could actually steal the party! They were afraid of an “outsider” (many label Bernie as an “independent” who doesn’t conform “Democratic party’s values”). In normal times, this is a workable model, perfect approach – no party wants to compromise its “soul” to an “outsider”. But in not so normal times, if you want to play by those normal rules, you are likely to be doomed.
In my view, the Democratic party in 2020 elections is still in their mindset that they can play a normal game, in a radically different time with an equally radical candidate (by any standard) and withstand or win it while the society’s turbulence is so demanding of a radical shift (can someone imagine in a normal time “building wall” “paid by Mexicans” would be so popular electoral slogan?! Have Americans ever rallied behind such a cause in their history? I don’t know. I think the Democratic nominee Joe Biden is a fantastic candidate in any normal time; however, Democratic party’s unwillingness to accept the reality and the party officials’ relentless effort to find a status quo candidate, even by undermining their seemingly “best available alternative” to fight the war, had cost them in 2016, and is likely to cost them this year election too. In my view, Democratic party is willing to sacrifice an election or two to save the so-called “sanctity” or “purity” of the soul of their party.
**Disclaimer: No political pundit or social scientist is a “prophet” so don’t expect “prophecy”. We derive at a reasonable conclusion based on “our reading” of the society and event. The more latent variables one can consider the more accurate his prediction would become. And we are “FALLIBLE!”
গণতন্ত্র পাঠশালা 